Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
Many times people complaina about maps such as Bonnie Springs (as far as I'm aware) because it causes pathing issues for cav. Why is that a bad thing? Why don't people view it as "some maps favor cav civs, some favor long range infantry civs"? Why expect to be able to just make the same unit composition every game and win, instead of adapting to the map and making for example more skirms and falcs if you are vs a civ with better long range infantry?
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
- musketeer925
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 2484
- Joined: Mar 28, 2015
- ESO: musketeer925
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
I think it has something to do with the fact that "bad pathing" is not something people like to plan their game around. It feels like a "bug", and thus losing because of it makes people angry.
It's also especially bad because lag, which is a very unfortunate circumstance, makes it significantly worse. If the effect were an actual, consistent feature where cavalry got some kind of negative bonus while in forests or trying to go around buildings (or conversely a positive bonus on open plains), instead of just buggy pathing, it'd be a cool feature and not so frustrating.
It's also especially bad because lag, which is a very unfortunate circumstance, makes it significantly worse. If the effect were an actual, consistent feature where cavalry got some kind of negative bonus while in forests or trying to go around buildings (or conversely a positive bonus on open plains), instead of just buggy pathing, it'd be a cool feature and not so frustrating.
- Gichtenlord
- Howdah
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Nov 15, 2015
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
musketeer925 wrote:I think it has something to do with the fact that "bad pathing" is not something people like to plan their game around.
It is hard to play around something unpredictable. There is no obvious consistency to bad pathing.
r]
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
musketeer925 wrote:I think it has something to do with the fact that "bad pathing" is not something people like to plan their game around. It feels like a "bug", and thus losing because of it makes people angry.
It's also especially bad because lag, which is a very unfortunate circumstance, makes it significantly worse. If the effect were an actual, consistent feature where cavalry got some kind of negative bonus while in forests or trying to go around buildings (or conversely a positive bonus on open plains), instead of just buggy pathing, it'd be a cool feature and not so frustrating.
Well in practice it is as if cav has a negative bonus in trees, so I still don't understand why players act surprised and mad when they lose a game because they made 40 cav on a map with many obstacles. I understnding getting mad the first few times this happens to you, but I just don't understand the reaction on the 100th time.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
Gichtenlord wrote:musketeer925 wrote:I think it has something to do with the fact that "bad pathing" is not something people like to plan their game around.
It is hard to play around something unpredictable. There is no obvious consistency to bad pathing.
Well I would say just assume it's going to be bad, and so just play the game around not making cav on maps which are naturally favoring long range units.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 8050
- Joined: May 4, 2015
- ESO: PrinceofBabu
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
Melee units already have issues pathibg around and are in general weaker vs someone with good kiting ability . Any unnecessary things to add to that i.e. buildings in bonnie or ponds on tassili really makes it uncompetitive , some civs rely on melee units because they cant win the skirm war. For example german vs jap need uhlans to compete in ranged war, or spain vs brit need melee units to even the ranged inf count
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
I find it especially funny when people complain about pathing, but they built their base very tight and make melee units xD
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
That sounds more like an excuse than a plausible reason. Just because certain civs rely on melee units more than others doesn't make the map "uncompetitive;" that's like saying that maps like High Plains are uncompetitive because Russia and Aztec have a hard time dealing with civs that have safe resources in base for 13+ minutes, or that Cascade is uncompetitive for the opposite reason. Every map is going to favour a selection of civs more than others, but that doesn't make them uncompetitive.
In 1v1 unless the lag is quite bad melee units are usually totally fine, especially until super lategame.
In general people seem to just dislike anything that's not the super "standard" type of map they're used to playing on. In general I think the "standard" map type gives you a very large safety net to do whatever you want with, and this dis-incentivizes things like scouting or adaptation, because you often don't have to bother. Perhaps another part of the problem is that aside from quick search games no one played on any map other than Great Plains or AS New Great Plains for years and years before Garja made the first ESOC maps.
In 1v1 unless the lag is quite bad melee units are usually totally fine, especially until super lategame.
ovi12 wrote:Many times people complaina about maps such as Bonnie Springs (as far as I'm aware) because it causes pathing issues for cav. Why is that a bad thing? Why don't people view it as "some maps favor cav civs, some favor long range infantry civs"? Why expect to be able to just make the same unit composition every game and win, instead of adapting to the map and making for example more skirms and falcs if you are vs a civ with better long range infantry?
In general people seem to just dislike anything that's not the super "standard" type of map they're used to playing on. In general I think the "standard" map type gives you a very large safety net to do whatever you want with, and this dis-incentivizes things like scouting or adaptation, because you often don't have to bother. Perhaps another part of the problem is that aside from quick search games no one played on any map other than Great Plains or AS New Great Plains for years and years before Garja made the first ESOC maps.
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
Natural obstacles are not a problem per se but they are when misplaced or used too much.
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
Hazza54321 wrote: For example german vs jap need uhlans to compete in ranged war, or spain vs brit need melee units to even the ranged inf count
But on these maps, why not adapt and try something like going falcs + culvs vs Japan? Maybe this is bad, I don't know, but I don't even see people trying, I just see them going cav like they would on open high plains, and then just rage after the game.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
IAmSoldieR wrote:I find it especially funny when people complain about pathing, but they built their base very tight and make melee units xD
Yeah, the pathing issues have been known about for so long that if you lose because of pathing I think it's completely your fault. If you lost because of pathing, it's your fault for taking a fight in the trees where you knew you would have a bad outcome; or if you were forced to take that fight, it's your fault for letting yourself be forced into that fight. I understand that out of the 105 matchups there may be a few outliers where it's really not fair, but I think people complain way too much compared to the number of matchups where this is really a problem.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
- VooDoo_BoSs
- Dragoon
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Jul 7, 2016
- ESO: VooDoo_BoSs
- Location: Australia
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
musketeer925 wrote:I think it has something to do with the fact that "bad pathing" is not something people like to plan their game around. It feels like a "bug", and thus losing because of it makes people angry.
It's also especially bad because lag, which is a very unfortunate circumstance, makes it significantly worse. If the effect were an actual, consistent feature where cavalry got some kind of negative bonus while in forests or trying to go around buildings (or conversely a positive bonus on open plains), instead of just buggy pathing, it'd be a cool feature and not so frustrating.
I would prefer to see far more land-specific play / tactics rather than less.
If you have some cav, maybe avoid fighting in trees?
We should be embracing diversity in this game, tactical and strategic, rather than condemning it.
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
ovi12 wrote:Gichtenlord wrote:musketeer925 wrote:I think it has something to do with the fact that "bad pathing" is not something people like to plan their game around.
It is hard to play around something unpredictable. There is no obvious consistency to bad pathing.
Well I would say just assume it's going to be bad, and so just play the game around not making cav on maps which are naturally favoring long range units.
And thats exactly the second issue. I dont see what the positive aspect of simply removing one of the three unit types from the game is. It just makes the game more simplistic really.
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
momuuu wrote:ovi12 wrote:Show hidden quotes
Well I would say just assume it's going to be bad, and so just play the game around not making cav on maps which are naturally favoring long range units.
And thats exactly the second issue. I dont see what the positive aspect of simply removing one of the three unit types from the game is. It just makes the game more simplistic really.
Well what it removes in cav, but adds in stuff like artillery, FI, etc.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
I would argue that pathing is very predictable. This applies with buildings and unit positioning. Fore example, right clicking cav onto falcs that are surrounded, you can expect the cav the run around and never actually attack, if the falcs are protected well. I would say pathing and positioning go hand in hand, and actually consider pathing/postioning the most important aspect of micro.
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
momuuu wrote:And thats exactly the second issue. I dont see what the positive aspect of simply removing one of the three unit types from the game is. It just makes the game more simplistic really.
Claiming that it "removes" that unit type from the game is hyperbole in its purest form. Just because it's not as good as it is in an open field doesn't make it worthless, you just need to be more intentional with how you make use of them.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
This just in: Google's DeepMind Aoe3 AI, "AlphaTraln" has revolutionized aoe3 meta -- it turns out anti cav is literally pointless because there are some trees and buildings in the game.
- UpMySleeves
- Dragoon
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Apr 5, 2017
- GameRanger ID: 7309280
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
ovi12 wrote:Many times people complaina about maps such as Bonnie Springs (as far as I'm aware) because it causes pathing issues for cav. Why is that a bad thing?
Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, never drive a car when you're dead
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
UpMySleeves wrote:ovi12 wrote:Many times people complaina about maps such as Bonnie Springs (as far as I'm aware) because it causes pathing issues for cav. Why is that a bad thing?
?
Please finish reading
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
Personally, I think this game would be pretty boring if every game consisted of a fight in an open space with no obstacles. AoE3 already has a minimal tactical component compared to other RTS games (think of the elevation multipliers in AoE2 or the river crossing penalty in RoN); there's no need to strip out what little there is.
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
I agree overall, but cavs are already weak in big fights it motives even more ranged composition...
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
momuuu wrote:ovi12 wrote:Show hidden quotes
Well I would say just assume it's going to be bad, and so just play the game around not making cav on maps which are naturally favoring long range units.
And thats exactly the second issue. I dont see what the positive aspect of simply removing one of the three unit types from the game is. It just makes the game more simplistic really.
It doesn't remove them from the game, it just makes them less efficient. From a design perspective, it makes perfect sense that cavalry would be less efficient in a forest than in an open field.
The function of man is to live, not to exist.
- Imperial Noob
- Lancer
- Posts: 958
- Joined: Feb 29, 2016
- Location: Well hello DEre
Re: Why do people complain about maps with many natural obstables?
Papist wrote:momuuu wrote:Show hidden quotes
And thats exactly the second issue. I dont see what the positive aspect of simply removing one of the three unit types from the game is. It just makes the game more simplistic really.
It doesn't remove them from the game, it just makes them less efficient. From a design perspective, it makes perfect sense that cavalry would be less efficient in a forest than in an open field.
But it already is. Hard
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests