Tournament map thread
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Tournament map thread
I've been complaining for 3 years about the tournament map pools because I believe that some maps are just not very interesting strategically (and thus it's boring to play one these, and probably boring to watch as well).
I'm going to split the maps into 3 subjective tiers : Good tournament maps, okish tournament maps, and bad tournament maps. Of course, ideally the tournament maps should be almost only tier 1 maps, and maybe some tier 2 maps.
In my opinion a good tournament map is a map where many civs and playstyles are viable. A bad map is a map where only one play style and a few civs are viable.
I'll try to explain why I believe that some maps are better than some others, feel free to disagree.
Good maps :
[spoiler=Adirondacks]8/10, standard map
Adirondacks is a great standard map : 2 mines, 2 hunts, 2 safe TPs and a middle TP. Although there is no whale in the sea, sea booming is also an option. On this map, every civ is viable and I think that it's important to have at least one standard map is each map pool.
Issue : One of the players lacks a 2nd hunt 30% of the time, which is annoying[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Alaska]8/10 water map
Alaska is an unstandard no TP water map.
Most of the civs are not playable on this map. However, water is very viable there, that makes the map very interesting.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Arizona]9/10 big TP map
Arizona is a big TP map with a lot of resources in base. As a result, agressive civs can take the TP line, while the defensive (such as brit, japan or dutch) can safely boom and contest the TP line later.
Furthermore, the big cliff gives many raiding/manoeuvre options.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Arkansas]9/10 standard map
Arkansas is probably the most standard map in the game, balanced with a lot of resources, 3 TPs on the side and a safe place to gather at the top of the map. For some reasons (probably the colours), the map can be quite boring.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Colorado]7/10 Unorthodox TP map
Colorado is a big TP map with only 1 safe coin mine in your base and big cliffs. The map is overall good, but the lack of coin mines makes some civs unviable there.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Fertile Crescent]7/10 low resource TP map.
Fertile is a rather well designed standard map with very few hunts.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Florida]9/10 standard TP water map
Floria is a very interesting map where booming is very viable thanks to the size of the map, and the amount of safe resources. Furthermore, some civs have the option to use the sea and the natives (for the archer upgrade).
The games often last more than 12 minutes where fighting for map control becomes very important.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Herald Island]8/10 Standard map
Nothing to add[/spoiler]
[spoiler=High Plains]9/10 huge TP map with a lot of resources
One of the most interesting map strategically. There's a very big TP line that needs to be contested. However, you have 2 mines and almost infinite food in base so going for a timing is an option, you don't have to rush the TPs.
Most civs are viable on this map.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Hudson Bay]10/10 Standard water map
One of the best ESOC map. You can do almost everything on this map, you have enough resources to be defensive, but the TP line and the water control are also very important. In addition, the age 1 is often interesting.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Indonesia]7/10 water map
The dream water map, where going for a sea boom is a must. That's very interesting from a design point of view.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Kamchatka]10/10 standard map
The first ESOC map, just a flawless map. You have a lot of hunts but they're hard to herd, thus the herding skills are rewarded. The age 1 is also very interesting thanks to the middle of the map and the treasure/goat balance.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Malaysia]8/10 water map
I used to hate malaysia because the map design is extremely bad if you ignore the sea. However, both players have a safe sea behind their TC. It allows players to be creative with sea play.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Manchuria]10/10 standard map
The age 1 is super interesting thanks to the balanced treasures and the cows. Furthermore, the sea and the sometimes split TP lines give a lot of strategy options.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Pampas Sierras]9/10
Probably the best no TP map. Thanks to amount of hunts and the cows, turtling is also an option, you don't have to rush hard every game. Thus, most of the time it's one guy rushing against one guy defending.[/spoiler]
Okish maps :
[spoiler=Baja California]6/10 water map
Baja California could be one of the greatest maps, with a TP line in the middle and 2 seas. Unfortunately, the map is very unbalanced because getting the middle TP is a huge advantage. Thus, the map is not really competitive.
Even the side TPs are an issue because you have to walk if your TP gets stolen, and it's just random.
It could be a 10/10 map with a better balance, but the current map is not really competitive.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Bengal]7/10 standard no TP map.
Bengal is a no TP map with a reasonable amount of resources. No TP maps are overall not great though, because only 3-4 civs are viable there, and Bengal doesn't have a special design to help the TP civs.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Cascade Range]6/10 no TP map
Cascade range is a no TP map with almost no hunts.
Before the water change, it used to be a TAD civ only map (because of the market berry upgrades). Now, most civ have some sea boom potential, but the map is still very unbalanced unfortunately.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Iowa]6/10 TP map
Iowa has a lot of interesting designs : the middle TP line, the lakota native TPs but you don't have enough food. Thus, some civs are not viable.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Jebel Musa]7/10 TP map
This map also has a lot of interesting features but it feels like they're just decoration. Going for a the sea is almost never viable because it's way too far from your base, and doesn't give you the control of interesting areas of the map.
Furthermore, the chokes can be walled and it's very abusable.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Klondike]7/10 big TP map
Klondike is a 5 TP map, like High Plain and similar to Arizona. However, I believe that the low amount of resources make it worse than these two as agressive play is the only viable option.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Manchac]6/10 standard map
Manchac is another standard map but it's a bit boring, and feels much worse than the other standard maps.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Tibet]6/10 cow map with a big TP line and many cliffs
The map design is actually good but in practice some civs are simply too good on this map.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Wadmalaw]7/10 water map
Wadmalaw is a decent water map but in my opinion Indonesia and Alaska are better at this.[/spoiler]
Bad maps :
[spoiler=Bonnie Springs]4/10 weird map
Bonne Springs would be a very normal map without the buildings in the middle. Because of the pathing issues, it makes 25% of the map useless for no reasons.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Gran Chaco]4/10 no TP map
Gran Chaco is a rather low resource (although okay) no TP maps. The map doesn't have big design flaws but it doesn't have an interesting design either.
It makes the map quite boring to play, and the options are very limited as it is a no TP map.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Great Basin]2/10 low resource map.
Great Basin is a very low resource map where the treasures are extremely unbalanced. There is a 150w treasure (what the fuck) and a 85w treasure. When a player gets both, it's almost game over. Furthermore, the design of the map isn't really great as the agressive civ is going to take the map and there's not much you can do about that. Currently, the map is just not competitive.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Parallel Rivers]4/10 unstandard no TP map[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Tassili]3/10 low resource map
Like in every low resource map, rushing is the only viable option. Low resource maps without sea are too one dimensional.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Thar Desert]2/10 no TP no resource map
Well, no TP no resource map. Thus only Russia and India are viable.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Global warming]0/10
[/spoiler]
Finally, I think that the map pools should be more balanced.
It shouldn't have more than one standard no TP map (Pampas Sierras is a no brainer imo as it's by far the best no TP map, but it could also be Bengal).
If there's another no TP maps, it should be a good one (like Alaska).
It shouldn't have more than one huge TP map (High Plains or Arizone, or Klondike although it's not ideal)
It shouldn't include maps where less than 5 civs are viable (the bad tournament maps).
I'm going to split the maps into 3 subjective tiers : Good tournament maps, okish tournament maps, and bad tournament maps. Of course, ideally the tournament maps should be almost only tier 1 maps, and maybe some tier 2 maps.
In my opinion a good tournament map is a map where many civs and playstyles are viable. A bad map is a map where only one play style and a few civs are viable.
I'll try to explain why I believe that some maps are better than some others, feel free to disagree.
Good maps :
[spoiler=Adirondacks]8/10, standard map
Adirondacks is a great standard map : 2 mines, 2 hunts, 2 safe TPs and a middle TP. Although there is no whale in the sea, sea booming is also an option. On this map, every civ is viable and I think that it's important to have at least one standard map is each map pool.
Issue : One of the players lacks a 2nd hunt 30% of the time, which is annoying[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Alaska]8/10 water map
Alaska is an unstandard no TP water map.
Most of the civs are not playable on this map. However, water is very viable there, that makes the map very interesting.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Arizona]9/10 big TP map
Arizona is a big TP map with a lot of resources in base. As a result, agressive civs can take the TP line, while the defensive (such as brit, japan or dutch) can safely boom and contest the TP line later.
Furthermore, the big cliff gives many raiding/manoeuvre options.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Arkansas]9/10 standard map
Arkansas is probably the most standard map in the game, balanced with a lot of resources, 3 TPs on the side and a safe place to gather at the top of the map. For some reasons (probably the colours), the map can be quite boring.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Colorado]7/10 Unorthodox TP map
Colorado is a big TP map with only 1 safe coin mine in your base and big cliffs. The map is overall good, but the lack of coin mines makes some civs unviable there.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Fertile Crescent]7/10 low resource TP map.
Fertile is a rather well designed standard map with very few hunts.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Florida]9/10 standard TP water map
Floria is a very interesting map where booming is very viable thanks to the size of the map, and the amount of safe resources. Furthermore, some civs have the option to use the sea and the natives (for the archer upgrade).
The games often last more than 12 minutes where fighting for map control becomes very important.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Herald Island]8/10 Standard map
Nothing to add[/spoiler]
[spoiler=High Plains]9/10 huge TP map with a lot of resources
One of the most interesting map strategically. There's a very big TP line that needs to be contested. However, you have 2 mines and almost infinite food in base so going for a timing is an option, you don't have to rush the TPs.
Most civs are viable on this map.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Hudson Bay]10/10 Standard water map
One of the best ESOC map. You can do almost everything on this map, you have enough resources to be defensive, but the TP line and the water control are also very important. In addition, the age 1 is often interesting.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Indonesia]7/10 water map
The dream water map, where going for a sea boom is a must. That's very interesting from a design point of view.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Kamchatka]10/10 standard map
The first ESOC map, just a flawless map. You have a lot of hunts but they're hard to herd, thus the herding skills are rewarded. The age 1 is also very interesting thanks to the middle of the map and the treasure/goat balance.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Malaysia]8/10 water map
I used to hate malaysia because the map design is extremely bad if you ignore the sea. However, both players have a safe sea behind their TC. It allows players to be creative with sea play.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Manchuria]10/10 standard map
The age 1 is super interesting thanks to the balanced treasures and the cows. Furthermore, the sea and the sometimes split TP lines give a lot of strategy options.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Pampas Sierras]9/10
Probably the best no TP map. Thanks to amount of hunts and the cows, turtling is also an option, you don't have to rush hard every game. Thus, most of the time it's one guy rushing against one guy defending.[/spoiler]
Okish maps :
[spoiler=Baja California]6/10 water map
Baja California could be one of the greatest maps, with a TP line in the middle and 2 seas. Unfortunately, the map is very unbalanced because getting the middle TP is a huge advantage. Thus, the map is not really competitive.
Even the side TPs are an issue because you have to walk if your TP gets stolen, and it's just random.
It could be a 10/10 map with a better balance, but the current map is not really competitive.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Bengal]7/10 standard no TP map.
Bengal is a no TP map with a reasonable amount of resources. No TP maps are overall not great though, because only 3-4 civs are viable there, and Bengal doesn't have a special design to help the TP civs.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Cascade Range]6/10 no TP map
Cascade range is a no TP map with almost no hunts.
Before the water change, it used to be a TAD civ only map (because of the market berry upgrades). Now, most civ have some sea boom potential, but the map is still very unbalanced unfortunately.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Iowa]6/10 TP map
Iowa has a lot of interesting designs : the middle TP line, the lakota native TPs but you don't have enough food. Thus, some civs are not viable.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Jebel Musa]7/10 TP map
This map also has a lot of interesting features but it feels like they're just decoration. Going for a the sea is almost never viable because it's way too far from your base, and doesn't give you the control of interesting areas of the map.
Furthermore, the chokes can be walled and it's very abusable.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Klondike]7/10 big TP map
Klondike is a 5 TP map, like High Plain and similar to Arizona. However, I believe that the low amount of resources make it worse than these two as agressive play is the only viable option.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Manchac]6/10 standard map
Manchac is another standard map but it's a bit boring, and feels much worse than the other standard maps.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Tibet]6/10 cow map with a big TP line and many cliffs
The map design is actually good but in practice some civs are simply too good on this map.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Wadmalaw]7/10 water map
Wadmalaw is a decent water map but in my opinion Indonesia and Alaska are better at this.[/spoiler]
Bad maps :
[spoiler=Bonnie Springs]4/10 weird map
Bonne Springs would be a very normal map without the buildings in the middle. Because of the pathing issues, it makes 25% of the map useless for no reasons.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Gran Chaco]4/10 no TP map
Gran Chaco is a rather low resource (although okay) no TP maps. The map doesn't have big design flaws but it doesn't have an interesting design either.
It makes the map quite boring to play, and the options are very limited as it is a no TP map.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Great Basin]2/10 low resource map.
Great Basin is a very low resource map where the treasures are extremely unbalanced. There is a 150w treasure (what the fuck) and a 85w treasure. When a player gets both, it's almost game over. Furthermore, the design of the map isn't really great as the agressive civ is going to take the map and there's not much you can do about that. Currently, the map is just not competitive.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Parallel Rivers]4/10 unstandard no TP map[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Tassili]3/10 low resource map
Like in every low resource map, rushing is the only viable option. Low resource maps without sea are too one dimensional.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Thar Desert]2/10 no TP no resource map
Well, no TP no resource map. Thus only Russia and India are viable.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Global warming]0/10
[/spoiler]
Finally, I think that the map pools should be more balanced.
It shouldn't have more than one standard no TP map (Pampas Sierras is a no brainer imo as it's by far the best no TP map, but it could also be Bengal).
If there's another no TP maps, it should be a good one (like Alaska).
It shouldn't have more than one huge TP map (High Plains or Arizone, or Klondike although it's not ideal)
It shouldn't include maps where less than 5 civs are viable (the bad tournament maps).
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: Tournament map thread
You have a point, but does everyone want to see the same stale maps? It's why deccan and NE were included in the nwc.
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
Re: Tournament map thread
i think you confuse arizona with mendocino @[Armag] diarouga
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Tournament map thread
flontier wrote:i think you confuse arizona with mendocino @[Armag] diarouga
No I don't. I forgot to include Mendocino actually. I'd give it a 8/10, I think Arizona is better.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Tournament map thread
Riotcoke wrote:You have a point, but does everyone want to see the same stale maps? It's why deccan and NE were included in the nwc.
No we don't, that why we need to have different kind of maps.
My point is that some maps are just no competitive and it gets boring when we see the same thing again and again.
I think that NE was a great success because the map is very interesting (some other RE maps like fixed patagonia or Great Lakes would be good too).
Deccan however was a failure because you don't have enough options on that map. India won every time iirc.
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: Tournament map thread
[Armag] diarouga wrote:Riotcoke wrote:You have a point, but does everyone want to see the same stale maps? It's why deccan and NE were included in the nwc.
No we don't, that why we need to have different kind of maps.
My point is that some maps are just no competitive and it gets boring when we see the same thing again and again.
I think that NE was a great success because the map is very interesting (some other RE maps like fixed patagonia or Great Lakes would be good too).
Deccan however was a failure because you don't have enough options on that map. India won every time iirc.
Maybe deccan without the number of crates would be viable as a competitive map?
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
- edeholland
- ESOC Community Team
- Posts: 5033
- Joined: Feb 11, 2015
- ESO: edeholland
- GameRanger ID: 4053888
- Clan: ESOC
Re: Tournament map thread
I don't think that would be too different from Tibet. Maybe even easier to wall.Riotcoke wrote:[Armag] diarouga wrote:Riotcoke wrote:You have a point, but does everyone want to see the same stale maps? It's why deccan and NE were included in the nwc.
No we don't, that why we need to have different kind of maps.
My point is that some maps are just no competitive and it gets boring when we see the same thing again and again.
I think that NE was a great success because the map is very interesting (some other RE maps like fixed patagonia or Great Lakes would be good too).
Deccan however was a failure because you don't have enough options on that map. India won every time iirc.
Maybe deccan without the number of crates would be viable as a competitive map?
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Tournament map thread
Riotcoke wrote:[Armag] diarouga wrote:Riotcoke wrote:You have a point, but does everyone want to see the same stale maps? It's why deccan and NE were included in the nwc.
No we don't, that why we need to have different kind of maps.
My point is that some maps are just no competitive and it gets boring when we see the same thing again and again.
I think that NE was a great success because the map is very interesting (some other RE maps like fixed patagonia or Great Lakes would be good too).
Deccan however was a failure because you don't have enough options on that map. India won every time iirc.
Maybe deccan without the number of crates would be viable as a competitive map?
I don't know, we'd have to test it. The issue is that the starting resources and the yaks benefit India too much. Standard India usually ages 30-40 sec after the nilla civs (France, Germany) but on Deccan you age like 10sec before them as India.
Basically, you're relatively 50sec faster as India on Deccan.
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: Tournament map thread
[Armag] diarouga wrote:Riotcoke wrote:Show hidden quotes
Maybe deccan without the number of crates would be viable as a competitive map?
I don't know, we'd have to test it. The issue is that the starting resources and the yaks benefit India too much. Standard India usually ages 30-40 sec after the nilla civs (France, Germany) but on Deccan you age like 10sec before them as India.
Basically, you're relatively 50sec faster as India on Deccan.
Yeah deccan seems to benefit the tad civs far more than any others, japan seems to be pretty strong too.
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
Re: Tournament map thread
Man, you can't just make a huge list of maps and decide which are good and which are bad. Sure you realize everyone has his opinion/preference on maps and the list would vary for each person who makes it.
I mean, I randomly opened Granc Chaco spoiler and it says "Gran Chaco is a rather low resource (although okay) no TP map", when the map is one of the most generous in terms of resources. What should I take from that list if even objective stuff like resource amount is skewed.
I mean, I randomly opened Granc Chaco spoiler and it says "Gran Chaco is a rather low resource (although okay) no TP map", when the map is one of the most generous in terms of resources. What should I take from that list if even objective stuff like resource amount is skewed.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Tournament map thread
Objectively, we only see Russia/India on some maps. That's a big issue.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Tournament map thread
Hf playing Dutch, Brit, Japan, Aztec or China vs India/Russia on Gran Chaco, Great Basin, Thar Desert or Global Warming.
Also I'm not going to write 30 lines on every map it would take ages lol. If you disagree with some statements we can discuss it.
Also I'm not going to write 30 lines on every map it would take ages lol. If you disagree with some statements we can discuss it.
Re: Tournament map thread
Most of the civs you mentioned do fine vs India/Russia on those maps.
I just disagree with your classification of maps in general and with most map descriptions.
I just disagree with your classification of maps in general and with most map descriptions.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Tournament map thread
Dutch vs Russia : hopeless MU on low hunt maps
Japan vs Russia : bad MU
Aztec vs Russia : bad MU
China vs Russia : impossible MU on no TP maps
Brit vs Russia : bad MU, even on maps with a lot of resources
So all these civs do poorly vs Russia
Dutch vs India : I guess this one is okish in early game but then in middle game you'll die to sepoy raids
Brit vs India : Bad MU even on good maps
Japan vs India : I guess this one is okay
Aztec vs India : bad MU
India vs China : India favoured on no hunt maps
Dutch and Japan do fine vs India but you can't pick these civs else you get countered.
So yea, only India and Russia are viable on no TP low hunt maps.
Japan vs Russia : bad MU
Aztec vs Russia : bad MU
China vs Russia : impossible MU on no TP maps
Brit vs Russia : bad MU, even on maps with a lot of resources
So all these civs do poorly vs Russia
Dutch vs India : I guess this one is okish in early game but then in middle game you'll die to sepoy raids
Brit vs India : Bad MU even on good maps
Japan vs India : I guess this one is okay
Aztec vs India : bad MU
India vs China : India favoured on no hunt maps
Dutch and Japan do fine vs India but you can't pick these civs else you get countered.
So yea, only India and Russia are viable on no TP low hunt maps.
Re: Tournament map thread
[Armag] diarouga wrote:Dutch vs Russia : hopeless MU on low hunt maps I distinctively remember WickedCossack winning ths in the NWc qualifier on Thar Desert and Bsop winning this vs LordRaphael in a very close match on Thar Desert again.
Japan vs Russia : bad MU we can test this more, it's not bad imo. Also you won vs Raphael, surely isn't that bad.
Aztec vs Russia : bad MU bad for who? I'm pretty sure Aztecs just shit on Russia if you actually play them properly. If you don't play them properly you give Russia time to boom and shit.
China vs Russia : impossible MU on no TP maps kinda bs as well. Market colonial china vs russia is actually good.
Brit vs Russia : bad MU, even on maps with a lot of resources I can personally agree with this but people keep using Brits vs Russia.
So all these civs do poorly vs Russia
Dutch vs India : I guess this one is okish in early game but then in middle game you'll die to sepoy raids I don't think sepoy raids are really the thing here in this MU.
Brit vs India : Bad MU even on good maps ok.
Japan vs India : I guess this one is okay possibly.
Aztec vs India : bad MU ok, even tho low res makes it actually more even.
India vs China : India favoured on no hunt maps idk about this one
Dutch and Japan do fine vs India but you can't pick these civs else you get countered.
So yea, only India and Russia are viable on no TP low hunt maps.
-
- Advanced Player
- Posts: 768
- Joined: Aug 7, 2016
- ESO: miggo1999
- Location: Hannover
-
- ESOC Pro Team
- Posts: 1116
- Joined: Jan 25, 2019
- Location: Wales (new, south)
Re: Tournament map thread
Garja wrote:And Dutch. And Brits. And Japan. And Aztecs. And China.
On that topic, is it just me or has Brit barely been used at all in either of the two standard weekend tours that allowed it? I thought it was pretty top but it feels quite out of fashion at the moment.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Tournament map thread
Kawapasaka wrote:Garja wrote:And Dutch. And Brits. And Japan. And Aztecs. And China.
On that topic, is it just me or has Brit barely been used at all in either of the two standard weekend tours that allowed it? I thought it was pretty top but it feels quite out of fashion at the moment.
The maps are bad for brit so it's not played.
Re: Tournament map thread
I think it's more of a popularity thing than map reason. Most of EP maps are actully good for Brits since the amount of hunts is resources is a lot.
I also believe that all in all Brits are not as strong as people make them, at least not if you know how to counter them.
I also believe that all in all Brits are not as strong as people make them, at least not if you know how to counter them.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Tournament map thread
Garja wrote:[Armag] diarouga wrote:Dutch vs Russia : hopeless MU on low hunt maps I distinctively remember WickedCossack winning ths in the NWc qualifier on Thar Desert and Bsop winning this vs LordRaphael in a very close match on Thar Desert again.
Japan vs Russia : bad MU we can test this more, it's not bad imo. Also you won vs Raphael, surely isn't that bad.
Aztec vs Russia : bad MU bad for who? I'm pretty sure Aztecs just shit on Russia if you actually play them properly. If you don't play them properly you give Russia time to boom and shit.
China vs Russia : impossible MU on no TP maps kinda bs as well. Market colonial china vs russia is actually good.
Brit vs Russia : bad MU, even on maps with a lot of resources I can personally agree with this but people keep using Brits vs Russia.
So all these civs do poorly vs Russia
Dutch vs India : I guess this one is okish in early game but then in middle game you'll die to sepoy raids I don't think sepoy raids are really the thing here in this MU.
Brit vs India : Bad MU even on good maps ok.
Japan vs India : I guess this one is okay possibly.
Aztec vs India : bad MU ok, even tho low res makes it actually more even.
India vs China : India favoured on no hunt maps idk about this one
Dutch and Japan do fine vs India but you can't pick these civs else you get countered.
So yea, only India and Russia are viable on no TP low hunt maps.
Dutch vs Russia can only be won when the Russian player fucks up.
Japan vs Russia is really bad on Thar Desert. On Pampas it's okay because you can build 20 shrines and have a good eco, which is why Pampa is good but not thar.
China vs Russia can be won if you manage to break the blockhouse with a all in as China. If Russia plays safely you can't.
I don't know who picks brit vs Russia. Most of the time you pick brit and your opponent counter picks with Russia.
So you can't pick Dutch on these maps because of the threat of India/Russia (mostly Russia).
You can't pick brit ofc
You can't pick Japan because of Russia
Some people like to pick Aztec but it's not a solid pick honestly and I believe you lose to both India and Russia on no TP maps.
And picking China on a no TP map against agressive civs is just suicide honestly.
Re: Tournament map thread
Dutch vs Russia is such a close MU that you can't call mistakes "fuck up". It's just normal mistakes/outplaying just like in every other MU. Btw Raphael also crushed Kaiser in NWC lan with Dutch on Pampas.
You can still build all 20 shrines on Thar Desert too, some will of course be without animals but surely you understand that it is a very minor drawback compared to not having access to hunts at all for Russia (mostly because they're all shrined).
China Russia is something I prefer not to argue because none has tried what I do with market start + colonial play. So arguing about that is pointless and I'm sure lot of people won't agreeing because they think China colonial units suck and often enough they don't have the micro required to get the most out of those units.
All the conclusions that derive from that are not accurate. Especially I'd say China on maps like Pampas Sierras, Bengal or Gran Chaco is a totally fine pick.
You can still build all 20 shrines on Thar Desert too, some will of course be without animals but surely you understand that it is a very minor drawback compared to not having access to hunts at all for Russia (mostly because they're all shrined).
China Russia is something I prefer not to argue because none has tried what I do with market start + colonial play. So arguing about that is pointless and I'm sure lot of people won't agreeing because they think China colonial units suck and often enough they don't have the micro required to get the most out of those units.
All the conclusions that derive from that are not accurate. Especially I'd say China on maps like Pampas Sierras, Bengal or Gran Chaco is a totally fine pick.
- [Armag] diarouga
- Ninja
- Posts: 12710
- Joined: Feb 26, 2015
- ESO: diarouga
- Location: France
Re: Tournament map thread
Maybe everybody but you is wrong, but what matters is that we only see Russia and India on these maps.
Re: Tournament map thread
here are the map pools for the EPL
first week features 2 no tp maps in each pool, but besides that i don't believe there should be much to complain about, by your standards
first week features 2 no tp maps in each pool, but besides that i don't believe there should be much to complain about, by your standards
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests