ESOCommunity

of course all esoc maps will be in , they are less broken and more fair

lusas wrote:of course all esoc maps will be in , they are less broken and more fair

All except Cascade Range.

lusas wrote:when is pool close ?, i need to see the new maps 1st

lusas wrote:of course all esoc maps will be in , they are less broken and more fair

Damn, youre fast...

shaolinstar wrote:

lusas wrote:of course all esoc maps will be in , they are less broken and more fair

All except Cascade Range.

Cascade range is isnt broken or unfair imo. I dont think Indonesia should be in though.

I hate indonesia with passion.

Judging from tourney match ups, both tibet and cascade range favor some civs really badly. For a quicksearch mappool youd want to have a ~50% winrate with your civ. If 3/15 maps are going to screw you over, I wouldnt want to play a civ that sucks really hard on those.

In other words, tibet, cascade range and indonesia arent very suitable for qs. Maps without tps just rek some civs anyways, so thats not the greatest. Otherwise germany/potentially iro, otto and ports are going to be significantly weaker on qs.

britishmusketeer wrote:

shaolinstar wrote:All except Cascade Range.

Cascade range is isnt broken or unfair imo. I dont think Indonesia should be in though.

The upper player spawns with one more hunt on cascade range. Also mines are really unbalanced.

jerom wrote:I hate indonesia with passion.

Judging from tourney match ups, both tibet and cascade range favor some civs really badly. For a quicksearch mappool youd want to have a ~50% winrate with your civ. If 3/15 maps are going to screw you over, I wouldnt want to play a civ that sucks really hard on those.

In other words, tibet, cascade range and indonesia arent very suitable for qs. Maps without tps just rek some civs anyways, so thats not the greatest. Otherwise germany/potentially iro, otto and ports are going to be significantly weaker on qs.

You have a point to some extent (although Bengal should be included as well, just ahead of Tibet in that regard), but IMO Cascade Range and Indonesia are the only ones that don''t make the cut. Bengal and Tibet are relatively fair overall.

bramboy wrote:

britishmusketeer wrote:Cascade range is isnt broken or unfair imo. I dont think Indonesia should be in though.

The upper player spawns with one more hunt on cascade range. Also mines are really unbalanced.

I doubt this is true, and if it is, I very much so doubt this is a map design decision.

I think Tibet is fine but yeah, agree about Cascade and Indo.

zoom wrote:

jerom wrote:I hate indonesia with passion.

Judging from tourney match ups, both tibet and cascade range favor some civs really badly. For a quicksearch mappool youd want to have a ~50% winrate with your civ. If 3/15 maps are going to screw you over, I wouldnt want to play a civ that sucks really hard on those.

In other words, tibet, cascade range and indonesia arent very suitable for qs. Maps without tps just rek some civs anyways, so thats not the greatest. Otherwise germany/potentially iro, otto and ports are going to be significantly weaker on qs.

You have a point to some extent (although Bengal should be included as well, just ahead of Tibet in that regard), but IMO Cascade Range and Indonesia are the only ones that dont make the cut. Bengal and Tibet are relatively fair overall.

yes, true. Havent played enough Bengal to think of that map. Wasnt that prominent in the tournement either.

Please no Tibet or Indonesia. ''Standard'' means Standard and those are not. Borneo>Indonesia. And Manchuria is too good for asian civs specially China, reduce the number of cows please.

Manchuria=Perfect map for ever civ.

yemshi wrote:Manchuria=Perfect map for ever civ.

It''s ok for all civs, like every map with good hunts and tp''s. But not perfect.

alejandrote wrote:Please no Tibet or Indonesia. Standard means Standard and those are not. Borneo>'Indonesia. And Manchuria is too good for asian civs specially China, reduce the number of cows please.

First of all nobody mentioned the word "Standard". Second of all, Tibet is more standard than half of the maps in said pool. Third of all (and really the only thing that''s of any consequence) Tibet is a competitive map with intriguing design. It would be the map that''s the most unique of all ESOC maps in the QS pool however, and therefore favors some civilizations slightly more than the others, although hardly to any great extent.

Also: Manchuria? Are you sure you''re not thinking of Mongolia??

zoom wrote:

alejandrote wrote:Please no Tibet or Indonesia. Standard means Standard and those are not. Borneo>'Indonesia. And Manchuria is too good for asian civs specially China, reduce the number of cows please.

First of all nobody mentioned the word "Standard". Second of all, Tibet is more standard than half of the maps in said pool. Third of all (and really the only thing thats of any consequence) Tibet is a competitive map with intriguing design. It would be the map thats the most unique of all ESOC maps in the QS pool however, and therefore favors some civilizations slightly more than the others, although hardly to any great extent.

Also: Manchuria? Are you sure youre not thinking of Mongolia??

Im sure I was talking about Manchuria. Of course Mongolia is more unbalanced with even more cows, tp route far from bases, random 5k coin mine spawn and bad hunts. You say Tibet is more standard than half of the maps with intriguing desing. Bit contradictory.

Tibet is the best map. Can't believe so much hate.

mmcnoel wrote:Tibet is the best map. Can''t believe so much hate.

How can a map which doesn''t have a guaranteed hunt be good?

ovi12 wrote:

mmcnoel wrote:Tibet is the best map. Cant believe so much hate.

How can a map which doesnt have a guaranteed hunt be good?

I would say that somewhat misrepresents tibet hunts, although they are certainly lower than elsewhere and cows are rather impprtant. People are in love with china right now though.

ovi12 wrote:

mmcnoel wrote:Tibet is the best map. Cant believe so much hate.

How can a map which doesnt have a guaranteed hunt be good?

Correct. Even if you have a second hunt it backherds sooner or later and is very small.

The other bad thing is that your units will always get separate from the army and run on other heights doing nothing which is annoying as hell and impossible to control...

A map with so many cliffs just cant work properly. It just messes up the placement of natural resources too much.

alejandrote wrote:

zoom wrote:First of all nobody mentioned the word "Standard". Second of all, Tibet is more standard than half of the maps in said pool. Third of all (and really the only thing thats of any consequence) Tibet is a competitive map with intriguing design. It would be the map thats the most unique of all ESOC maps in the QS pool however, and therefore favors some civilizations slightly more than the others, although hardly to any great extent.

Also: Manchuria? Are you sure youre not thinking of Mongolia??

Im sure I was talking about Manchuria. Of course Mongolia is more unbalanced with even more cows, tp route far from bases, random 5k coin mine spawn and bad hunts. You say Tibet is more standard than half of the maps with intriguing desing. Bit contradictory.

Tibet is not an average ("standard") map. Tibet is more standard than half of the maps in RE Standard Maps. Tibet also has intriguing design. I see no contradictions.

zoom wrote:

alejandrote wrote:Im sure I was talking about Manchuria. Of course Mongolia is more unbalanced with even more cows, tp route far from bases, random 5k coin mine spawn and bad hunts. You say Tibet is more standard than half of the maps with intriguing desing. Bit contradictory.

Tibet is not an average ("standard") map. Tibet is more standard than half of the maps in RE Standard Maps. Tibet also has intriguing design. I see no contradictions.

Where is logic? "Tibet is a standard map but not standard".

Now when did I ever call Tibet a standard map? Try reading my last post one more time, please.

What a silly and pointless thread!

Silk Road without treasure tps! (and maybe less tps because there is a lot)