ESOC "standard" map set

[Kaiserklein]

Yeah I mean, it's just like, why isn't manchac a standard map, but klondike is? Or how is alaska more standard than herald island? It's just weird to me

[Garja]

The set is fine as it is. Really if you want more standard than that just select singular maps. Restricting more than the current one is just a matter of personal preference.

[Kaiserklein]

Nope, it's matter of common sense, which you lack.

[Garja]

Sure

[SoldieR]

AH, I see now. The term "Standard" is up to Garja's interpretation. It's clear now.

[Hazza54321]

i dont think its bad, otherwise we'd see 100% german fre sioux

[Garja]

AH, I see now. The term "Standard" is up to Garja's interpretation. It's clear now.

No the set was decided with the patch team. Certainly it's not up to your or Kaiser interpretation.

[Kaiserklein]

How hard can it be to just select the obviously standard maps and not select the obviously non standard maps. I understand that some maps are somewhere in between, but really, you can't say that klondike or cascade are anywhere near standard.
If you think it's boring to play on standard maps, then don't use the standard maps set.

[Garja]

Cascade actually has the amount of res a map should have and it's just a great map overall. And it plays standard because you have colonial battles for once.
Klondike is not the definition of standard but still it plays standard.
In fact a map like Florida with super good resources and starting market plays less standard than those maps. It's just that the definition of standard now seems to be necessarily go age3 and click on shipments with huge eco.
It's not about boring, not entirely at least. It's about having some maps that play remotely close to how AOE3 has been.

[Kaiserklein]

A map with super low resources and no TP is NOT standard. No one cares how many resources a map "should have", it's about comparing the amount of resources to the average. Even though I actually share your opinion that maps should have less resources, it doesn't matter because it's opinions, not facts. Fact is, cascade is not standard compared to the rest of the esoc maps.
Klondike doesn't play standard lol. Super low hunt and a huge tp line hard to secure, only tier 1 treasures.
Yeah I agree Florida is not actually very standard. So much food and a starting market. I wouldn't mind it being removed from the standard maps set.

No, it's not about having maps playing close to whatever biased idea of how aoe3 should be. It's about having a map set featuring standard esoc maps. As in, maps with average features (resources, TP, water, etc) compared to the rest of esoc maps. Because the esoc patch was balanced around that kind of maps. Is it really so hard to understand?

Yes, I agree the average amount of resources on esoc maps is too high, I'd love to see it lowered, but it's not the point.

[Garja]

CR still is withing the range of standard amount resources. In fact, aside form few MUs it plays just like other maps.
And anyway the whole thing EP has been balanced around those maps is bs. There is a whole part of the MU spectrum that is not balanced exactly because of the maps.
If anything, "standard" has to do mostly with the map layout and game flow. CR still have the same game flow as other maps because it is consistent with them. And same thing with Klondike actually.

[[Armag] diarouga]

CR still is withing the range of standard amount resources. In fact, aside form few MUs it plays just like other maps.

Yea sure, we see Port going ATP and France/Ger going semi ff every day.

@Kaiserklein You should give up, there's no point in arguing about maps with garja, he can't be reasonable when we mention that.

[loloekie10]

Cascade actually has the amount of res a map should have and it's just a great map overall. And it plays standard because you have colonial battles for once.

Funny how you contradict yourself with the 'for once' here. I mean if you're implying that usually colonial battles do not occur, and they do 'for once' on Cascade, then obviously the map is not standard?

[edeholland]

Good topic! I'll look into player opinion on this, and react accordingly.

I saw some people talking about making a rated mapset with only current tourney map. I think it could be a good idea

Indeed. Some (myself included) have been wanting to implement this for a long time – along with a few other logical and popular map-sets. Unfortunately, a minority of people cannot tolerate others enjoying such a feature, and it was scrapped. At least we got some improvements, in return.

You should join the EP team and make it happen.

[Garja]

Cascade actually has the amount of res a map should have and it's just a great map overall. And it plays standard because you have colonial battles for once.

Funny how you contradict yourself with the 'for once' here. I mean if you're implying that usually colonial battles do not occur, and they do 'for once' on Cascade, then obviously the map is not standard?

If you assume that maps have to play exactly the same to be standard ye. But that's not my assumption.

[Dsy]

Give all churches xp gathering abilities and all maps will have access to weak tp-s.
Plus one more useless unit becomes useful.

[loloekie10]

Cascade actually has the amount of res a map should have and it's just a great map overall. And it plays standard because you have colonial battles for once.

Funny how you contradict yourself with the 'for once' here. I mean if you're implying that usually colonial battles do not occur, and they do 'for once' on Cascade, then obviously the map is not standard?

If you assume that maps have to play exactly the same to be standard ye. But that's not my assumption.

Not exactly, but roughly. If you have to play very different than usual because of the map (play nonstandard) then I would say that that makes the map nonstandard as well.
But if that is not your assumption, then what is it exactly? It seems like it's kinda arbitrary and the whole 'gameflow' arguments seem like some bullshit to make it look like you're being objective.
To me it seems fair to just vote on maps to be standard or not, since there will always be some subjective aspect to it.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Well garja cannot be objective. He thinks he's always right and thus can't make the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

[HUMMAN]

I think for all these years and upcoming editions and big tourneys, a big pro comission should be established in a formal way. And after constant discussion there should be declaration on which map style(s) Esoc should balance.

[Garja]

Well garja cannot be objective. He thinks he's always right and thus can't make the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

"C'hai rotto li cojoni"

[Garja]

Not exactly, but roughly. If you have to play very different than usual because of the map (play nonstandard) then I would say that that makes the map nonstandard as well.
But if that is not your assumption, then what is it exactly? It seems like it's kinda arbitrary and the whole 'gameflow' arguments seem like some bullshit to make it look like you're being objective.
To me it seems fair to just vote on maps to be standard or not, since there will always be some subjective aspect to it.

In fact it is not very different? Klondike plays just like other maps in most euro MUs. Cascade range plays like other non TP maps, except you have nats and small fish boom options.
Obviously the definition of standard is arbitrary, I already said that. And becasue of that this set is fine because it's standard enough but it's not just those 7-8 maps which plays exactly the same.
Personally, stuff like map size and distances between resources, as well pathing etc are more relevant than strict amount of resources when defining the standard.

[Kaiserklein]

Cascade range is literally THE esoc map with the least hunts. You have to play super aggressively. And there's no TP, which makes a bunch of civs not really viable. Even the treasures aren't standard.
Same goes for klondike, how can you say it plays like other maps lol. The age 1 is weird already, and then it's a fight for the tp line. You also have to be much more aggressive here than on standard maps.

Yes, we can't keep only super standard maps in the set. But the most obvious non standard ones have no reason to be in. Like thar, cascade, klondike, alaska, etc. It doesn't have to be 8 maps left lol, in the set I proposed, there were still 21 maps.

[zoom]

Yeah I mean, it's just like, why isn't manchac a standard map, but klondike is? Or how is alaska more standard than herald island? It's just weird to me

Having compiled the set, I want to explain the metrics used to define it, as it happened. First, "standard" is less about TPs and more about general civilization viability, map layout, and natural resource availability. Two of the other several sets I wanted to implement are "TP Maps" and "No-TP Maps", and "Competitive Maps" ("Super-Standard TP-Maps") – Perhaps those are the ones you've in mind, ITT. Second, inclusion was a focus. As you can see, not many maps are excluded from the set. Admittedly, popularity also played a minor part, as I did ask a number of players, at the time, for their thoughts. A few outlier maps are excluded. Ultimately I think it's captured well in its description:

"A map-set featuring relatively standard ESOC maps, striking a compromise between balance and variety"

In my opinion, High Plains and Klondike should be removed from the set. Well, ideally, their respective Trade Routes should have at least one TP removed. Civilization viability on those maps is unnecessarily poor, entirely due to the Trade Routes.

IIRC, Herald Island was excluded due to its extreme layout, and Manchac due to its layout, as well as low resource availability (apart from asking several players, I also spawned all maps ten times in a row, to assess this).

I'm not as productive as you are. Still, I hope that helps shed some more light on the situation.

[Kaiserklein]

Having compiled the set, I want to explain the metrics used to define it, as it happened. First, "standard" is less about TPs and more about general civilization viability, map layout, and natural resource availability.

General civilization viability is exactly the point. Maps like Klondike or Cascade have few viable civs for example. Same goes for resource availability, as I said, Cascade is the one esoc map with the least hunts...
Generally speaking, no tp maps reduce the amount of viable civs a lot. That's why it sucks when you get no TP maps all the time. I streamed yesterday and got like 3 no tp maps in a row at some point, and that isn't unusual at all.

Two of the other several sets I wanted to implement are "TP Maps" and "No-TP Maps", and "Competitive Maps" ("Super-Standard TP-Maps") – Perhaps those are the ones you've in mind, ITT. Second, inclusion was a focus. As you can see, not many maps are excluded from the set. Admittedly, popularity also played a minor part, as I did ask a number of players, at the time, for their thoughts. A few outlier maps are excluded.

You excluded 10 maps or so. The point is that some of the maps you excluded are much more standard than some you kept. I posted itt my idea of what the standard map set should roughly be, I listed 21 maps (only 1 less map than your set), and not only "super standard tp maps".

Ultimately I think it's captured well in its description:

"A map-set featuring relatively standard ESOC maps, striking a compromise between balance and variety"

We agree on the concept. There has to be variety. But there also has to be balance, and when you keep getting no tp maps or 5 tp maps, you don't get balanced games.

In my opinion, High Plains and Klondike should be removed from the set. Well, ideally, their respective Trade Routes should have at least one TP removed. Civilization viability on those maps is unnecessarily poor, entirely due to the Trade Routes.

I disagree. Civ viability is easily better on high plains than on cascade range or on indonesia. Yet, you don't argue that we should add hunts to cascade, or reduce the water on indonesia.
All non standard maps favour some civs over some others. That's the case for 5 tp maps, just like it is for no tp maps, super low res maps, heavy water maps, etc. And since there's only 2 maps with a 5 tp line, I really don't see why we should nerf them.
That being said, back to the map set. Well, I argued myself that klondike should be removed. I'd keep high plains because the civ viability on that map is decent, and because if we keep some no tp maps, I don't see why we wouldn't keep one 5 tp map.

IIRC, Herald Island was excluded due to its extreme layout, and Manchac due to its layout, as well as low resource availability (apart from asking several players, I also spawned all maps ten times in a row, to assess this).

The resources are very decent on both of these maps if you herd enough. And yeah herald island has that weird path on the left, but regardless of that it still plays very standard. Same for manchac with the swamps, it really plays quite standard. Plus bengal has swamps AND a huge cliff AND no tp, and it's in the standard maps set anyway lol.

[BrookG]

AFAIK the probability of choosing any map from the set is fixed from the Devs.