ESOCommunity

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

Kaiserklein wrote:Both of your opinions aren't facts. It's not about preference anyway... I like playing on cascade. It's just not a standard map. Herald island is rather standard on the other hand.

Hazza54321 wrote:

Kaiserklein wrote:Both of your opinions aren't facts. It's not about preference anyway... I like playing on cascade. It's just not a standard map. Herald island is rather standard on the other hand.

I never claimed mine was hence the “id rather” in my initial post
Not my fault diarougas a dangerous crack head

Cometk wrote:@Kaiserklein what's the standard map pool you'd like to see implemented?

Kaiserklein wrote:

zoom wrote: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.

zoom wrote: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".

zoom wrote: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.

zoom wrote: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.

zoom wrote: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.

Kaiserklein wrote:So is this map set finally gonna be reworked or do we have to pick maps?

Kaiserklein wrote:Okay thanks for your reply, I guess we mostly agree.

For the record though, I don't want to remove all no tp maps from the map set. I just feel like they're overrepresented right now. It also doesn't help that most no tp maps happen to have low food (especially thar and cascade), which means even less civs are viable there.

Regarding candidates for removal, I'd mostly consider klondike, cascade and thar. I think they're the 3 least standard maps from the set. Though I wouldn't mind bengal or baja being removed either. Adding herald island and manchac sounds good to me.

Garja wrote:How are they overepresented, being only 1/4 of total maps?
Cascade Range is a perfectly standard map. Seriously, most of games just play standard colonial on that map, more so than Thar Desert for comparison. And Klondike has similar flow to any heavy TP map really. Actually the only problem with Klondike is the positioning of the mines on the cliff. That can easily be fixed in a way or another.
I don't see why any of those maps should be candidate for removal. Herald Island and Manchac are not in the standard set mostly for layout reasons.
Bengal is as standard as a no TP map can be. If the choke is the problem, can add a passage or simply can make it a river instead of a cliff. I don't see what's not so standard about Baja either. To me it's more like you just don't like the map concept (2 water sides or w/e) more than anything else. Size is standard. Resource amount is standard. TP count is standard.