Non-tp map balance (split from Tournament Statistics)

[[Armag] diarouga]

Regarding winrates, it was an educated decision to exclude them, because the amount of matches would have been too small for providing any significant result. Any conclusion would have been biased. Consider, for example, the Spain situation. It was one of the least played civs (32 times), any winrate wouldn't be suggestive of the civ's actual status in the civ pool.

Touching upon the map issue, I will disagree on two points. Deccan was picked because of its special starting crates and its unique geography. Indians were highly chosen in LAN (8 times). In the rest of the tournament Indians were played 18 times, followed by British (17 times) and French (11 times). In my opinion, it is hard to deduce something about them just being too strong on that map. These civs were top picks in the whole tournament in the first place. Lastly, Deccan was only 6th out of 9 maps played in total and 1st in LAN. Thar Dessert, however, and New England were last, which might mean that non-TP maps aren't as popular with the players and New England honestly offers more strategic options and is a harder map for less experienced players.

Non-TP maps although unpopular are necessary because you would have to reiterate similar MUs and a tournament of such a scale requires to test the players in all possible situations and skills. And yes Indians and Russians is safer than your other options are maybe Dutch, Aztecs or Japanese among others. Is it a map's problem that they aren't picked or civ balance issue?

And about "age 3 meta" you may read again, because at least one player went to age3 in ~9/10 their games. One player staying in colonial, doesn't exclude the situation where the other aged to Fortress.

People picked brit and France because they're comfortable with these civs, however India is just better than Brit on this map.
About no TP map, they're an issue in general, because few civs are viable (Russia, India, Dutch, Brit, Japan, Aztec and India), but as you said, there's an issue with balance.
Aztec is the worst civ so can't play it. Russia beats Dutch, Brit and Japan and India beats Brit and Japan.

Futhermore, Brit, Japan and Dutch are weaker on Trash desert, so you have to play Russia/India. Trash Desert is just a bad map to be fair.

I did read the age 3 part. My point is that it's viable to play in age 2 during all the game. Having one player who ages to fortress isn't an issue at all, it's even nice. It would be boring if you had to stay age 2 all game, as you would only have one option.
At this moment, you can either age to fortress or play in colonial, and even if you age to fortress, you're going to fight a bit in colonial.

[Rikikipu]

@[Armag] diarouga Would be cool if you could avoid saying "Trash Desert", those negative words don't help much

[n0el]

Thar is the best no Tp map

[[Armag] diarouga]

@[Armag] diarouga Would be cool if you could avoid saying "Trash Desert", those negative words don't help much

Hi. Wasn't meant to be offensive but I really dislike that map, and many maps have a nickname tbh.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Thar is the best no Tp map

No, Pampa is the best no TP map because you have a lot of food, so you can either rush and then go for some contain play or play defensively and try to take the map at one point. Some civs like China, even have the option to ff.
Bengal is another very interesting no TP map, so are Indonesia and Cascade Range thanks to the sea options.

On Trash however, you gotta rush with either India or Russia and your opponent won't have enough resources to take the map, how interesting.

[Rikikipu]

@[Armag] diarouga Would be cool if you could avoid saying "Trash Desert", those negative words don't help much

Hi. Wasn't meant to be offensive but I really dislike that map, and many maps have a nickname tbh.

It's (although sad) totally your right that you dislike the map. Just sometimes it gets upsetting reading a lot of negative words on project that involves a big amount of hours of work. That's why it would be nice from you if you could avoid that.
Back on the topic, I've seen you complaining a lot about no tp maps. Instead of providing an "easy" solution that is removing no tp maps and leads to narrowing the scope of the game, why don't we pick the "interesting" solution which is finding balance workarounds on those maps ?

@n0el love you <3

[[Armag] diarouga]

@[Armag] diarouga Would be cool if you could avoid saying "Trash Desert", those negative words don't help much

Hi. Wasn't meant to be offensive but I really dislike that map, and many maps have a nickname tbh.

Back on the topic, I've seen you complaining a lot about no tp maps. Instead of providing an "easy" solution that is removing no tp maps and leads to narrowing the scope of the game, why don't we pick the "interesting" solution which is finding balance workarounds on those maps ?

1) Removing no tp maps doesn't narrow the scope of the game, it's the opposite as I explained. Most of the civilizations aren't viable on no TP maps, and only one style (or two depending on the map) is/are viable. Watching the same strel/coss rush again and again is becoming really boring. You know it's coming, but there's nothing you can do unless you're playing India because you don't have access to TPs.

2) We've discussed that many times but it is impossible to balance the game on both TP and no TP maps. Just impossible. Currently the game is balanced around TP maps (by that I mean that, in theory, all the civilizations are as good on a map like kamchatka). If we decided to do the same on no TP maps, then Otto would be absolutely unbeatable on TP maps, because the civ benefits a lot from TPs. Same would go for Germany. If the uhlan semi was viable on no TP, imagine how op it would be on TP maps xD?
Conversely, Brit, Japan and India would be totally unplayable.

So we have two solutions essentially :
a) Balance the game around TPs and no TP maps aren't balanced. That's the current state of the game.
b) Balance the game around no TP maps and TP maps aren't balanced.

Why did we choose a? First, because it's closer to the RE. Furthermore, it's much more interesting because it gives more options as you can play on age 2, age 3 or even age 4, and you're not forced to play in colonial.

3) That being said, I believe that high resources no TP maps (such as Pampa or Bengal), or no TP water maps (Cascade and Indonesia) are interesting although they're not balanced, because in the first case you can play defensively if you want (Japan, China, Brit), thus you have 2 options, and on water maps you can use the sea.

Thar Desert isn't interesting however, as it is a no TP no resource map, so you have to rush and stay colonial, which is why India and Russia are the only viable civs.

I hope it was constructive enough, and you get my point now.

[Rikikipu]

I get your point and I understand the logic, but I disagree on a hypothesis you do that leads to your conclusions.

We've discussed that many times but it is impossible to balance the game on both TP and no TP maps.

I disagree with that point, at least I'm not sure we ever tried working hard on that topic. Note that I don't pretend it will be easy to do, but I think there are some changes that civs would benefit on no tp maps without impacting much the gameplay on tp maps. Afterall those are "just" numbers to tweak, and I'm feeling confident we can find solutions to circumvent the tp/no tp problem.

[[Armag] diarouga]

I don't think that it is possible.
Anyway, on the current patch, no TP maps aren't balanced.
On Thar Desert, Russia and India feel very dominant, and it's quite boring.

You can blame the balance if you want, but the result is that Thar Desert is currently uninteresting, and thus should be removed from tourney pools imo. If one day the game is balanced on no TP maps, then it can be added again.

[n0el]

It's not balanced around the maps, its balanced around the meta game. Regardless of having a TP or not, those maps are outside of the meta because you have to leave your main to get resources earlier than the generic maps. Maybe we should make more maps like this and thus the balance will naturally incorporate this as it becomes part of the meta game.

[Mitoe]

The problem with non TP maps is that there’s no alternative to TPs for xp generation.

If there was an alternative that was worth it early it clearly not worth it if you have a TP (so it wouldn’t affect balance on TP maps), that would go a long way towards making them more balanced.


Also can we delete Russia? This civ is in such a sad spot strategically. It’s mind-numbingly stale to play and to watch. Just the exact same thing every game because the alternatives suck too much.

[wardyb1]

How much thought has been put into civ vetoes? I think it would be very interesting to see map vetoes play out, see a few non-tp maps in the map pool, and that being followed up with each player banning a civ. If you then saw India and say Russia banned, it could lead to more interesting matches. Players would have to be much more thoughtful on how they use each civ on which map. Likewise you could prevent 1000 German mirrors on Kamchatka.

[BrookG]

The advise I have is to be careful when deducing conclusions and assume our hypotheses are confirmed when using statistics. We might be biased and seek for confirmation of our biases, rather than looking for the truth.

There are some interesting stuff on the other sheet on the same issue. In Underused Cup, you can see Aztecs, Dutch and Japanese. Civ picks in non-TP maps depends firstly on what the players feel safer with and secondly on civ specific strengths. Indeed aggression is rewarding in these maps, but that is a big part of their design.

[Mitoe]

How much thought has been put into civ vetoes? I think it would be very interesting to see map vetoes play out, see a few non-tp maps in the map pool, and that being followed up with each player banning a civ. If you then saw India and say Russia banned, it could lead to more interesting matches. Players would have to be much more thoughtful on how they use each civ on which map. Likewise you could prevent 1000 German mirrors on Kamchatka.

The problem is that a lot of players (including top players) rely on one or two civs pretty heavily to succeed, and banning it just isn’t all that fair. Banning Kynesie’s Port for example would put him at a significant disadvantage.

[wardyb1]

How much thought has been put into civ vetoes? I think it would be very interesting to see map vetoes play out, see a few non-tp maps in the map pool, and that being followed up with each player banning a civ. If you then saw India and say Russia banned, it could lead to more interesting matches. Players would have to be much more thoughtful on how they use each civ on which map. Likewise you could prevent 1000 German mirrors on Kamchatka.

The problem is that a lot of players (including top players) rely on one or two civs pretty heavily to succeed, and banning it just isn’t all that fair. Banning Kynesie’s Port for example would put him at a significant disadvantage.

Isn't that kind of the idea though? Like we get to see who has deeper civ pools, arguably meaning they a partly a better player. But also I don't think it would be that unfair, because now Kynesie has forced a Port ban, where Ports aren't considered a top civ. Also it means Kynesie might be able to ban away a civ that would be a good counter pick to his Port. So his opponent is left with the choice of banning a top civ for the map pool, or being forced into using the ban on Ports. If you look at it from a MOBA perspective, most players/teams would be stoked to have certain picks need to be banned against them because they are so good at a character that it needs to be banned despite the meta.

I'm not saying I'm right or that it would solve the problems, but I would like to see it maybe explored a bit. Allows for bit more a meta shift without being forced to buff/nerf civs.

[[Armag] diarouga]

This is has been discussed many times and I don't think that banning civs is a good solution, it would lower the overall level as people wouldn't play their best civs.

[[Armag] diarouga]

It's not balanced around the maps, its balanced around the meta game. Regardless of having a TP or not, those maps are outside of the meta because you have to leave your main to get resources earlier than the generic maps. Maybe we should make more maps like this and thus the balance will naturally incorporate this as it becomes part of the meta game.

It is balanced around the maps, which is why most civs are viable on kamchatka/arkansas.
Low resources maps are just less interesting strategically than normal maps because you only have one option : take control of the map and sit until your opponent runs out of hunts. It's not hard to understand why Russia and India are so dominant on these maps.

[n0el]

I don't disagree with you, watching Russia and India BH in front of the opponent base is not fun to see.

But I would be more to argue, why not fix the reasons why they can do that, rather than simplify the map pool.

[Garja]

The problem with non TP maps is that there’s no alternative to TPs for xp generation.

If there was an alternative that was worth it early it clearly not worth it if you have a TP (so it wouldn’t affect balance on TP maps), that would go a long way towards making them more balanced.


Also can we delete Russia? This civ is in such a sad spot strategically. It’s mind-numbingly stale to play and to watch. Just the exact same thing every game because the alternatives suck too much.

The alternative is simply make units and get xp with that. Also xp is only a part of the game

[Hazza54321]

Yea lets just remove all civs that dont stick to the nr15 meta

[zoom]

The problem with non TP maps is that there’s no alternative to TPs for xp generation.

If there was an alternative that was worth it early it clearly not worth it if you have a TP (so it wouldn’t affect balance on TP maps), that would go a long way towards making them more balanced.


Also can we delete Russia? This civ is in such a sad spot strategically. It’s mind-numbingly stale to play and to watch. Just the exact same thing every game because the alternatives suck too much.

5 Cossacks seems a good part of that problem. As for TPs, it might be an option to nerf them, at some point, which could help balancing around them.

[zoom]

I don't disagree with you, watching Russia and India BH in front of the opponent base is not fun to see.

But I would be more to argue, why not fix the reasons why they can do that, rather than simplify the map pool.

Because it would take significant change, and some individuals aren't very receptive to that. I'm glad you and even Mitoe are starting to come around, though!

[Garja]

Buff xbows and you pretty much fixed most of the no TP related issues.

[deleted_user0]

In my opinion, we should have made tps 250w in the first place and balance the whole game reflecting that change. This would make the gap between tp and non-tp maps smaller.

Secondly, the problem with non-tp is that aztec/japan don't really feel very solid picks. They seem just a little bit weak in general. I can totally understand why you might avoid for example japan-rus MU in thar desert. One little mistake from japs, a little hole in the wall and you are totally fucked. Meanwhile, it is really easy to play it from Russian perspective.

I honestly didn't understand why India was so much played in Deccan. I can't really see what they can do versus otto or iro controlling the land side stagecoach super early.

[BrookG]

I moved the discussion here because I wanted to keep the content of stat thread to the bare minimum