Random map auditing

[Lion.Kanzen]

Some water maps should be larger than their counterparts.

[Gönndolsalv]

I agree, most water maps doesn´t feel very naval. In most cases water should be more that just an obstacle.

[Grautvornix]

1.) Water should always be usable for naval purposes (sideflank your enemy, access a new region, access new resources...)

2.) It might be an obstacle that can be crossed (by verssels anyway but also by bridges? Just saying...)   

 and also

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Would people be more opening to cutting back the number of maps for Release 28 if I strongly emphasize that this would be a temporary thing? Because then each release after that would include more of the excluded maps back in, this time much improved and held up to a common standard. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

34 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Would people be more opening to cutting back the number of maps for Release 28 if I strongly emphasize that this would be a temporary thing? Because then each release after that would include more of the excluded maps back in, this time much improved and held up to a common standard. 

 This must be repeated everywhere, even within the  game itself.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Would people be more opening to cutting back the number of maps for Release 28 if I strongly emphasize that this would be a temporary thing? Because then each release after that would include more of the excluded maps back in, this time much improved and held up to a common standard. 

why not instead just improve the maps without removing them first? We can certainly remove truly redundant maps.

If the concern is bloat and excess options confusing players, then a "quick play" option might be good with a pool of the maps and other options made more streamlined. This could be the basis for a ranked mode too.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 minute ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

why not instead just improve the maps without removing them first? We can certainly remove truly redundant maps.

If the concern is bloat and excess options confusing players, then a "quick play" option might be good with a pool of the maps and other options made more streamlined. This could be the basis for a ranked mode too.

The concern is also to put the best possible face forward with each release, not to maintain legacy stuff just for bulk content, if you know what I mean. To improve the average quality of the game and keep it high. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

Right, but removing a ton of stuff, even just temporarily, is not a great approach to that. We have new civs, UI improvements, options, and graphics that all contribute to quality.

I could improve at least 10 random maps by a28, probably more. If you do the same for skirmish maps, we are already close to "done". My point is it shouldn't be a big project or overhaul, but instead a continued effort to do better upkeep for maps.

[Lion.Kanzen]

7 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Right, but removing a ton of stuff, even just temporarily, is not a great approach to that. We have new civs, UI improvements, options, and graphics that all contribute to quality.

I could improve at least 10 random maps by a28, probably more. If you do the same for skirmish maps, we are already close to "done". My point is it shouldn't be a big project or overhaul, but instead a continued effort to do better upkeep for maps.

I think what wow means is that...some won't come back.

It's just a way of saying that they will come back if they are fixed, but they won't come back if they can't be fixed.

[chrstgtr]

47 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Right, but removing a ton of stuff, even just temporarily, is not a great approach to that.

Flashbacks to a24

[Lion.Kanzen]

It gives me ideas for making retro compatible mods.

That is, mods that bring classic mechanics from this same game.

Many still miss A23.

The slingers were very funny in that alpha, that was my fault and  Elexis' fault.

The thing is, I wanted a unit that was good against towers and armored units.

Similar to AoE I slingers.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

I'm done pushing for it. Do what you will.

[Lion.Kanzen]

54 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I'm done pushing for it. Do what you will.

 I wasn't serious, I hope don't bother you.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

 I wasn't serious, I hope don't bother you.

No, everyone else. We'll have 100+ maps of extremely variable quality because why not. 

Folks need to look into the sunk cost fallacy. 

[chrstgtr]

35 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

No, everyone else. We'll have 100+ maps of extremely variable quality because why not. 

Folks need to look into the sunk cost fallacy. 

All you have to do is ignore those. If a single person likes a single map that gets deleted then it is a net loss. 

But more to my point, we were promised a lot when a24 gutted the features everyone loved. We were told that they would come back and that this gutting was somehow necessary. Two alphas later and most people say the civs are still not differentiated as much as they were in a23. Additionally, virtually everyone hated a24. 

Anyways, I already said which maps I found utterly useless earlier in the thread. But that's just my opinion 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

3 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

If a single person likes a single map that gets deleted then it is a net loss.

Not if we are presenting them with an overall better experience. And if the presence of that map brings about a lesser experience for X+1 players, then we also have a net loss. 

 

3 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

But more to my point, we were promised a lot when a24 gutted the features everyone loved. We were told that they would come back and that this gutting was somehow necessary. Two alphas later and most people say the civs are still not differentiated as much as they were in a23. Additionally, virtually everyone hated a24. 

Well, most of the maps would return, or I die. So... 

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

29 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

But more to my point, we were promised a lot when a24 gutted the features everyone loved. We were told that they would come back and that this gutting was somehow necessary. Two alphas later and most people say the civs are still not differentiated as much as they were in a23. Additionally, virtually everyone hated a24. 

It would be nice to address that again. So many alphas that I can't remember what A23 looked like.

But this time it would be nice to have a list of good things, bad things and average things.

26 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Not if we are presenting them with an overall better experience. And if the presence of that map brings about a lesser experience for X+1 players, then we also have a net loss. 

 

Well, most of the maps would return, or I die. So... 

 

 

I think it would be good to keep them(keep them in a mod), there is a nostalgia factor and good memories.

It would also be nice if maps were easier to share and download.

[TheCJ]

3 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I think it would be good to keep them(keep them in a mod)

This is a great idea. Take out all the maps you believe don't have the necessary standard for 0ad and put them in a mod. If someone desperatly misses them, they can install the mod. If nobody misses them, the mod just won't get downloaded.

[Stan`]

We have:

• 81 random maps.
• 74 Scenario Maps
• 2 Tutorials
• 77 Skirmish Maps

If one uses the Replay Pallas as data for MP games, 80% of the 800 or so replays there use Mainland or Mainland Balanced.

1 minute ago, TheCJ said:

3 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

 

This is a great idea. Take out all the maps you believe don't have the necessary standard for 0ad and put them in a mod. If someone desperatly misses them, they can install the mod. If nobody misses them, the mod just won't get downloaded.

My plan originally was to ask @andy5995 to put them in the community maps mod.

So keep say 40-50 in the game and the rest into that mod.

Scenarios that are used to test or debug the game would go into a special mod yet to be named

Demo maps would go in a mod for modders.

4 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

 

But more to my point, we were promised a lot when a24 gutted the features everyone loved. We were told that they would come back and that this gutting was somehow necessary. Two alphas later and most people say the civs are still not differentiated as much as they were in a23. Additionally, virtually everyone hated a24. 

A24 also had a shitton of features. I've seen a few pople working on differientating civs again. Interestingly though the reason all civs have those three new buildings (and yet not the artillery towers was because we didn't waste the art I believe it was one of the biggest reasons civs lost differientation along with the people pushing for historicality. We had a weird combo on that alpha.

[Lion.Kanzen]

8 hours ago, Stan` said:

We have:

• 81 random maps.
• 74 Scenario Maps
• 2 Tutorials
• 77 Skirmish Maps

If one uses the Replay Pallas as data for MP games, 80% of the 800 or so replays there use Mainland or Mainland Balanced.

My plan originally was to ask @andy5995 to put them in the community maps mod.

So keep say 40-50 in the game and the rest into that mod.

Scenarios that are used to test or debug the game would go into a special mod yet to be named

Demo maps would go in a mod for modders.

A24 also had a shitton of features. I've seen a few pople working on differientating civs again. Interestingly though the reason all civs have those three new buildings (and yet not the artillery towers was because we didn't waste the art I believe it was one of the biggest reasons civs lost differientation along with the people pushing for historicality. We had a weird combo on that alpha.

There was also a faction standardization that alpha, the excuse was to standardize the factions because (supposedly) then from equality we could have a better balance and from there begin to differentiate.

The problem is that it was not followed well or it was not continued well, Nescio, who was in charge of that, introduced several changes especially in October-December 2020, by the time I returned the game had changed a lot.

After 2020 we formed the balance and gameplay team.

The ideal would be to return to 23 from the current state, I mean to balance with ideas from A23, not with the stats, but with the concepts.

I didn't like the standardization of range units.

Before, slingers were better or different and archers could also do a powerful rush to enemy bases.

Both archer and slinger became skirmishers in practice.

My other suggestion is to make tiers for each faction, specializing the factions either with technologies or in their base units, some should have more differentiated units than others.

What was done in A24 is to equalize everything as if it were AoE where all units except the unique ones were equal.

All spearmen are equal except hoplites.

All skirmishers are the same.

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

9 hours ago, Stan` said:

We have:

• 81 random maps.
• 74 Scenario Maps
• 2 Tutorials
• 77 Skirmish Maps

To be honest, its really not that many. The situation could be greatly improved without removal with: better organizing map categories like I tried to do ("Default" category problem), and folding 2,4,6, and 8 player versions of skirmish maps into one map. I think the redundant maps could be removed entirely, and maybe some of the niche maps like snowflake sea rocks could be a good fit for community maps.

Also, we haven't touched on what is a "quality" map. I think for random maps, playability is the most important aspect, with looks being secondary. However, for skirmish maps, appearance is more important than it is in random maps.

While some random maps do not look pretty, they are quite fun. I think for this reason and others, it would be just fine to have the highest quality maps be front and center to the user, like through quick play, but keep all the maps accessible in game setup and the map browser.

So my issue isn't with organizing and cleaning up maps, its just with the "remove first" approach.

Edited Monday at 17:49 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Lion.Kanzen]

27 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Also, we haven't touched on what is a "quality" map. I think for random maps, playability is the most important aspect, with looks being secondary. However, for skirmish maps, appearance is more important than it is in random maps.

It's not a bad idea to add a filter to sort them by quality.

[Stan`]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

11 hours ago, Stan` said:

•  

To be honest, its really not that many. The situation could be greatly improved without removal with: better organizing map categories like I tried to do ("Default" category problem), and folding 2,4,6, and 8 player versions of skirmish maps into one map. I think the redundant maps could be removed entirely, and maybe some of the niche maps like snowflake sea rocks could be a good fit for community maps.

Maybe I misread but are you advocating for removal without advocating for it ? I'm confused.

It's not that many yes. But if you consider ten maps per alpha updated with an alpha every year that's still about 25 years of upgrade.

My point isn't to burn all maps and start again. It's just let's consider the fun and most played maps and make them the prettiest we can and keep the rest in the community mod for people who need more.

Hiding maps behind options is as good as putting them in a mod IMHO. It also makes the download smaller which reduces costs with the bandwith and our finite server space.

Also most scenarios are broken and not really playable. A three map campaign by @Vantha would be a much better advertisement than 70 maps

Another problem we have is that most people making videos always pick the worst looking ones which is terrible for the game's image >< (Ducks behind the alpha label)

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, Stan&#x60; said:

Another problem we have is that most people making videos always pick the worst looking ones which is terrible for the game's image >< (Ducks behind the alpha label)

Most people put the first one that appears in their language.

[chrstgtr]

3 hours ago, Stan` said:

Hiding maps behind options is as good as putting them in a mod IMHO.

Eh. One requires a player to figure out mods exist, that a mod for maps specially exists, how to download/install mods, and them for the player to actually do all that, including determining its worth the hassle, etc. The other just requires them to do filters on the map selection screen. From experience, I can tell you players often don’t play maps that aren’t included in the base game even when they’re told the downloadable maps are good (see badsou maps experience before they were in com mod).

3 hours ago, Stan&#x60; said:

It also makes the download smaller which reduces costs with the bandwith and our finite server space.

This is pretty compelling if true. I can’t comment on specific numbers without seeing them but I have a hard time believing the additional maps actually take up much space/additional bandwidth. If I’m wrong and this is a real bursen then I agree with you Stan. 
 

3 hours ago, Stan&#x60; said:

Another problem we have is that most people making videos always pick the worst looking ones which is terrible for the game's image

Do we actually have any reason to believe these random YouTube videos drive any growth in the player base? I don’t pay much attention to them but it seems like every time I see one it is from a YouTuber with a few dozen subscribers and the 0AD video also gets just a few dozen views. Those type of videos aren’t leading player growth. I imagine most growth comes organically from someone googling “games like AOE” and from word of mouth.