Random map auditing

[Atrik]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

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. 

Probably anywhere between 10-100MB for 100 maps? The random ones are often very light, almost half of it could be the preview image for some. If the game is 50MB lighter it's great, but I'll also tend to have nostalgia for maps I never played or played 3 times at max (aka the sunk cost fallacy)

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 hours ago, Stan` said:

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

Some rework is needed there.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I am most concerned about random maps. Skirmishes and scenarios are more responsible for being "pretty" imo, so if those should be reduced to ~40 maps of the upmost quality, I would be fine with it. With random maps, gameplay comes before beauty, so I'd hate to see good maps get junked because they look bad.

You will notice with my very first post taking aim at river archipelago, I made a fan of this map upset. Personally, I think its better to keep these seldom-used random maps in the game unless they are truly redundant like Kerala.

5 hours ago, Stan` said:

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

Well they already are in the options. With the quick-play mode, I meant to instead put a selection of the best maps into the limelight for new users to quickly get a taste of cool looking maps.

5 hours ago, Stan` said:

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.

Well, I'd argue not every random map needs an update. While I can only try to make maps pretty, I can definitely make them more enjoyable and balanced.

Edited January 14 by real_tabasco_sauce

[Lion.Kanzen]

I just played with the new migration map.

It's fun, has lots of fish and forest. I was able to invade the enemy island.

The game is good, the only thing I don't like is the control of the troops, it keeps offering me that they do what they want, I mean I know that with the stances you can   control better the unit behavior but, it still needs better control of troops.

I had fun with that, the map is fine.I wish all water maps were like this.

I was able to avoid doing a lot of farming.

[hyperion]

All random maps together are 1.3MB, all skirmish maps together are 17MB.

If you want to remove scenario maps and replace them with proper campaigns that would be nice.

My main criterion for the quality of the map is how different it plays from mainland. If you ask players who exclusively play mainland if they are fine removing non mainland maps you get skewed feedback.

Replacing in place doesn't make it any harder to update maps then first deleting them.

[Lion.Kanzen]

3 hours ago, hyperion said:

If you want to remove scenario maps and replace them with proper campaigns that would be nice.

 Or Replace them with pseudo campaign scenarios and challenges.

[Dunedan]

Any update regarding this?

I'd very much appreciate more quality over more quantity.

Maybe an approach to proceed would be to group certain similar maps and unify or only keep one of them.

[Dakara]

This topic is important, but please don't delete too many maps. I like the lack of wood for some cards, but it could be mentioned in the card description.
The new migration map is nice, but it clearly strays from the purpose of the migration; it's more of an island map.
I understand that we don't want to have multiple versions of the same map because we have to make choices. But I prefer quantity over quality. Let's keep quality for the scenarios.

It is possible to have a second version with gaia unit for some scenario?

If a card is not of interest, put it in a separate category.

 

Edited April 7 by Dakara

[Deicide4u]

"Bad" maps can be challenging and the imbalanced design can be viewed as additional fun factor, especially if the map is pretty or "looks cool".

Pompeii, for example, is a horrible map. But, it looks cool and the buildable layout provides some challenge to the player. A better criteria would be to either remove or update maps where the AI is broken. No use in keeping a map that's useless for SP.

[Dunedan]

14 minutes ago, Dakara said:

But I prefer quantity over quality. Let's keep quality for the scenarios.

Maps removed could be moved into a "all maps" mod, so they're still available if somebody really wants to play them.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

2 hours ago, Dunedan said:

Any update regarding this?

I'd very much appreciate more quality over more quantity.

Maybe an approach to proceed would be to group certain similar maps and unify or only keep one of them.

I think there first needs to be some change as to how the categories for the dropdown are set up. Right now one map category has to be called "Default" in order for it to be the default, which is not good.

after that the procedure should be to better organize existing maps like I tried to do, and then remove truly redundant maps like Kerala.

My thoughts are if there are only 10 to 20 maps per category. Things will be less overwhelming.

[Deicide4u]

We already have a filter for maps that are "Best for MP". We also have a filter for "Naval Maps" only. Default is just the same as "All Maps", if I'm seeing right. If you install "Community Maps" mod, it adds a filter for them.

Add in filters for "Random Naval Map" and "Random Land Map", and it won't be overwhelming. We can just mimic Age of Empires 2 for this, no need to make it complicated.

Edited April 7 by Deicide4u