Jump to content

"Best for MP" map filter


Recommended Posts

Looks good to me. I've seen/played MP games on Harbor and Mediterranean, but probably better to put them in different categories (Maybe "Geographical and Special").

But some of the maps are quite similar e.g Ardennes forest, Schwarzwald, Mainland (temperate) or the Oasis ones. So is it worth including all of those?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oasis is a bad pick in my opinion. The map comes down to which team can sling a member to P2 faster for getting a quick warship out in the middle. After losing water it is impossible to fight back. Neareastern Badlands has the same kind of oasis in the middle but it has forests around the map. It'd be fine if they weren't so random, though, as it's quite likely for a player to spawn without any accessible forests. Syria has the same forest spawn issue. For Sahel Watering Holes I dislike the chokepointiness.

Some maps that are occasionally enough played on MP but aren't here: Ambush, Frontier.

Some maps that I personally like: Empire, Alpine Lakes, Latium, Ratumacos, Red Sea, Stronghold.

Kerala not being forced as Jungle biome would make that map much more frequently played.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would, but:

  • I don't think I'll have time for A25 and the current situation still seems suboptimal
  • There is something to be said for "sane defaults". Users making custom filters is not as easy, there are possible issues with sharing the filters efficiently, and so on. It seems good to have a basic option.

Hence the effort here. It will also promote good maps / focus efforts on balancing those maps, ideally.

I agree with the concerns over variety & will review the map list, and might take a look at tweaking a few settings on these maps for balance (such as maybe adding more metal?)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've updated the diff with the following list:

  • african_plains: somewhat crowded map
  • ardennes_forest: very crowded map, tons of wood, replacing 'deep forest' & schwarzwald
  • cantabrian_highlands: acropolis-start is different
  • continent: it's continent
  • corinthian_isthmus: I expect A25 to be less turtly, so should be good again
  • gulf_of_bothnia: different layout
  • hyrcanian_shores: picked over Kerala/pheonician levant
  • lake: different layout
  • mainland: it's mainland.
  • neareastern_badlands: Gonna add a little wood, but it seemed like an interesting gimmick to have a map with less wood but the oasis in the middle
  • persian_highlands: 'gold rush' layout
  • pyrenean_sierra: interesting layout as well
  • rivers: picked over guadalquivir river (which I find ugly)

My intention was to:

  • avoid redundant maps
  • Keep playable & somewhat balanced maps

I'll go over these to make sure they are actually playable, potentially add Biome support to a few, I'll see.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've merged the maps, as written earlier, I intend to check for some easy updates that improve these maps.

The list isn't frozen, feel free to suggest different things, I think some of this can be continued over Feature Freeze too.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wraitii said:

I also replied on the ticket:

Taking res away from the isthmus will take away a lot of the incentive to build in the center. The center will essentially become nothing but a bottleneck fight zone. This has its pros and cons and I don't have a strong opinion either way. I just want to flag it because it will change the map meta a bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A suggestion for Corithian Isthmus: to prevent turtling and encourage push, we can have a version with 2 or 3 land bridges. 

Perhaps we can make balanced mainland from the mod an official map. The current mainland can also benefit from denser woodlines with more trees in them. Tiny, small and Normal mainland have woodlines that are too small to last you through the game and you would be forced to expand riskily. You want to boom faster and focus on microing the battles instead of moving woodcutters. 

Continent allows from some sneaky naval strategies, but would be better if the ships don't get stuck. 

Schwarzwald is a good one but the food distribution is quite uneven. 

Guadalquivir River has been overlooked a lot. It is interesting for team games/cooperations, and allows for surprising strategies. (Hint: involving cothon and fireship)

Two seas is interesting; we can make a 4v4 version of it and add more resources. 

A lot of people (especially <1200) like Pyrenean Sierra (I don't). I guess there is something in its symmetry and sneaky naval moves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:

A suggestion for Corithian Isthmus: to prevent turtling and encourage push, we can have a version with 2 or 3 land bridges. 

I don't know what that would be, but it's definitely not an isthmus. ;) Better if it was a new map altogether with 2 or 3 lakes or ponds in a row or something similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yekaterina said:

Perhaps we can make balanced mainland from the mod an official map. The current mainland can also benefit from denser woodlines with more trees in them. Tiny, small and Normal mainland have woodlines that are too small to last you through the game and you would be forced to expand riskily. You want to boom faster and focus on microing the battles instead of moving woodcutters. 

Agreed. Forests in general are too small in the game, at least for the temperate biome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it turns out the default setting for 'createForests' creates a lot of rather small forests (about 3 * nbPlayer trees in each, so that's gonna be small).

I've made a diff to allow changing that and I'm likely going to change all 'best for MP' maps.

re Corinthian ishthmus -> I've discussed on the diff

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna still ping here -> I've made a semi-significant change to Corinthian Isthmus (very annoying word to write) -> All the stone spawns in the middle, and players start with a small stone mine. The intent is to defeat turtling without some fighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wraitii said:

Gonna still ping here -> I've made a semi-significant change to Corinthian Isthmus (very annoying word to write) -> All the stone spawns in the middle, and players start with a small stone mine. The intent is to defeat turtling without some fighting.

Nice idea, but perhaps metal would be more attractive as there are so many places to spend metal on but stone is only used for building. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

Anatolian Plateau I think is the worst map.

Absolutely. But it is not the worst if you are Mauryan or Ptolemy or Xiongnu, meaning it is extremely unfair for random civ draws. 

We need bigger clusters of wood for that map, also more hunt and mineral resources. Anatolia, being the home of the Hittites, should be much richer than that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wraitii said:

Gonna still ping here -> I've made a semi-significant change to Corinthian Isthmus (very annoying word to write) -> All the stone spawns in the middle, and players start with a small stone mine. The intent is to defeat turtling without some fighting.

If the idea is simply to discourage turtling, I would spawn no resources at all. The incentives to build a CC/colony (i.e., to get a strong defensive structure that also lets you build barracks, forts, and towers around it) exists whether there are or are not resources on the isthmus. Having any resources on the isthmus decreases the costs of building on the isthmus by giving men something to do while they wait for a fight to come (i.e., resources eliminate unit idle time after initial building is done) and potentially could also create natural resources barriers that make pathfinding an attack on a CC more difficult. 

Again, I don't care for bottleneck maps like this and I don't care what you all decide--I'm just trying to help by laying out arguments for/against. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general Corinthian isthmus is difficult for pushes, so most players like to turtle. It is the infamous title map, unless you do a sneaky naval attack early on. 

One way to improve is make the bridge wider, so pathfinding becomes less of an issue.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

If the idea is simply to discourage turtling, I would spawn no resources at all. The incentives to build a CC/colony (i.e., to get a strong defensive structure that also lets you build barracks, forts, and towers around it) exists whether there are or are not resources on the isthmus. Having any resources on the isthmus decreases the costs of building on the isthmus by giving men something to do while they wait for a fight to come (i.e., resources eliminate unit idle time after initial building is done) and potentially could also create natural resources barriers that make pathfinding an attack on a CC more difficult. 

Mh, fair point. I think I'll still lay most stone there & keep the small stone mine, but I'll have fewer stone mines in the isthmus, and I think i'll add a shallow region around the river where structures can't be built but where units can walk (thus also widening the land bridge), to overcome some of the turtle-ness there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...