I believe the intention was for 6 player maps to be 50% bigger than 4 player maps, as 6 is 50% more than 4. 8 player maps were similarly intended to be 100% bigger as they have 100% more players than 4 player maps.
Instead the map sizes have wrongly been increased by 50% / 100% on both lengths, resulting in vastly larger maps than intended. 180x180 is 2.25x bigger than 120x120, and 220x220 is 3.36x bigger than 120x120.
Either that or the player counts and map sizes are mismatched, where medium is intended for 3v3 and large for 4v4.
Maybe it’s intended(can’t believe dev has such a poor math :D) but still worthy discussions. 2v2 and 4v4 gives me definitely different experience especially in the aspect of game tempo. In 4v4 you have to walk a long distance to reach the enemy so in most of the game players just keep constructing and waiting for 40 mins and tried to finish the game in a 5 mins 800 vs 800 fight, which is a tedious way of playing. Although I can understand that it takes 4x length to spawn 4 players in a row on the map compared to a 1v1, as each player need a proper width to construct, but it do push the way of playing to a slower and frustrating direction - it’s not fun to watch your city collapsed after a 40 minutes building game after all.
Some solutions to this:
- reduce the magnification multiplier to a certain degree
- change the map to a rectangle but not square to reduce the area and distance between opponents
Sure, it could be a mistake and they meant to increase the length of only one of the sides.
Whatever the cause may be, a simple mistake and some poor math makes more sense than the devs actually thinking the 3v3 and 4v4 map sizes are ok.
I agree, 3v3 is still okey, 4v4 is, most of the time, just way to big. One is forced to either do forward builds or directly go 2tc / fast castle.
Early aggression is kind of denied by the map size.
I think the devs acknowledge that map size for 3v3 and 4v4 are too big, that’s why in some maps like High View and Ancient Spire, they pushed the staring position closer to the center.
Agreed. 3v3 maps are way too big and this has pretty much eliminated feudal pressure as a strategy.
Never heard before that its tedious to have a 5 minute 800 vs 800 fight. There are plenty of maps for those that prefer the turbo games. The people that do the other ones dont care and like it that way…
I’ve actually had similar thoughts. The 3v3 maps ARE too big generally speaking.
Thanks all. I’ll take this feedback to the team.
You can’t just increase the length of one of the sides because then you don’t have a square anymore. They need to do their math based on area rather than perimeter.
play on a rushing map if a 40 mihnute game is too long instead of expecting others to be brought down to your level
thank you! pushing starting positions torwards the middle was a first nice step. Still more maps need the possibilty to play at least a little early agression.
@SavageEmpire566 any update on this regard? Maybe Im mistaken but did not see anything about the issue in the patch notes. It’s already 1 month since the report, and I know much people are already complaining about the team game imperial siege units meta; that could be affected by the map size.
Its heartbreaking in my personal case, I have friends leaving aoe 4 because they do not enjoy team games. This is a critical matter that should be addressed right now.
4v4 are just unplayable in most maps. I say unplayable because they all are leaning to the same strategy: fast castle/boom/wonder victory. Hill & Dale, Mongolian Heights, Boulder Bay, Confluence are some of these, for example (not even talked about Black Forest 'cus I don’t even enter that map, but can easily say its one of the worsts, since you can’t even chop trees with siege).
Anyways, please fix the map sizes, you could still have the bigger map sizes for lobbies like we had back in AoE2:DE.
Maps sizes are perfectly fine. They need to adjust the time for wonder win, o eliminate this mode, but I like big maps.