Personally, I greatly prefer the new Arabia. Is closer to the classic old Arabia but better balanced.
It’s more open than the previous version. Other strategies are still possible beside ‘full feudal play’. Walling is just less overpowered now. To get a full wall going you have to invest into walls earlier so it’s a bigger investment. Might rarely be the best strategy at top level but there’s a big difference between having to mix in a bit of feudal play before going for another strategy on the one hand and supposedly ‘always having to go FULL feudal’ on the other hand. If anything, the depth is increased now. Before it was full wall or die. That’s not strategical deeper. IMO some people dislike this version just because some people aren’t good with change.
Now, it’s not perfect yet. I do have one quibble with the new Arabia: AI’s struggle on it sometimes because they get confused by the far wood lines. But that could be fixed with an AI update. No need to demolish the new EXTRA awesome version of the already awesome map.
Funny, because the new arabia is the perfect example that people tried to make a shortcut for their personal preferences without respecting the strategical balance of the game.
They demanded changes from the devs which destroyed the identity of the map that was the by far best map almost everybody liked.
And devs really thought that going down the permanent demandings of these people instead of telling them to make a popular map themselves that could replace arabia would lead to a better arabia.
The situation is only becaus people NOT willing to contribute themselves but only demanding for changes they don’t even understand how they work out and devs listening to them.
4 Likes
Im delighted to hear Hera has changed his mind knew it would happen. Imo most of the posters here that like the new Arabia are casuals. I wonder how this has affected the state of the player base with player counts now that the dlc has probably lost its novelty I guess for most
3 Likes
Can we just get the old arabia back, please?
And the solution to make feudal play more revarding (generally!) is either to get more value from map control or just reduce the castle age powerspike. Like for example with increasing the research time of castle age slightly so the feudal player has more time to damage the (drush) fc players eco with his feudal agression.
Please don’t change the best map of all just because drush FC has become a bit too strong there. Make changes that are sophisticated. Feudal play isn’t weak, it’s just the Castle age powerspike that is too strong in comparison and with drushes you can buy just enough time so the timespan for the feudal agression to pay of is too short. That’s all.
3 Likes
I disagree. I think current Arabia is more strategic than before and here’s why.
Before it was easy to wall, so scouts were usually useless and set the castle timer behind for scout player.
On the other hand easy walling slowed down the gameplay and allowed to turtle much more.
Now you need to make military early which is nice, because there’s action.
Games ends in feudal only when someone gets too greedy and goes up too fast while not maintaining the army.
Trushing is even more annyoing now because YOU KNOW that your opponent most probably went for a back woodline and it’s extremely easy to scout it.
For the same reason sneaks appear to be effective too.
The only bad thing about new Arabia is that you can get unfair hills in your base which might slow down your resource gather rate and obviously make you more vulnerable because hills can be from the front - although in this case part of the strategy is about reading the map and going aggressive if the map is crap.
2 Likes
The current allow more strategy than old one still the map is too predictable on wood, that’s the only real problem i got with the third gold as well but without it arabia would be probably near from perfect, was so tired to see everytime the same thing with old one…
Just picks Vikings chinese mayans maa archer defend while booming congratulation you know the most optimal play of old arabia almost every single time, you even don’t need to scout your map to know how you will played it you can do the same strat every single time even cav’s civs like franks were making quite a lot of maa archer then kts…
Yes this map is not perfect and need attention at the moment but old arabia will probably never comeback, at least i hope so.
Hills is the most interesting changes which get rid of flat ground and make finally other alternative as booming or all in completly.
What a complete nonsense. Basically everything of this is just wrong.
Ofc you are free to have your own opinion on everything, but deliberately stating bs is just… do you think in this forum is nobody in the higher elos to know that your statement is just complete bs?
And everybody from there can tell you that new arabia is far more predictable than the old one. And unfair, btw. The ressource and hill placement is sometimes just unfair, the woodlines are sometimes just unfair. Both them around your starting TCs and those who you try to use when expanding.
Sometimes you get perfectly placed woodlines to just cut the map in half, someimes they are placed so terrible that you can’t expand at all but basically must place your extra TCs so far away that you don’t get a connection.
Not even is the map worse in general, it is also often just unfair, cause often one player gets a perfect map and the other one a terrible one.
And I also heared from t90 yesterday that we will see it in the stats. There was some stats he sictated that arabia isn’t no. 1 in low (or even mid) elo anymore. And It had about 50 % playrate there before.
I hope devs will recognize that and finally come to the conclusion that they shouldn’t change the best map. They can try to learn from old arabia to make other maps better, maybe they even create a better map than arabia at some time. But who comes to the “genius” Idea to change the most loved map of all in such a drastic and ingeneered way? Do they really think they made arabia bad if it is the by far most liked map, just because some people always cry that it would be “too wallable” or “defensive” or whatever?
These people are just loud, but they don’t represent the community. The community chose Arabia because they like it as it is, not because they want it to be changed that drastically.
2 Likes
Im tired of you really..
Did you think that i said that without testing ?
I do not know any good player (and when is said any i said anyone for real, not just a few) that think the old arabia is near from balanced, they at place of it think that the current one need to be changed to remove this so predictable area so i don’t think i said “bs”. You said that you want strategy, that is exactly what new arabia tends to offer, that’s not perfect but it’s in the good way to do so more openings, more units viable and even more way of playing than the standard boom or all in
The only things which is bad is that predictable. i do question a lot other players as i know in stream discord etc and all the time the same responce : too predictable but that’s all, absolutely no one said that “this is full feudal all the time meta is to make so many stables and micro scout ! or all in 1tc only” THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE META , watch games of good players or play the game you will see very fast. more agressive ? yes ofc. only ? not at all.
As for unfair, i can see arguments for it especially in tournament but i don’t think it’s good to have mirror maps as you know wood always in the back ? So yes there will be always some map better than than the another that’s how the random generation works, and when this unfairess is adaptable and playable again especially for non tournaments maps that is completly fine but again this is a opinion on this point.
The only arguments you makes in many messages i saw was “no more straight tc boom all should be viable for the variety” which make the total opposite because if this thing is not pushiable easily then why make other thing ? Ah and the argument about hera like then dislike it! I do not know if that’s true but i don’t care that’s an authority argument.
Replace t90 by anyone else other than well know people and you never said that, plus i personnaly don’t care about numbers of winrate etc even if i really thinks that’s this don’t impact as much and if it does for certain civs , that’s because of the civ too weak not on the map.
I think your mixing up strategy for aggression. Try calm down when you reply cos your English gets very hard to understand I’m lost at most of what you say even though most of it is waffle.
The most simplest way to say that strategy is dead on current Arabia is that we’ve gone from roughly 8 viable opening strats down to 3-4. Even the castle age strategy is the same most games how is this not a reflection of how there’s less strategy involved currently?
Most people I’ve seen that like this map I can tell from the comments people that have come from predominantly team games and only know scout rush and arch rush and hate walls they don’t have the strategical knowledge when observing their opponents map that he is likely to go certain strats and can’t adjust their gameplan to this yet this adjustment is the most fundamental part of a strategy game: countering and anticipating what the foe will do. Now you know what they’ll do every game where’s the strategy gone? The extent of how much strategy is in this map now is if you see theyre stable their going scouts, if you see their range theyre going arch. The game tree of possible strats just died because most of its branches fell off.
Me ? if so i will try to do better.
What are these ? cause that’s total opposite for me, i see a lot of scout , maa even drush, forward…
the only opening which i don’t see anymore and don’t find it viable in most cases, is 1 ranges archer and defend, this opening was a strong one vs maa which were so omnipresent but now it’s so risky to make it even vs maa i think
But on the other way, still maa is good , scout are becoming viable, drush still viable especially for fc which was not that strong before, forward as well ( why do you want forward skirm spear or even archer against maa opening and fast walled?).
That’s not at all my case, i dislike tg for this very reason always archer + kts vs archers + kts
very very limited.
i don’t hate walls , i hate abusive walls , i mean when your opponent is doing nothing than that and only count on it. Being full wall is normal but when you only make economy and wall on multiple layers it’s normal to get punished.
1 Like
“This tier list is geared towards arabia, but not the new arabia version. The new arabia version is not great, like, the middle is just kinda wasteland, that changes too much about how the map is played, so… think of this as the old arabia, or what is currently like runestones”.
Either they make runestones a fixed map or arabia has to be reverted. What we have now is simply not arabia
6 Likes
I really suggest those players who said the new Arabia is good, don’t ever try to pursue or giving out “their” reasons, those are not reasons, it’s just their personal preference only.
And I agree someone said those are mostly “causal” players, they don’t really give a ■■■■ on the game’s fairness or competitive element, and sadly the developers are probably never able to justify which kind of suggestions in these forums are from “pro” or “noob”.
For this Arabia, it’s easy to create an extreme unfairness between 2 players.
I saw a game, one side 2 golds 2stons arent able to place a “nearby” TC because of the landscape.
I saw a game, one side 2golds 2 stones are all outside while the others have a secure gold and fruit within.
I saw many game, one side’s woodline is outside / only one wood line/ bugged no woodline.
Removed all the trees in the middle? it doesnt make sense at all.
Moved the 3rd gold away? doing the castle drop blocking the other 2nd gold and stone is pretty easy now.
1 Like
Elo is not an argument for this one.
I dont think this argument is only shared by casual player…
Wood and third gold need to be changed however i agree, but not because of unfairness which is fine because of the repetitive aspect.
Yes the new arabia is not perfect but the old one was worse in regards to variety at least for feudal and early castle. I take more pleasure than thinking to a strategy which works rather than just macro/micro better.
If you want old arabia play runestones and enjoy maa archer wall then booming almost every time.
I dont see many player on this map however.
It is the majority who are in favour of new Arabia are casuals. Just ask yourself how many pros do you think love the new Arabia? There is nothing wrong with casuals either btw or liking this version of Arabia it’s just that this Arabia sucks compared to old one for endless reasons. Imo the Devs should not pay as much attention to the forum as they should pay attention to pros and requesting their feedback it’s nice that we are heard but the trouble is the masses will lead us astray in this forum. It reminds me of the saying “the fool thinks himself a wise man and the wise man thinks himself the fool”.
Imo the Devs would be better served by making discord group with all the top pros
3 Likes
the pros already put feedback about balancing to the devs
1 Like
Still pros have about the same opinion, they don’t like wood for repetitive aspect but don’t like runestones as well as far as i know, i can be wrong however, i do not look as much pro player.
I saw a lot of people said that new arabia sucks but for why ? wood ? true it’s a change which is needed! BUT is the nature of the map being more open and (the most important for me) with more hills wrong ? I’m pretty sure it’s not, i mean wood and third gold fixed and then the map become near from perfect. Very few people said it’s a map with less variety and opening possible and viable and i’m pretty sure no pro players said that also.
Just look at some 2k+ games , games are heavily different in opening and ways of playing castle or even unit.
That’s the thing i’m pointing out when i said that this map is in a good spot.
Yes currently, wood in the back make it repetitive but that’s all with the third gold too far away. Unfairness in only unfair when you don’t adapt to your map, i saw numerous oponnents or player crying for ‘unplayable maps’ when they go in a straight boom after just 3 maa with only 5 skirm with no fletching to defend at 30 min… ofc the map is unplayable if you don’t react to it and play agressive when you need and play defensive when you need also. An arabia where you could do every time the same strategy is not an arabia.
And old arabia / runestone is not an arabia for me as opposed to the new one even currently with this repetitive wood.
Voobly arabia was unfair sometimes and way hardest to play that this one , i no want to play back on this one anymore but still the map was a real arabia : with different types of gameplay , opening , strategy possible. Again runestones do no promotes strategy and playing with braing its does promote good bo’s and good macro of doing the same exact thing every time.
Defensive playstyle was way too strong and adapting to the map not that much important.
Another perfect example about how current current Arabia creating unfairness.
I have seen a lot enough of this situation, I dont know why there’s a guy keep saying his “preference” without really reasonably think about what the real issue is.
TC close to Edge, Perfect woodline, with secure resources, super easy to wall
vs
TC far away from the Edge, okay woodline, only a inside stone, all other gold, fruit stone are outside.
1 Like
well now that map as Spanish… ouch. that has got to be a tough game… valuable lessons from such games though
actually I won this one.
I just kind of causally playing my games now, recently always using Huns with zero wall.
having fun with this, just dont quite care win or lose the game anymore as the game either with me having a super bad map, or the opponent having a tough one, or both.
I don’t really have any satisfaction now when I won and saw my opponent having a shity map.
Nice! Well done 
It feels very satisfying to grab a win like that
1 Like
