Where does the popularity of 3v3 Rome origin from?
The question has actually two parts. First all one should ask himself if he believes that 3v3 is more popular / more played than 2v2. If we look Real-time play then this seems as true as it can be, on Multi-day it is relative, but still in my recollection it seems that 3v3 is in slight majority. But again in 2v2 Ladder there are twice the number of players than in 3v3. But 3v3 is still relatively new.

Why 3v3 seems somewhat more popular (whether in Real time or as well Multi-day) than 2v2, or why not 4v4?
To me it seems obvious that 2v2 to be second most played style after 1v1, but I think 3v3 may exceed it? Was it just the coincidence that Earth became 1v1 and Europe seemed too big for 2v2 and therefore 3v3 became norm on Europe and later one Rome to replace it due to size? Again at moment I can find more good 2v2 maps than 3v3 maps. What would be the real explanation for that? Does 2v2 lack enough team communication, fear of Alt-Farmers or else?

Secondly why Rome map is that Popular amongst 3v3 players?
Europe map was created in 2009 - as I can assume it was mainly played as 3v3 map, which historical background we can see even today. Rome map was created end of 2012 and as we know it is highest rated map in Warlight. Its popularity speaks itself, but are not there any equal 3v3 map? I can find more than few, and this is the part I do not understand - why so many people are stuck with 3v3 Rome concept?

Feel free to give your thoughts, comments and versions over the questions above?

To be honest I hated this map with a passion when I started Warlight. I joined a clan that played a lot of the map and I got used to it. I think why people enjoy this map is due to its size. It is perfect in terms of size. It is also very fun with different bonuses to be taken and many options. It also goes well with many different temps. I don't believe there is a RoR temp. Every temp is different depending on the players preference.

It is also a good basis for team games. As it requires a lot of coordination of the teamates. This is why it so popular in 3v3. With 4v4+ it gets a bit crowded. 2v2 is too much to cover and introduces a large element of luck. 3v3 Fits it perfectly, preferably with 4/5 picks of 4-7.

Yes the map is imbalanced, we all know this. However I see Rome as more for fun. It is a map that both newbies and experienced players both enjoy. The ability to mess with the bonuses is also fun. You have Parthian empire and Carth empire. It adds a different flavour to the game. As my good friend Farah put it "RoR will never be strategic, the map is imbalanced. It is a easy game of expand and attack. no mirroring or outside thinking needed".

I can't answer the origin as to its popularity. I think it may be due to the concept may have been unique and the visual effects, bonuses and size.

Edited 4/19/2016 20:04:40

Most likely the visual aspect and the superbonus/megabonus system. Every player could get his own superbonus.

Even if you are a not-so-good player and your team lost, you had fun cause you had probably a superbonus and was able to destroy an opponent before the opponental teams strongest player arrives and crushes you. Also there are a lot of tactics it seems for newer players on how to go for the superbonuses.

Regarding 3v3 in general vs 2v2 or 4v4, prior to the introduction of levels, non-members couldn't create games with more than 6 players. So 3v3 is the largest 2 team game that could be created. Due to that it became the norm which has persisted.

I don't like the standard way to play RoR which is with full distriubtion distribution since tactics get repetitive however when adding a ton of very small wastelands and random Warlords distribution I believe that RoR is superior than the overplayed Europe (overplayed for clan league). Of course "superior" is oppinion based however here some points:

- As I played the 3v3 Europe ladder I lost 2 games not due to my teammate getting booted. In both games I knew right after picks that I was in trouble and in the game against Qi I surrendered before he broke anything. Europe games get decided very fast and if you track down games that lasted longer you can see that the winning team was just playing out their victory / the losing team could have surrendered way earlier.

- Since good teams also go in RoR for map control you will see a good mixture of expansion vs fight when good teams face each other. Huge expansion should only happen when a team gets wiped out of a certain area. Also in Europe relatively huge expansion can happen (mainly when a team gets wiped from Russia) however again if you track then who won the game you should see that the winning team was just playing out their victory.

- Usually there is very little expansion going on in Europe games and unlucky players can feel disappointed having to play the whole game with 5 income since they have nowhere to expand.

- Of course also in RoR there is no comeback after getting completely destroyed. However the relatively open board allows for good fights with potential comebacks. Also Superbonuses can give a potential comeback.

Edited 4/19/2016 20:50:55

@Norman, can you link a game on a RoR template you like? I hate RoR, because I don't like full distribution, but I'd be interested in seeing what wasteland/warlord settings you use.

RoR is imbalanced, but since people know it is, more than one often pick in the same spot. Which makes them less OP. That's what's nice about full distribution on it: more than one person can choose the same spot.

@Norman, can you link a game on a RoR template you like? I hate RoR, because I don't like full distribution, but I'd be interested in seeing what wasteland/warlord settings you use.

Ah, sorry I just thought this through in my mind. However just take a standard RoR game floating around in the open games tab (usually 4 or 5 pick per player and full distribution), make it random warlords and add in... let's say 25 wastelands of size 3. The details aren't that important for me and depend upon what players are looking for in a game. If you are looking for more fights and less expansion then for example increase the wasteland size to 4 or increase the neutrals for territories in distribution.

Also those ton of small wastelands is just a personal thing of mine. Just adding more standard 6 wastelands of size 10 should be also fine to avoid completely repetitive strategies.

The RoR map is not very strategic, but it is fun. That is why it's the most popular map. People also prefer 3v3 on this map because it works great for those number of players, especially with the standard 5 picks per player.

I cant explain why, but you can add me to the list of the addicted to this map. Im not sure I would still be on WL without this map and for me, there is WL, and ROR. ROR could be a totally distinct game with all its variant / settings and still successful. But i dont enjoy ROR on 1v1 and so so on 2v2. I also dont enjoy ROR on less than 4 picks in manual distribution. With a strong preference for warlords, not so for wastelands. In random distribution 3 picks on 3v3 is perfect, 2 picks can be won by noobs on starting positions.

Edited 4/19/2016 21:58:47

2v2v2, full manual distribution, 4 picks. One of the funnest templates I know. 3v3 works too. 2v2 5 picks is my third favorite.

imo the map actually works for 2v2 to 5v5, and I'm sure a template could be made for 1v1.

The reason RoR is so popular is because it's so diverse. Take, Greece, for example. There is generally 1 universally accepted "good" template for Greece (discounting LLFD Greece, because that's on the second iteration of the map). For Europe, about 5 (Hold'Em, Szeuropa, Guiropa, 3v3 WR, 3v3 SR). For Battle Islands, 'bout 2 (MA, and regular). For Turkey, 2 (LD and regular). MME and ME have loads of variants.

I could go on, but point is: RoR works from 2 to 5, generally, and it's played with full distribution / warlords, different amount of picks, and lots of different variations where it becomes impossible to count them all.

Another factor, is that it unlocks so early. Lots more players get to 15 than say: 51 (Ancient Greece). Because of this, games are littered in open games with Rise of Rome.

The fact that it's at the top also helps. If a new player wants to find a good map, surely ratings work right? While that is half-right (Gui's France is rated only 3.8) not all the good maps are at the top! But, since it does play quite well, and it's at the top, players love to play the "best" (according to ratings) map!

---

Totally unrelated, but when scrolling through the maps to find good maps with low ratings I found this, haha.



Quite interesting!

Thanks Norman. Those were ideas that I've already had to improve it, but I was just wondering if there were any specific settings you had found to be especially good.

ROR can be a stupendously fun map, you just have to balance the number of picks for the number of players. So more picks when fewer players. Of course, the nature of the game can change drastically as the number of picks changes. I'm glad this map exists, I think I learned the most playing on this map and asking better players to puppet me :p

I like this map a lot, and i think it can be strategic. This tourney im playing have a good template, with random warlords, and a good amount of picks for the map:
https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer/Tournament?ID=16419

I played with wastelands, and its good too, like a lot (30 maybe) of 3 or 4, or some (10-15) wastelands of 6-10 armies (i like 6, because you have an option of taking the territory or not, if it can complete a superbonus for example, but you may chose not too).

Playing with random warlords can make the map a bit more balanced too, for two reasons:
1- The hard and normally worst superbonus (mainly Asia and Italia, sometimes Gallia and Macedonia, rarely Africa) become really good as counters or safe bonus;
2- The easy bonus are harder to finish, as you dont pick the best position for expanding, and the few can be disputed;

Also, the map is so played because:
1-Great rate, people will always try it;
2-Beautiful map, not too much information, the way the territories are drawn and the color is good too;
3-A lot of possible templates that people try and a lot of variety with the teams (different teams sizes, FFAs, diplomacy, multiple teams (like 2v2v2)). A lot of these templates are really bad, a lot are funny, a few can be funny and make you think a lot;
4-Even if your team is losing you will probably have more then +5, with a few bonus, maybe even a superbonus;
5-Its easier to do comebacks then some maps, as a superbonus can change everything;
6-Size is just perfect for 3v3;
7-The balance of bonus isnt perfect but its ok.

Thank you all for the insight. Well Template and particular settings is all new aspect to be touched. But lets focus on the Maps here. I am not arguing against Rome, because as stressed above it is good looking, decent size, Bonus-Superbonus-Megabonus concept. Imbalanced but still with strategic value if played with correct settings. I understand that Real-time requires a map that everyone knows by heart to facilitate Team-communication, strategical planning. But on Multi-day I often find new maps to be as interesting as old overplayed maps.

Secondly Rome is just one of the good maps, there are more than few good-looking, similar size but different concept maps. Alot of those give good competition to Rome map in my opinion, although I have rarely seen those to be played. That is what I am trying to understand, am I only one who feels that people are just stuck with Rome too much and feel comfort playing standardized maps, although there are relatively good maps to give a try as well.

5-minute search provided me with this:

Archaros
https://www.warlight.net/Map/17136-Archaros
Medium Azeroth
https://www.warlight.net/Map/9665-Medium-Azeroth
Pangea
- I dont like superbonuses here and negative wall territories, otherwise good.
https://www.warlight.net/Map/15568-Pangea
Battle of Vengance
- Maybe too much Capitals and Cities, but still good one even with those, because they are nicely distributed.
https://www.warlight.net/Map/18141-Battle-Vengeance
Fall of Jerusalem
https://www.warlight.net/Map/9359-Fall-Jerusalem-Crusades
Nashran REaches
https://www.warlight.net/Play?PreviewMap=16726
too big superbonuses
Rise of War
https://www.warlight.net/Play?PreviewMap=31064
Battle ISlands II
https://www.warlight.net/Play?PreviewMap=10795
K-PX
https://www.warlight.net/Map/8437-KPX

Jerusalem and ROR are done by the same guy

I think that shape of the map, and simply being a map of Roman Empire is a big factor. Note that there is another super popular Rome map, also used for that big variety of settings. Less advanced players like to play maps of specific places or countries, which is why US Big and Poland Big were super popular back in their day (most active players were from US or Poland).

@Nogals
- Yes, both are great maps. Jerusalem usually lasts longer on average in 3v3. But on all other aspects equally great, I prefer 4on4 in that mostly.

@Onoman94

What do you mean by "shape of map"? There is certain truth in fact that horizontal maps look better and are more friendlier to PC due to widescreens. Rome is in essence half-circular map if you look Britannia - Partha or Spain - Illicrum.

You mean the 2011 Kayn map https://www.warlight.net/Map/1173-Imperium-Romanum

Well I would not call them less advanced just because they prefer their home-country maps, its just a matter of preference. And Poland and US map popularity is obvious as you mentioned the number of playerbase.

But coming back to topic - Rome! Rome it is a great map, but for me the ones mentioned above are in smaller of bigger effect equally good. What I am trying to understand is: Warlight offers enormous amount of custom ability-functions in form of Maps as a space and Settings as a rule, but majority leans towards normative play-style? Same settings, same maps!

There will always be players who experiment different settings-maps etc. Try same settings on different maps, but what I conclude is that majority is stuck or simply prefers same stuff over-and-over again, nothing bad about it. But just trying to understand what is the conclusion. Because the fact, what I have heard countless of times, that Rome is ONLY-SINGLE good map to play 3v3 seems absolutely false to me.

I prefer Jerusalem (a great map btw) and RoR over Europe just because, while less balanced and strategical, there are (as someone mentioned) more chances to come back, and the artwork + historical bonuses make it fun.