| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On January 20 2012 10:30 Barrin wrote: btw Bel'Shir Beach Winter is well within the bounds of acceptable circle syndrome No way. To me it is one of the worst maps with circle syndrome! Tbh I'm writing a thread about this stuff right now... | ||
|
sCnDiamond
Germany340 Posts
On January 20 2012 10:33 monitor wrote: Looking forward to it!Tbh I'm writing a thread about this stuff right now... | ||
|
IronManSC
United States2119 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
The problem of final expansions being too close together is still in existence, but it's not that big of a deal. The last bases might not be taken, but that's not entirely a bad thing, considering these last bases might be different ones depending on how the players expand. This makes it dynamic, and makes all the expos useful in some situations but not others. This doesn't exactly feel right, to have unusable bases, but it's not inherently bad, so long as there are enough without them and it's not the same bases not being used in every single game. I think the map isn't entirely optimal, but the games on it don't seem to be affected negatively, by any means. It does cause interesting base-trade situations, where players have expanded in multiple directions and it is difficult to kill off all the bases. Of course base trades happen more often on the map than others due to the massive hole in the middle (which I think is cool to have on one map in the pool.) What is your definition of 'Circle Syndrome'? This is a hard question. Defining it, or even knowing it is there, is a difficult thing to do. I think the most obvious example of Circle Syndrome is when most the bases, or a good number of bases - not usually including main (except maybe on a map like Deception) and sometimes including the natural - form a circular shape on the map, where usually the bases are approximately spaced evenly throughout it. This can appear to a lesser extend, where the spacing could change. The circle itself doesn't have to be a circle, but only a closed loop, a rectangle or oval of some kind. The dividing line on this circle, where one player's bases end and the other player's bases begin, can be ambiguous, arguably a good thing for the sake of diversity. Typically the further apart these "last" bases for each player are, the less extreme the Circle Syndrome. Usually this correlates to the shape of the circuit. The shorter the sides where these bases are, the less space they will have between them. Usually you cannot keep an ambiguous dividing line while maintaining a large amount of distance between the bases. An exception would be Daybreak, where there are contested expansions but they are far enough from a base to either side that they are safe to take for either player. This circular shape is what would give Circle Syndrome it's name, so I think that's the best thing to define it by. Anything else would probably be considered a side-affect of Circle Syndrome. Thus I wouldn't say Circle Syndrome is inherently bad, by that definition, but it has the potential, and perhaps likelihood, to cause harmful side-affects. Why is circle syndrome a bad thing to have in a map? Well, as I just said, it has the potential to have side-affects which could negatively impact gameplay. It's not really tied to Racial balance, as far as I can see, so fortunately a little Circle Syndrome can't cause too much harm that way, but it can make for poor gameplay, usually meaning players will stick to a low number of bases, because the later ones are too close the opponent's later ones. Perhaps this could be countered by simply making a large map with a lot of bases, where all the bases would never be taken but you could still expand in either direction around the circle and, in any given game, any base might be used. I might even but a map like Tal Darim Altar into this category, at least in Cross Positions. On that map, you can expand in either direction, although the bases are a bit far apart because the map is so large, but you will almost never run into the opponent's expansions, just because that point is so far away and you will have so many bases, the likelyhood of reaching that point in a game is pretty low. It's not the best example, being a 4p map, but I think the concept has potential. How do you know if your map has circle syndrome? Well, I think you should look for these dividing lines, between the player's last expansions they take on the edges, once all bases have been taken. There may be multiple different possibilities for where these are, depending on how the game goes. If this results in any two bases of opposing sides being particularly close to each other, there is probably Circle Syndrome. There may be exceptions in some odd case where the circle is broken at some point other than the dividing line, but those bases are still the most viable option. This seems unlikely to me, and if it is possible, I think it would still cause the same issues as Circle Syndrome and might still be considered Circle Syndrome. If your map has circle syndrome, what are ways you can fix it? Adding bases not on the circle helps, because you give the players more bases to take. Islands or more central expansions are good. Typically the circle makes a ring around the edges of the map, excluding one corner for the main base. Alternate bases would be either outside or inside this circle. For the sake of diversity, it might be good to have some of both. Also making the points furthest from either player's main nice and long and spacing the bases apart there helps a lot. Really breaking the circle, by extending walk distance between two adjacent bases, right at the dividing line is good. It's also good to have multiple ways to split the map, and that is more complicated. Having a single base far from either adjacent base, like the contested bases on Daybreak, is a good way to do that. Daybreak also shows that the key "split points" on the map are right along the line which hits these expansions, and it's designed in a way that you could split with those bases going to either side. Usually you can use different vulnerabilities to encourage one player or the other to take them depending on the situation. What are the major problems that can occur if your map has circle syndrome? I guess I already sort of covered the problems I was thinking of above. I think there are more potential problems, though, and others can probably explain those better, as my understanding is limited. I think everyone sort of has their own ideas about what it is, so the communication about the subject are vague. It's also not very figured out, so we are all still just speculating at some of it, or not even trying to speculate at a lot of it. It's a fairly controversial subject. I will say that I don't think anyone should blindly believe Circle Syndrome is a bad thing, especially since the definition is so vague along with the fact that we really haven't seen it used to it's full potential yet. I think it could potentially just be a style of map, where, if done right, it is actually fine and the problems are minimal if they exist at all. I don't think the issues it has are practically as bad as they seem to be theoretically, or at least as much as some people make them out to be. We need more time to see for sure. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
To draw a parallel to help explain what I mean, think of a Settlers of Catan board. There are some great spots, some okay spots, and lots of bad spots for settlements. Because you can't have settlements in adjacent locations, the way players develop will close out possible locations based on how the game plays out. (This actually begins to occur during the placement phase.) The abundance of choices causes headaches for sure, but it's just part of the game. There are way more viable spots than can actually be used during the game. I haven't thought about it extensively, but I ask: is there a reason why SC2 can't have maps like this? (Yes, I realize there are all sorts of issues that arise but I mean, theoretically, used well, it is a legitimate design to have a map with bases that, depending on how the game plays out, will never be viable.) | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
On January 20 2012 15:40 EatThePath wrote: One thing that most people are overlooking is that there's no reason why every base on a map has to be usable. As long as there is an appropriate number of viable bases (imo at least 5 or 6 because zerg should be given ample late game room to play) there can be any number of additional neutral shitty circle syndromey bases. It irks all us designers because it seems like waste but it might be a very cool option to use in certain situations. To draw a parallel to help explain what I mean, think of a Settlers of Catan board. There are some great spots, some okay spots, and lots of bad spots for settlements. Because you can't have settlements in adjacent locations, the way players develop will close out possible locations based on how the game plays out. (This actually begins to occur during the placement phase.) The abundance of choices causes headaches for sure, but it's just part of the game. There are way more viable spots than can actually be used during the game. I haven't thought about it extensively, but I ask: is there a reason why SC2 can't have maps like this? (Yes, I realize there are all sorts of issues that arise but I mean, theoretically, used well, it is a legitimate design to have a map with bases that, depending on how the game plays out, will never be viable.) There is a very clear reason why bases have to be usable actually. If you've got bases that aren't useful, I'd almost say that the map is broken. Every space on the map should be useful in some way (map control, harassment, expanding, engaging, counterattacking, surrounding, or spotting drops), and if you can just put down 'neutral shitty bases' then that area needs to be redesigned so it is actually useful. Sometimes this can mean just adjusting the area and space around it, but other times it can mean scrapping the map. Otherwise you have a map that isn't fully functional because parts of it aren't useful. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On January 21 2012 03:36 monitor wrote: There is a very clear reason why bases have to be usable actually. If you've got bases that aren't useful, I'd almost say that the map is broken. Every space on the map should be useful in some way (map control, harassment, expanding, engaging, counterattacking, surrounding, or spotting drops), and if you can just put down 'neutral shitty bases' then that area needs to be redesigned so it is actually useful. Sometimes this can mean just adjusting the area and space around it, but other times it can mean scrapping the map. Otherwise you have a map that isn't fully functional because parts of it aren't useful. But why? | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
I think you know what I mean. + Show Spoiler [What I mean] + In case you don't, how many pro games have you seen that actually used the center half bases? I think I've seen 1.5 like that. While you might argue that the middle of the map is still being used for army movement, I would have to say "but there's a base there"... and most of the time it is not being used as a base. And yet in those 1.5 times it was used, it seemed to make a difference. There are plenty of instances like this in very popular maps. Some features are just not as used or useable as others. Should we strive to make every last feature useable? Maybe, in an idealist sense -- but every feature is still not going to be used every game even if every feature is quite user friendly. In that way, I could see purposefully adding a quirky unpopular feature that only WhiteRa or TLO will use on a TL attack without harming the integrity of the map. One day it will make it into pimpest plays when all of the useable features won't. @ EatThePath -- Nice Catan reference, btw.  | ||
|
SidianTheBard
United States2474 Posts
 | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs Reynor
Classic vs herO
IPSL
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
OSC
BSL 21
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
