It is time for our third map design topic for melee map-making. For the next few days, let's discuss circle syndrome. This is a bit of a touchy subject, but this is one of the most important details to pay attention to when it comes to melee map-making, because map concepts/layouts, play styles, and expansion patterns depend heavily on circle syndrome.
Map-makers, let's answer a few questions about circle syndrome for anyone who might be interested in melee map-making. I don't want to keep these threads for map-maker answers only however... any discussion on the topic matters! Please keep in mind that we are looking for more constructive answers rather than "just don't make bases in a giant circle."
For anyone who is unaware, these map design questions are specifically for map-makers to gather and give their perspectives and feedback on melee map design according to each topic. This has nothing to do with gameplay balance or player perspectives, but for map-maker's opinions and thoughts. In the end I'll make a nice collaboration thread containing all the topics ^^
What is your definition of 'Circle Syndrome'? Why is circle syndrome a bad thing to have in a map? How do you know if your map has circle syndrome? If your map has circle syndrome, what are ways you can fix it? What are the major problems that can occur if your map has circle syndrome? Optional: Provide at least one example of a map that displays circle syndrome
Im not sure what you mean? i guess ill wait till someone does the optional and shows a good example of a map doing this "syndrome" before i spout some stuff.
This thread should be interesting if only because someone will finally define it. I *think* the actual complaint is "ratio of defensive surface area to available resources is too large" which actually has little/nothing to do with circles. Korhal Compound has the bases arranged in an almost perfect circle and yet the map plays fine/great so clearly circular base arrangement is not the cause of whatever the ailment is (be it real or imagined). I mean no offense to anyone but I also think the problem is significantly overblown and also pushes mapmakers away from making maps with contested bases that can reasonably be taken by either player.
when someone says "CS" he is just to lazy to say what is really wrong with your map. And many aspects that can be regarded as adding up to "CS" are actually possible features, when done right.
so i think this thread leads nowhere except the OP says what he thinks and we can react to it.
imho we should rather discuss the Relation of (in most cases vertical and horizontal) openess axis, we should discuss areas of control for each base, we should discuss the distance betweenm bases and if it should increase or not, we should discuss last bases closer to opponent than to your base etc.
but we could also try to build some more maps and have some examples to show what we mean instead of talking
Hmmm, so i guess i have to call Ragoo and RumbleBadger. Feel free to use my map as an example, doodle around in paint. Is it that all outer expos are arranged in a circle? That's what i think it is at the moment, but i'm still not sure of it. Also, why is it a bad thing? What problems are caused by it in terms of gameplay? Please drop some knowledge.
I've been wondering this myself. Not only what is it exactly, but why was it ever a bad thing? I've been building my skills with this sort of knowledge in the back of my head, that being able to expand in 2 or 3 different directions was a good thing. But apparently, implementing this in a map just gives it circle syndrome. It could be some real issue, but I think it's more a way of saying "the expansion pattern isn't spelled out for me and I don't like that".
On January 19 2012 23:01 MisfortuneS Ghost wrote: that being able to expand in 2 or 3 different directions was a good thing. But apparently, implementing this in a map just gives it circle syndrome.
Exactly... and i really like when a map allows players different paths to expand. Especially since SC2 is lacking a lot of the area control units that Brood War had, i think it adds a lot to a map and can make for some interesting strategic decisions.
There's a lot of misinformation about Circle Syndrome and what it actually means. It's actually pretty simple and has been proven as a core concept in BW. I will try to answer all of these questions later (:
On January 19 2012 22:51 spinnaker wrote: Hmmm, so i guess i have to call Ragoo and RumbleBadger. Feel free to use my map as an example, doodle around in paint. Is it that all outer expos are arranged in a circle? That's what i think it is at the moment, but i'm still not sure of it. Also, why is it a bad thing? What problems are caused by it in terms of gameplay? Please drop some knowledge.
In this case the circle syndrome is because the bases are arranged in the circle (it's the easiest way to get circle syndrome, hence the name).
Your map has circle syndrome, but because of the number of bases, it's not as bad as I originally thought in that it won't really effect gameplay until each player has at least 3 bases (when a zerg will have four). Also the thirds are easy, which makes it not as bad.
Really the main circle syndrome factor is the low ground bases at the 4:30 and 10:30 positions. They cause circle syndrome because they are equidistant from both players, because they are close to possible fourths or thirds for both players, and because they are equidistant between the two bases on either side of them. These bases will, in short, never be taken. It is way too easy for both players to harass these bases and too difficult to take/hold them because they are so close to opponents bases.
An easy fix would be to either shift those bases to either side (would require an amount of reworking on the map) thus clearly showing who should have the base and who shouldn't, while still making the base harassable/pressurable. Or you could just remove the bases, but if you want 6 bases available to each player that probably isn't your top choice.
A more convoluted explanation of why these bases are troublesome: For a long time people liked bases equidistant between players as bases the players would contend over. While the idea of having the players battle over bases is good, having bases that no one will hold for more than 2 seconds is not good. Thus, the new goal is that each player knows what bases are 'theirs' but those bases can still be pressured. A player should be able to hold the base fine, if they put in a big enough commitment.
Sorry about my original post on your map thread, I was feeling way to lazy to explain all this, but I probably should have just sucked it up and done it, because now I'm doing it anyways. Hopefully it all makes sense, and I'll try to answer questions, but really Barrin is the only one who I think truly understands circle syndrome in its full extent. What I've said here is my understanding of circle syndrome, but it could be just my opinion (read: I think I'm right, but I might now be).
On January 19 2012 22:51 spinnaker wrote: Hmmm, so i guess i have to call Ragoo and RumbleBadger. Feel free to use my map as an example, doodle around in paint. Is it that all outer expos are arranged in a circle? That's what i think it is at the moment, but i'm still not sure of it. Also, why is it a bad thing? What problems are caused by it in terms of gameplay? Please drop some knowledge.
A more convoluted explanation of why these bases are troublesome: For a long time people liked bases equidistant between players as bases the players would contend over. While the idea of having the players battle over bases is good, having bases that no one will hold for more than 2 seconds is not good. Thus, the new goal is that each player knows what bases are 'theirs' but those bases can still be pressured. A player should be able to hold the base fine, if they put in a big enough commitment.
This is basically right. I think you got the idea
Btw I just said this was a proven concept in BW because most of the maps don't have any CS, and if they do only very little.
This is my personal opinion about Circle Syndrome, it might not match what Barrin had in mind when he created this word and it might be flawed.
What is your definition of 'Circle Syndrome'? Circle Syndrome is when the expansions in a map are placed in such a way that you end up expanding very close to your opponent's expansion (by ground). This also means that all the expansion have a similar distance from each other, and it's "viable" to expand from every expansion to another. Thus the name "Circle Syndrome" cause you can expand around the map and in both directions in a "circle" (obviously it doesn't have to be a circle).
I want to emphasize that ground distance (and vulnerability) is way morer important for this, your last base can be literally directly next to the opponent's main with only a small buffer inbetween, but this close air distance doesn't mean it's CS.
Also while many 4p rotational maps may have CS it doesn't really matter cause the amount of bases you can take is so big.
Basically you can say CS discourages expanding and encourages direct aggression.
An "owned" expansion is one nearer to one player. If you have an owned expansion, you must have another expansion for the other player(s) as well to be fair. You can vary positioning somewhat without hurting gameplay much, such as in (4)Fantasy, but it's safer to just mirror everything proportionally. A neutral expansion is one equally distanced between players, that players have the opportunity to fight over. Owned expansions tend to be favoured, part of it is that the distance to a neutral expo is almost inherently longer. Also, you need to have enough resources, and using neutral expansions usually reduces the total amount of expansions available.
You don't want your expansions too close to eachother, and you don't want two "owned" expansions owned by different players to be too close. Either pull the expo away, or make it a single neutral expansion. Exceptions for the former occur with the nat and 3rd base often, and for the latter with island and ground expos, which are more acceptable to have in close proximity than two ground expansions.
Why is circle syndrome a bad thing to have in a map? Later (last) expansions are almost impossible to take. So mostly you just don't take one and the game ends. If you want to expand then you only can do that when you defend it with your deathball all the time, forcing your enemy to have his deathball at his expansion as well. Obviously the close proximity just makes it very aggressive. Compare that to maps that don't have CS, the last bases are still "easy" to take and you don't come close to your enemy's base/army. In fact if your enemy attacks your last bases with his whole army he will put himself out of position, so instead it's encouraged to do small army movements/drops. And that's kinda what you want to encourage more, harrass and multitasking > 1a. Also the game just doesn't end because you can't take any more expansions, even tho there are still expansions.
But I would not call this "bad", I would say this is something most people currently don't want to see but you could design a map around it if you know what this will mean for the gameplay.
How do you know if your map has circle syndrome? As I basically explained before, just check if expanding in both directions is completely viable and you thus end up close to your enemy's expansion with your last expansion. If you want to avoid CS completely there should only be 2 types of exopansions: Owned expansions that only one player can really take and neutral expansions (in the middle) that nobody owns and that don't set you up to expand afterwards (into your opponent's expansions).
Bases that have little or no ground vulnerability (islands and bases that only have rly small chokes/1x ramps) can be in closer proximity to other bases while still being neutral.
If your map has circle syndrome, what are ways you can fix it? Simply avoid the things that cause Circle Syndrome. For every map it's something different. Generally it means deleting expansions, increasing distances between certain expansions or reducing ground vulnerability (like making an expansion an island takes it out of the normal expansion pattern and unable to cause any CS in most cases).
What are the major problems that can occur if your map has circle syndrome? Answered before.
Optional: Provide at least one example of a map that displays circle syndrome
Daybreak ESV Discord Mostly owned expansions, middle expansions are neutral.
Benzene Match Point Heartbreak Ridge Alternative Only owned expansions. You end up expanding close by air to your opponent's main, but as I said before this does not matter for CS. (Heartbreak Ridge has a winner expansion, an expansion you can only take when you already won basically).
Monte Cristo I didn't play BW but I assume that island belongs to the person who has his main next to it... if so then only owned expansions, if not the islands are neutral.
Loki II Destination Chupung-Ryeong Only owned expansions bar two neutral middle expansions (Chupung additionally has two winner expansions).
I think this is a good topic to talk about because in BW, this sort of thing was never discussed, but I can see that it's a legitimate problem here. When I look back at the BW maps, there were clearly player-owned expansions and only a few neutral expansions. Even when looking at the foreign made BW maps (that no one cares about), none of them had the number of neutral bases that a lot of SC2 maps had. For some reason, this problem only exists in SC2.
Interesting discussion. I'd like to hear mroe about it.
Thanks to Ragoo & RumbleBadger for sprinkling some wisdom. Until now i thought it's a good thing that players get into each other territories more after a certain amount of bases has been taken. I guess avoiding circle syndrome also means that the map will necessarily be split in a certain fashion or force players to take a certain expansion path. Some interesting input to think about indeed.
Well, I think Bel Shir Beach is interesting use of circle syndrome. The gap in the center sort of changes things. It emphasized the Circle Syndrome, almost to a point that it is a good thing. The circular aspect to the map is something players have to take into account, but they don't have a majorly wide central area to control. Rather, there are two smaller, but far apart areas to control.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
EPT
