EPT[D] Circle Syndrome
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
monitor
United States2409 Posts
| ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
*Looks at current map project* "Crap, my map width is bigger than my map length. FFFFFUUUUUU..." But honestly, great post. Definitely can look at my maps more critically with these concepts. Edit: Also for Dr. Who fans: http://i.imgur.com/y002R.png | ||
|
DYEAlabaster
Canada1009 Posts
Apart from that, I LOVE the fact that this is presented in this way. I feel that there needs to be much more discussion over the nature of maps because it will prevent a stagnation in design, repetition, or falling into patterns. So all in all, huge props for writing this! | ||
|
whatthefat
United States918 Posts
I cannot actually describe what it is Hmm, this seems to be an ongoing theme with 'Circle Syndrome'. Can somebody please just provide a concise and coherent definition of Circle Syndrome? My current understanding is that Circle Syndrome is something like this: Maps in which most expansions (excluding main and natural) are ambiguous, i.e., approximately equidistant from both players' naturals. Is that correct? | ||
|
RumbleBadger
322 Posts
On January 20 2012 12:40 whatthefat wrote: Hmm, this seems to be an ongoing theme with 'Circle Syndrome'. Can somebody please just provide a concise and coherent definition of Circle Syndrome? My current understanding is that Circle Syndrome is something like this: Maps in which most expansions (excluding main and natural) are ambiguous, i.e., approximately equidistant from both players' naturals. Is that correct? That's the most prominent case of circle syndome, as in if that occurse there is likely circle syndrome (and vice versa). But like Barrin said, CS is too complicated to really boil down to one factor, although in my opinion what you listed is the major factor on most maps with circle syndrome. | ||
|
whatthefat
United States918 Posts
On January 20 2012 12:42 RumbleBadger wrote: That's the most prominent case of circle syndome, as in if that occurse there is likely circle syndrome (and vice versa). But like Barrin said, CS is too complicated to really boil down to one factor, although in my opinion what you listed is the major factor on most maps with circle syndrome. Okay, thank you. But if it's not possible to define it, I would argue that it isn't a useful term. | ||
|
monitor
United States2409 Posts
On January 20 2012 12:45 whatthefat wrote: Okay, thank you. But if it's not possible to define it, I would argue that it isn't a useful term. Actually I wrote a long thread about it, with a definition. Check it out. Noun: Circle Syndrome [sərkəl ˈsinˌdrōm] - a two player map expansion layout where each player can expand clockwise or counterclockwise around the map which results in the last base being in close proximity to the opponent | ||
|
whatthefat
United States918 Posts
On January 20 2012 12:47 monitor wrote: Actually I wrote a long thread about it, with a definition. Check it out. Noun: Circle Syndrome [sərkəl ˈsinˌdrōm] - a two player map expansion layout where each player can expand clockwise or counterclockwise around the map which results in the last base being in close proximity to the opponent As I understood it from Barrin's examples when he first discussed the idea, it's not just a matter of the last base being close to the opponent, it's all the potential expansions. I'm open to being corrected on that though. | ||
|
AdrianHealey
Belgium480 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
when i design my maps, my mind is ablaze with visions of BW. armies moving back and fourth, here and there, just generally all out mobile trying to have true map control (as defined as what your army actually covers, rather than how far your expos reach). as a result my maps have many 'paths' or 'corridors' to mimic this. BW maps are also full of expos all across the map, in the far reaches and corners, which can allow for any number of map designs; this is because 1) there are no warpgates - the reinforcement distance and time is larger compared to sc2 and 2) units are not as powerful or abusive, so these two things allow expos to stay alive longer and allow you to get reinforcements to try save that expo. in sc2, mappers must have a coherent understanding of distances and timings otherwise any number of sc2-specific aspects can cause severe upsets in the base layout and balance. thusly the easiest solution to this circle syndrome, having a progressive series of bases to take to allow for quick reinforcements for defense. take for example: in bw, cross map expos are a prevalent tactic for zerg to 1) hide expos 2) force long attack path for enemy, but do you see this much in sc2? why not? there are so many ways to abuse a lone zerg expo due to the design of the game, its just not worth it in the eyes of many players. the question is, can a paradigm shift in the way the game is played solve the above issues? or is the game's design too locked down to allow for these wild and varying maps? | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I remember when I watched the old GSL open 1 finals, Fruit Dealer vs Rainbow, and on the first map seeing Fruit Dealer expanding in opposite sides of the map, with good success. It's a shame this sort of play hasn't stuck around, and I wonder why. Have players gotten locked into a certain mindset or is this the best way to play the game? I guess as much as I think the players can make a change, they sometimes need a push. I don't think players think that much about making the game better like this, but they just do what it takes to win. Because of this, sometimes we have to use maps to force them to think in new ways. Crossfire is my go-to example, a map that is pretty non-standard, but the players learned how to play it and now it's pretty decent. Maybe what we need to do, as mappers, is not say "the games on this map turned out poorly, we need to scrap the idea," but rather be more stubborn and force the players to figure the map out so we can get the game to a better place. I think this might be one of the problems with the map making community (at least foreigners,) in general. That we are too soft and won't try to get the play to change to be better. Actually, the play seems to be slowly gravitating to be more a more like BW, and the maps as well. And I've actually noticed the similarities between the SC2 maps and the very old BW maps. This gives me confidence about the future. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On January 20 2012 14:59 a176 wrote: circle syndrome is a problem but not entirely because of bad design or bad designers. the problem manifests itself as a result of the way the game itself is played. that is, deathball syndrome, warpgate abuse, overly strong units. when i design my maps, my mind is ablaze with visions of BW. armies moving back and fourth, here and there, just generally all out mobile trying to have true map control (as defined as what your army actually covers, rather than how far your expos reach). as a result my maps have many 'paths' or 'corridors' to mimic this. BW maps are also full of expos all across the map, in the far reaches and corners, which can allow for any number of map designs; this is because 1) there are no warpgates - the reinforcement distance and time is larger compared to sc2 and 2) units are not as powerful or abusive, so these two things allow expos to stay alive longer and allow you to get reinforcements to try save that expo. in sc2, mappers must have a coherent understanding of distances and timings otherwise any number of sc2-specific aspects can cause severe upsets in the base layout and balance. thusly the easiest solution to this circle syndrome, having a progressive series of bases to take to allow for quick reinforcements for defense. take for example: in bw, cross map expos are a prevalent tactic for zerg to 1) hide expos 2) force long attack path for enemy, but do you see this much in sc2? why not? there are so many ways to abuse a lone zerg expo due to the design of the game, its just not worth it in the eyes of many players. the question is, can a paradigm shift in the way the game is played solve the above issues? or is the game's design too locked down to allow for these wild and varying maps? It will change, and in the meantime we should hold everyone's hands by making maps that are conducive to map control -- Daybreak is a decent example of a current map in popular competitive use that does this -- that gently nudge play in the direction of the paradigm shift you envision. SC2 is in a phase where there are lots of dangerous timings. As standard play is honed, all the windows will get smaller and smaller and players will be able to handle themselves with a high degree of security (actual and virtual map control -- safety) without overscouting, which is what you need to do now. Right now you have to have nearly perfect information of the enemy build or the enemy army position(s) to be safe. A partial mix is usually pretty unsafe. This will change for two reasons. First, players will learn what they must do to hold off which attacks. Second, attackers will begin to respect that the chance of committing serious damage is low, and there will be less flailing attacks. When you watch BW games, you see a lot of situations where the aggressor immediately pulls back after probing the enemy resistance, even if the defender looks weak. This is because the aggressor isn't attacking, he is just pressuring to obtain information and create space for himself. This sort of play is only exhibited in a very basic way in current SC2, but it's improving every day. The paradigm shift you envision will open up possibilities for maps, but not for a while, like years--also there are expansions coming out that throw all the standard knowledge out the window. edit: Also, there is a limit to the amount of acceptable circle syndrome, regardless, to use the en vogue terminology. <3 barrin | ||
|
mangoloid
100 Posts
Anyway, though some of this is puzzling, I am very happy to see an anlysis like this. If the mapping community can progress to more concrete terms for describing the way a map functions and potential problems, maps will definitely improve. I look forward to seeing Barrin expand and clarify his thoughts on resource "gravity," map control, and his template. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
G_Wen
Canada525 Posts
After reading it I did an analysis of my own map: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7PaJf.jpg) as you can see the length is a bit longer than the width by what feel like just the right amount in game. But when I played and got feedback from GM players I had one player mention that once a terran moves out (in zvt) it just feels like their army disappears. This was probably due to the lack of XWTs on the map. I think the length / width can be expanded to include the inclusion of XWTs since they effectively lengthen the map by proving an earlier warning for attacks. The more interesting analysis comes from the gravity of the map's expansions. From taking the standard third the corner base feels like a natural progression if you don't factor in the natural: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4Gtzl.jpg) But once you do the centre base feels like a viable option for the races that are better at holding ground and are less mobile: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dtyDw.jpg) The red and blue lines represent how far an army must move to deal with attacks on the extremities of the bases. Comparing these distances to the distances that the opponent has to travel to attack the extremities might be a more accurate measurement than just length and width when discussing how difficult it is to hold expansions although it takes significantly more time. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kcNqK.jpg) In this picture the pink is the defender's path to be able to deal with attack on both sides while red represents the attacker's path. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L4pyy.jpg) Notice how taking the central base changes these proportions completely. The defender has to move much less to deal with the attacker's threats except the central base has to take the brunt of an attack for a little longer since the attacker has a relatively faster way to attack that expansion than the other ones. This would explain why terrans and protoss favor the central expansions: lack of mobility and stronger static defenses. While Zergs tend to favor the corner expansion: more mobility and weaker static defenses. Overall I don't feel it suffers from Circle Syndrome due to the somewhat easy to hold third but I'm having a hard time deciding on this one since there are so many variables that are up in the air due to what races are playing what races. Of course the analysis can be taken much further when you add factors such as destructible rocks and XWTs. Both lengthen the length (make it easier for defenders) in most cases but in must be taken on a case by case basis. I think the mapping community is coming close to being able to move beyond simple analysis of size and distance thanks to this post. Also Barrin please bold the "Back to Circle Syndrome" part to hell and make it bright pink before the map making community becomes incredibly dismissive like this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=305363#2 Sure it's easy to say circle syndrome but now a days that's all I see when I run into a new map. People say circle syndrome and dismiss it without even comparing the merits of the map. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
| ||
