|
Because town halls are 5 squares big and map sizes are in even numbers, it seems it's impossible to place an expansion in the middle of the map, equally accessible to both players, unless the map is diagonally symmetrical.
I checked how blizzard solved this on Ulrena, and to my suprise I found that they simply didn't. The two mid map bases on Ulrena are both 1 square closer to one of the players. However, I never heard anyone complain about this, so maybe it's not a big deal? The perfectionist in me shivers at the thought however...
My question is, do you find this acceptable? Is it ok to have a mid-map base be 1 square off? Or better yet, is there some kind of solution?
One solution I thought of is to simply have the space for the town hall be 1 square bigger, so that each player can place their town hall in the closer spot, but this would make the base have a slightly non-standard income as you'd get more far patches than normal.
You could counteract this by placing 4 close patches above or below the town hall (if the players are left and right on the map), and then 4 patches to either side. Depending on where the player places their town hall, 2 of the side patches will be close and 2 will be far, resulting in the standard 6,2 base. However, doing this I can't seem to fit any geysers in, so they'll end up being in the top/bottom opposite side of the minerals. It all results in a terribly wonky and ugly base design:
+ Show Spoiler +
Thoughts? Ideas? What is the best way to make a mid-map base in a non-diagonal map?
|
it's not ideal but i don't think a 1 tile difference will ever decide a game
|
|
|
there is no reason to counteract this 'issue'. main, nat and also thirds really should be the same, but a middle of the map base one unit off the balance does not favor one side that much. You can actually find solutions in terrain design to make the walking travel distance the same, by adjusting cliffs and blocking doodads accordingly. i did that on a sip map to have bases in the same distance that cannot be perfectly symmetrical dues to 'symmetry' issues (like in na 3p map).
|
solution: don't work on reflectional maps or place bases on the axis.
|
On September 27 2016 23:30 Meavis wrote:
solution: don't work on reflectional maps or place bases on the axis.
Real solution: don't give a fuck about it, because it's the most non-issue issue in map design. It's never impacted anything to any appreciable degree, ever. And it never will.
|
Other solution...
Expand map bounds by 1 cell in a direction.
|
Terrain can only be expanded in increments of 2 units, so 1 extra unit would just dangle awkwardly. If it worked that way it would probably already be a commonly practiced solution.
|
On September 28 2016 05:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 23:30 Meavis wrote:
solution: don't work on reflectional maps or place bases on the axis.
Real solution: don't give a fuck about it, because it's the most non-issue issue in map design. It's never impacted anything to any appreciable degree, ever. And it never will.
Be careful with that, that's too strong of an statement to make for an emergent game such as SC, there have been games won and lost by less than 1 hex of misplacement on a Townhall building.
That said, OP, just take the Ulrena approach, there is no option here, the other proposal of creating inefficiencies in the mineral lines in order to correct for said extra hex is the wrong way about it, because player's ease of understanding (of everything inside the game) is more important than having players win or lose based on what I just reprimanded NewSunshine for. Yes, there might be a case or many cases, where players might lose a game because you couldn't center the Town Hall to the map correctly, well, that's just life, you as creator and the player have no other efficient option which will not degenerate into other game issues, that's how it goes.
|
Well it's about as or even less significant than the larva advantage the player at the top of the map has in ZvZ. There are a lot of potential little imbalances even in seemingly symmetrical maps.
|
i don't see the "impossibility"?
if you draw the layout from the center outwards (complimenting both "sides" of the map exactly the same) ...?
then the hex you mentionned ends up on the border of the map, with no effect whatsoever (that is, if your map does not rely on the main expo being tucked against said edge/border of the map.. and even then, not much to talk about  )
Solution: main has to be 360° drop-able
=
# sc for 2016
|
On September 28 2016 12:19 Uvantak wrote:That said, OP, just take the Ulrena approach, there is no option here, the other proposal of creating inefficiencies in the mineral lines in order to correct for said extra hex is the wrong way about it, because player's ease of understanding (of everything inside the game) is more important than having players win or lose based on what I just reprimanded NewSunshine for. Yes, there might be a case or many cases, where players might lose a game because you couldn't center the Town Hall to the map correctly, well, that's just life, you as creator and the player have no other efficient option which will not degenerate into other game issues, that's how it goes.
Thanks for your input. I managed to make a base layout that works much better though. I think this results in a standard 6,2 income, let me know if I'm wrong. The only inefficiency is that one of the gases will be 1 unit further.
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm leaning towards using this setup because while I could agree with you on a map like Ulrena, this is a low econ map where this is the only 5th, and many games will probably be decided upon this base being sieged. Therefore I think it's important both players have the same distance from this base to a nearby ramp. That's the kind of thing that could decide a game, in my humble opinion. Still open to more input though!
|
On September 28 2016 19:57 fluidrone wrote:i don't see the "impossibility"? if you draw the layout from the center outwards (complimenting both "sides" of the map exactly the same) ...? then the hex you mentionned ends up on the border of the map, with no effect whatsoever (that is, if your map does not rely on the main expo being tucked against said edge/border of the map.. and even then, not much to talk about ) Solution: main has to be 360° drop-able = # sc for 2016
Cliffs only go in steps of 2 units, so it's not possible to do it this way, to my knowledge.
|
On September 28 2016 13:25 TheFish7 wrote:
Well it's about as or even less significant than the larva advantage the player at the top of the map has in ZvZ. There are a lot of potential little imbalances even in seemingly symmetrical maps.
U mean at the bottom?
|
Well, the player at the top has his larvae spawn at the bottom of his hatch, so closer to the middle and therefore less rush distance.
Other examples of tiny imbalance include but are not limited to
- Depending on map architecture, one player has a more clear view of units tucked out of view behind cliffs (less impactful in LotV due to the highlighting of units behind cliffs/doodads)
- The psychological impact of spawning at the bottom of the map, where it feels like your units are attacking uphill
- Right/Left handed players favoring moving their mouse in one direction (usually left to right) to select units and issue orders and how the architecture of the map interacts with this bias
- We've all seen the analyses on efficient gas mining even in symmetrical maps being asymmetrical
And so on. Personally I'd like to see more asymmetry in maps - mostly talking about aesthetics, map borders, maybe going to far as asymmetrical overlord pods or even los blockers.
|
On September 28 2016 12:19 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2016 05:17 NewSunshine wrote:On September 27 2016 23:30 Meavis wrote:
solution: don't work on reflectional maps or place bases on the axis.
Real solution: don't give a fuck about it, because it's the most non-issue issue in map design. It's never impacted anything to any appreciable degree, ever. And it never will. Be careful with that, that's too strong of an statement to make for an emergent game such as SC, there have been games won and lost by less than 1 hex of misplacement on a Townhall building.
Misplacing a town hall by 1 unit is much more impactful than the potential ramifications of available terrain on either side of a base that's off by 1 unit, it's lost income and therefore units. The extent of the asymmetry behind the mineral line is infinitesimal, and can be further offset by the particular manner in which you place the minerals themselves. Even in real science and engineering, there's an acceptable level of imprecision when it comes to certain things, because the impact of it being off slightly is frankly negligible. If you really want to be a purist about symmetry, start with the fact that the 2 players can play entirely different races. There's a level of asymmetry that's built into the game's core, and it really doesn't need to be ironed out.
|
On September 29 2016 08:36 TheFish7 wrote:
Well, the player at the top has his larvae spawn at the bottom of his hatch, so closer to the middle and therefore less rush distance.
I see. My argumentation was based on the thought that having the larva face the mineral line gives you an advantage in defending and mining.
|
|
|
Nice post Barrin, you forgot the 2x1 Minerals tho!
Anyhow, I consider that if the discussion had to go down the "imbalance" rabbit hole, we should do the important distinction between, "Imbalance", Asymmetry and Deterministic Imbalance/randomness.
A Mineral patch being 2x1 is both Deterministic and Asymmetric (for non-mirroed maps).
The Larvae in a Hatchery is both Random and Asymmetric, the larva movements/eggs might block close by Hexes that otherwise would be build-able.
Both of these situations can lead by Butterfly Effect into players getting behind or losing the game, be it by Deterministic mediums (Cannon Rush positioning is stronger behind a specific Natural base because of 2x1 Minerals), or a Z player can't position his Pool right in front of his hatchery so he can wall-off his Queen and be safe vs a 12 pooling opponent. Now because this issue was generated by a Non-deterministic factor (larvae movements) it can't be accounted for and planned in advance in order to avoid said incident.
Now here comes my biggest grudge when discussing these issues: A player doesn't have to lose the game in a spectacular manner for these things to become serious issues in my eyes. BW had TONS off Deterministic Imbalances which created balance issues on badly crafted maps, I'm sure many of us will remember the Reaver spot in the lower left Natural of Gaia as a specially problematic/map breaking issue. Now because this issue is Deterministic players can fairly easily develop a metagame around it. It does not make it "Ok", yet, unlike the Non-Deterministic Imbalance generated by Larvae or others, this kind of Deterministic Imbalances can also deepens and lengthens the lifespan of the map by adding this new layer of strategic thinking.
It could very easily be argued that such a layer like the Gaia natural do not make for a specially "interesting" area of strategic exploration, and that's a fair point, yet just by lengthening the strategic lifespan of the map by adding such features I would say that's a intrinsic value in and out of itself.
So, yeah. In my opinion I agree with NewSunshine and you Barrin regarding that things such as having a base 1 hex favoring a player can be done in a map without much issue, but I disagree that said things can be done without putting great care into how said deterministic imbalance affects all areas of the map, and this includes making 100% sure that said positioning imbalance does not show with units such as tanks or others. Because even when players might not lose a game because of a non-perfectly positioned Townhall, it will still affect the game by Butterfly Effect.
How many games have been lost because a certain player didn't had the 5 extra minerals to build an extra CC or Assimilator and avoid a defeat? I would say probably more than any of us can count.
Beware that I'm not saying to everything be frozen in place until all variables are accounted for because that's simply impossible. Instead, just like when I advocate care with Natural Mineral lines regarding cannon rushes, I advocate caution and care, be mindful that if a player on a tournament or wherever else loses a game because of Deterministic Imbalance such as a non-symmetrical town hall positioning, it was your decision as a Mapmaker and not because of oversight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MWK0BIR.png)
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/commons/images/6/6f/Gwangalli_Beach_LE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GMxBPBh.png)
