|
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."
-Go crazy Barrin ^^
+ Show Spoiler [What are these threads about anyways?] +
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 ^^
________________________________________________________
Understanding: Circle Syndrome
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
________________________________________________________
Barrin and Monitor have taken the time to address circle syndrome with great detail in these threads:
Circle Syndrome Thread - By Barrin
Expansion Layouts - By Monitor
|
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.
|
So happy this pops up right now, since i tried to find out what circle syndrome is, but i was unable to a definition of it anywhere.
|
"Understanding circle syndrome"
Nobody does, it is a lie 
|
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.
|
Isn't it basically where your bases are such that they're closer to your opponent's army than yours, so it makes it harder to defend them reasonably?
|
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 (:
|
Well, I mapped in BW and I honestly have no idea what Circle Syndrome is lol. Could someone explain?
|
its a conundrum.
people dont want too many bases on a map, herp.
people dont want bases too far away, derp.
solution, maps end up being circles. result, creativity goes out the window, maps end up all-looking-the-same.
|
I think we should all be more worried about horseshoe syndrome.
|
|
|
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 20 2012 03:43 RumbleBadger wrote:Show nested quote +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.
From Nightmarjoo's BW mapmaking guide
+ Show Spoiler + 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
Maps without CS:
TPW Vulture
ESV Equinox
Only owned expansions.
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).
And maps with CS:
Dual Sight
Bel'Shir Beach
ESV Deception
Fractured
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
