|
I’m still a newbie in mapmaking and I’m far away of making good maps. Therefore I’m not in the right position to give anyone any advice. But I thought about an issue in mapmaking and I really want to hear your opinion about it. Perhaps this has already been discussed – then forget about it.
Since I haven’t found a catchy name up to now, I will call it “Front Line Aspect and Smart Harrassement” rating (= FLASH rating) cause it sounds quite nice 
What am I talking about?
I think FLASH is something which is part of the “Circling Syndrome” as well as “Fortress Syndrome”. “FLASH” describes the fact, that the defensive player always has a positional disadvantage, because he has to move his army to the area of the fight. I will give you an example what I mean:
This is probably the best position for your units: melee units in the front, range units behind - every unit can attack:
+ Show Spoiler +
Now imagine that player blue attacks an expansion of player red. Player red is like “holy crap, I have to defend” -> move attack towards the enemies army. Unfortunately player red is protoss, and as we all know stalkers are faster than zealots. This is what a fight would probably look like in the whorst case
+ Show Spoiler +
It’s clear, that red has a lower dps than blue.
To sum it up: The attacking player quite often has a positional advantage, if – and this is very important – he forces the defensive player to move his army to the place of fight.
Why is this important in mapmaking?
This is quite important, because a lot of fights go down near expansions. When I think about pro-games and noob-games it is pretty much the same: In the early- and mid-game most of the fights take place at expansion. Usually it lasts 25-35 minutes until there are some fights in the middle of the map. Therefore imo expansion placement is the way to rule this effect.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to eliminate the positional “dance”. Honestly I think this is an important part of the game and makes game interesting to watch. I only want to suggest a new rating system that can be posted in the map information to visualize this effect: the FLASH rating
What is the FLASH rating?
The FLASH rating is just a way to compare various maps concerning FLASH. It shows the number of attacking paths in contrast to the number of expansion you have. Sounds complicated (as my English is bad) but it is in fact really easy to evaluate. Example:
+ Show Spoiler +
I will give you some examples:
I suggest:
Small paths, destructible rocks: 0,5
Normal paths, small ramp to main base: 1
Xel’Naga Caverns would have a FLASH rate of 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 when you use the most common way of expand.
(I know there is a destructible rock, but I haven’t seen a single game where it was destroyed to attack the Natural from the side. But there could be a 1 / 2,5 / 3 / 4 rate as well.)
+ Show Spoiler +
Now think of the last games you saw or played on The Shattered Temple. In my opinion most of the games took place in the area in the middle (besides drops, wharp ins…). Why? Well, you can see that the FLASH rate is something like: 1 / 1 / 2 / 2,5 / 3 which is low. (I’m sorry for the bad quality, but I edited the picture two times and jpg-compression ruined it…)
+ Show Spoiler +
One more example: Arid Plateau. It’s nearly the same as Xel’Naga Caverns but I put all numbers and arrows together in one pic. Perhaps this is clearer for some persons:
+ Show Spoiler +
What is a good FLASH rating?
Actually I think a base – nat rating of 1/1 or 1/1,5 is good. Then it’s very map specific. Makro maps something like: 1/1/2/2/3 and fast maps perhaps around 1/1,5/2/3/4/4. But, yeah, let’s discuss
Problems
I think the FLASH rating is a good tool to give a short overview about the expansions and map style. BUT the distance between the paths is also a big deal (see “fortress syndrome”). The Shattered Temple and Antiga Shipyard would have nearly the same FLASH rate, but a 3rd expansion on Antiga is way more difficult to defend then on Shattered. In addition to this the FLASH rate differs when there are various ways to expand (like Arid Plateau)
Use
I think it could be quite useful to add the FLASH rate to a map description. Just like
Map Size: 136x136
XWT: 4
FLASH: 1/1/2/3,5/4
Discussion
What do you think?
Useless? Useful?
...?
// EDIT: what about FLAX rating (Front Line And eXpansion rating)? I don't want to hurt anyones feeling due to I used the name of a very pro-gamer...
|
please dont use the word flash, its already use for the best player of starcraft. too confusing please change.
|
Is it bad that I searched for what maps Flash had the best rating on? (Fortress has a pretty high Flash rating at 8-1). 
(Eye of the Storm tops that with 11-1; amazing!)
(Grand Line SE also has a Flash rating of 11-1. I guess this game is pretty easy actually.)
Seriously though, OP should pick a less confusing name, such as the Boxer rating or the Jaedong rating.
|
thank you, i try and use this method of looking at map to de termine problems that could arrise with maps i make.
|
It seems like a decent way to look at maps. Though I think there's a lot more to attack paths. Surface area at the back of the main, how close the main is to the third etc. Not all attacks are deathball at the front. And you forgot about the secret path on xel naga. Or would that not qualify as an attack path?
|
I think it's an interesting way to look at maps from a strategy point of view, but as far as classification, there are too many variables that you haven't addressed here: distance b/w bases, distance b/w attack paths, rush distance, width of chokes, xel'naga tower coverage, drop play, air play, differential expansion choices, etc.
It's a cool shorthand though, so it can help people make correct decisions more quickly.
|
haha i actually thought this thread is about a map where you play a few challenges and then you wil get a rating on how many times you have to improve to be as good as flash. Really neat name though i like it.
anyway if someone just move click then of course getting someone to move is a good move, but its not really hard to make stalkers stay behind zealots if you reposition. (its basically 1 simple click, that doesn't have to happen while the opponent is attacking) So more a problem of the player and not the map maker.
In general the defender will have the advantage especially if aoes are involved. Bringing them out of position by attacking somewhere else just decreases this advantage, but only because they let it happen, due to bad scouting or being lazy. But yes the map can make a repositioning of the opponent, that is attacking, easier to scout as it takes a longer time to do so (daybreak for example)
|
Interesting concept. Thanks for analyzing it.
|
The name F.L.A.S.H. is dumb.
+ Show Spoiler +The fact that you used Lee God Ho's name to describe an issue that only happens when you have your entire army on 1 hotkey makes me physically angry.
Also this is a scouting and unit control issue far more than a mapmaking.
In general, you're making something out of nothing. If you really want me to deconstruct it I will, but I don't really see the need.
|
You guys do understand that Flash borrowed his name from the preexisting word, and that the word "flash" does in fact exist in other contexts, right?
|
On January 25 2012 08:30 Chargelot wrote:
You guys do understand that Flash borrowed his name from the preexisting word, and that the word "flash" does in fact exist in other contexts, right?
Lies and Blasphemy.
|
On January 25 2012 08:30 Chargelot wrote:
You guys do understand that Flash borrowed his name from the preexisting word, and that the word "flash" does in fact exist in other contexts, right?
Oh yeah? Then what does "Jaedong" mean? QED man, QED.
|
So how do I get the best FLASH rating?! Must have!!
|
Why exactly do you believe that the simplification such a rating implies would be helpful to mappers or players? Since you are practically counting the frontlines a player with a certain base size would have to defend, why don't you leave it at that, but specify that this rating is to be used to assess the troubles a defending player might have because he might find himself in a pincer, with ranged units at front, or something like that?
|
Stuff like this is inevitably gonna happen when you base a name off the greatest player the game has ever seen. How about the JORDAN rating for basketball surfaces or the GRETZKY rating for ice quality?
|
On January 25 2012 09:16 SirKibbleX wrote:
Stuff like this is inevitably gonna happen when you base a name off the greatest player the game has ever seen. How about the JORDAN rating for basketball surfaces or the GRETZKY rating for ice quality?
Its not even that. This is a useless and meaningless metric.
|
Liquid Gold. This thread's responses have definitely lived up to my expectations. :D
|
This is exactly how I initially evaluate any expansion paths I make on maps. Then I start to go into stuff like air harass and drop harass and ranges and choke point width. This "FLASH" rating (I also would prefer a different name, even something simple like CPB for chokes per base) is essentially the basic way to look at map vulnerability.
It's very useful for learning the basics of map-making and also for establishing a standard for maps. I similarly think the standard is something like 1/1/2/3/4/4 for up to six bases. Although I think that depending on the choke sizes this is very much subject to change. A four base with two chokes can be fine if the chokes are large enough, but I personally think 3 is the way to go. Also I think 1.5 at the nat is fine, also. Even a 2.5 third isn't bad, it just has to be executed well.
For specific reasoning behind # of chokes per base:
+ Show Spoiler +For the main obvious one choke is a necessity. Some people like to play around with 1.5, but people hated the old Shakuras because of that, so I don't know if it's viable.
For two one choke at the nat is necessary for early defense, although like I said 1.5 isn't bad because rocks aren't going to break too fast.
For three is where it gets tricky. I prefer a macro style of map, so I think introducing one new choke is fine. Three if they are small and the bases limit other forms of harassment (see Cloud Kingdom).
For four bases another choke is fine (similar reasoning, but again a more debatable number).
For five bases four chokes is good. Going beyond four chokes really hurts toss and terran due to their more limited army mobility (especially toss).
For six bases the same four chokes should be kept as late game you don't want the players worrying over whether they can hold the expansion. They need (imo) to be able to get the expansion and use the income to keep producing their giant, awesome, clashing armies. Personally I just think the gameplay is best that way, although a well-placed more central expansion can create some fun dynamics with economy wars.
Well, that's my thoughts. Feel free to tear them apart.
|
personaly i like this, but the reason i came to this thread was because i thought this was a custom game that would rate you based on mini games.
|
lol, I have to admit that I haven't known the player Flash yet *shame on me* :D If I would have known that, I would absolutely choose another name (perhaps GRUBBY rating^^). But you can't negate that it is a catchy name whatsoever :D
allright... what about FLAX rating (Front Line And eXpansion rating)?
OT: another Flash:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2a5OW.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/u4OdH.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ePc5E.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n5ife.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WW1LU.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6aNaV.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/bigbangtheory/images/f/fb/4587d835564a8d64461.jpg)
