Map Archetypes

[AchromicWhite]

I think I've talked a bit about this before, in regards to multiplayer map making, but I wanted to show it again, if not.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/44lcxh/the_latest_weekly_update_asked_us_how_sc2_should/

This is an excellent way of thinking when creating your maps. It'll help to give a feel to a game as it takes place. Most of our mass player maps are simply roaming economy; and the reason I think that this happens is more due to people not understanding that they can make their maps in other ways. But while you might think that the emphasis on mass tib maps is "economy", you might find it more emphasises the roaming part, as rushes are plenty strong; though obviously for GDI, it's just not on the cards, as you cannot back your push with infantry.

It'd be nice to see some more maps that bring out different play styles, and I might try to have a crack at making some maps that have more than 2 players. I did start on a 3 player map, but the design work to get it even is DAMN hard. But I'm just busy at the moment.

Anyway. Have a look at those archetypes, maybe you can find some popular community maps that fit different archetypes.
Can you find all 9?

It's funny seeing maps categorised differently for different games, as well. For example, Quarry is based off of "Terraform", which you can see in the image as being labelled "Constricting Neutral", but "Quarry" is less constricting than some other maps, and is easy to open 3 refs due to the choke points. In C&C I'd probably label is Constricting Economy. Though, it is less constricting than one of my other maps "Canyon Pursuit", I still would not call it Neutral Economy. So it should be noted that even though a map can have emphasis certain aspects (or tactics), there can be maps which emphasise those even more.

There are other thoughts we can add to this for C&C, as well.
Infantry friendly:
 If we want to have infantry in play, then less tiberium favours that, but also WHERE the tiberium is plays a massive role. If the tiberium is through the middle of the field, then infantry must walk about, while mechanised units can move directly through. This often advantages Nod, as their units are mostly already quicker, but in this scenario, they also get a shorter attack path.

Flyer friendly:
If there are many walls through the middle, then this makes flyers more powerful, as they can pass over the walls. There have even been builds for such maps where people open with flyers, but not as a cheese... instead to harass to get ahead economicaly!
On some maps there isn't even a ground path TO your opponent! On maps like this you HAVE to use flyers!

Tank/splash friendly: Choke points favour more tanky units, as units are more likely to be forced into engagement, but also they favour splash units, as enemy units are more likely to clump up at those areas. This means that even in a match up such as Nod v Nod, which is usually favouring many light vehicles, we see many more light tanks and artillery... even flame tanks!

Macro friendly:
If the starting bases are in open areas, then to open with more refineries before getting into mechanised tech is more difficult, where a closed start position means you can access economic build more safely. 

Harassment/multi-prong attack friendly: If there are many resources around the start position, then there may not be a reason for someone to stretch their base. This means that all of their units can just be left at their base to defend while they build. If someone wants to attack the other person, they may not be able to do so without throwing in their entire army. This means that the game will just be about sitting in your base and seeing who can amass the most units. This usually favours GDI, unless there's so much tiberium that they cannot use infantry.
If, on the other hand, you make more limited tiberium near the start positions, and then place more tiberium in increasingly larger patches, the further away each patch is from the start position, then players will try to expand their base to capture more and more resources. This often makes for more exciting matches, as you're constantly trying to expand, attack and defend... all at once! Imagine a match between evenly skilled players, where each person is trying to keep their base under control while sowing chaos on the other!

If you have questions about map types and trying to emphasis certain play styles, maybe you can post below. I'd be happy to look at map designs people are working on.

[Darkstar387]

I can see this is going to be very productive.

[AchromicWhite]

Sorry about him. He's just pissy because I don't like him.

I'm just helping people to understand how different maps make for different games; and how archetypes predict that.
If you're new to this forum and reading this, just ignore chem, he's always like this.

There's nothing in here about forcing anyone to play in any way, nor about forcing people to make maps in any way. That's not the purpose of this. But just to Chem: if you could stop trying to derail threads and actually be productive in some way, that'd be great.

I lose to all sort of people. I don't care about that; though I don't recall the game you speak of. But this isn't the topic to bring this up on. If you have an issue with my behaviour, I suggest you take it up with another mod like Nyer, Funky etc.

[AchromicWhite]

You went into a lobby with the name "ONLY^WHITES"? How are you not permanently banned from this community already?
I'm just going to ignore you Chem, please don't spam here, I'm trying to expand ideas regarding map making.

Continuing on;
I've been thinking about this more today, and I think it's worth noting that there is almost a 3rd category. In SCII, base locations each have the same amount of resources at them. That is; there is a standard to how resources are placed. IF this was in C&C (which it's not), then it'd be like saying: "Each tiberium field should have 35 cells of tiberium on them", or something like that. We also have to take into account masses of tiberium on maps, not only in cases where it covers almost the entire map, but also for streams of tiberium (like on cn2mc's Twin Peaks).

So the actual amount of tiberium around the map plays a large part in this, also. This trend, though it means the game CAN carry on a long time, on an open map, it'd still mean that you'd be prone to early aggression; thereby making it hard to stabilise for longer games (so a map can have a lot of tiberium, but not be "economic"). On complete opposite, we could speak of a closed map, which would allow for early stabilisation, but if there isn't a lot of tiberium, you might not have a longer game. So, you can have an "economic map", which doesn't often play out into a long game, either.

So, should what we would call an 'economic' map, be called 'economic'? etc

So let's try this:
Safety vs Aggression (How open/closed your start positions are)
Roaming vs Constricting (How open/closed the parts between bases are)
Macro (More about how MUCH you are going to produce) vs Efficiency (More about WHAT you choose to produce).

[Messiah]

https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/4194-map-standards/

 

For me there also is an artisan factor in map making, so I make my maps very detailed and natural looking. In my maps, that artisan factor usually leads to more constricted maps which require some micro skills. Too, I usually avoid symmetric and/or square-shaped maps but try to keep it still balanced:

for all players,

for all sides

and to make it suitable for the most unit/infantry/etc types

which is the most different point (especially open-roaming maps seem to be tank rush maps where infantry and artillery is just cannon food). In my opinion, a good map maker has to manage these three points to make good maps.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Messiah

[AchromicWhite]

Yes, even with my own symmetrical maps, I try to make the cliffs have natural flows to them. I don't much like the big square ledges etc.

Well, on roaming maps, especially aggressive roaming maps, I find that it's light vehicles that are insane; as they're not restricted in any way. On more constricted maps, yes, you'll still open light vehicles and they certainly have their use through the game, but you'll transition into tank/artillery as the match goes on, to lock off chokes etc. Which creates more variety.

For making ti for 'all players', that's where it gets hard. Many people just want different things from that game, and I get that.

[Darkstar387]

I might take stab at multiplayer map making, just for kicks. My maps wouldn't be symmetrical, my priority would be to make them feel natural but asymmetrically balanced. What do you guys care most about in a competitive map?

Edited June 29, 2017 by Darkstar387

[Messiah]

You can consider parameters like

- similar amount of "starting tiberium" next to the player

- similar build space

- numbers and size of base entrances

- pathways, distance and access to further tiberium

- geographical features like cliff plateaus for artilleries etc

[AchromicWhite]

Everything Goat Messiah said, and...
-Some terrain to help hold rushes (else every game is just cheese, and then you just win/lose strait away... boring).

-Multiple entrances to bases, (this is NEEDED) makes the game interesting, because there are multiple entrances to attack/defend at. If not, then you already know you cannot attack, and so everyone sits around.

-No tiberium blocking the attack paths (can use infantry when moving across the map to attack etc).

-Tiberium in smaller fields. (Means you don't have to push infantry deep into tib to defend harvs, and harvs don't go wandering while harvesting... if tiberium is everywhere, the harvesters go for long walks).

-Tiberium fields to contest, as the game carries on (tib nearer the middle of the map, to fight over. Whoever holds it, gets the tib, gets more money, and wins the game. Gives more reason to NOT sit in your base, but instead to go out and fight. Blossom trees nearer the middle help this too).

 

[AchromicWhite]

On 30/06/2017 at 1:27 AM, Darkstar387 said:

I might take stab at multiplayer map making, just for kicks. My maps wouldn't be symmetrical, my priority would be to make them feel natural but asymmetrically balanced. What do you guys care most about in a competitive map?

One last thing on this...

The most balanced asymmetric map that I THINK was ever made was this:
https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/6382-mn-blistering-sands-2/

Ferret's Blistering Sands. This is the revised version of it that he made lately. You might also want to look up the original to see what he changed and have a little think about WHY such changes were made. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

[AchromicWhite]

On 03/08/2017 at 4:20 PM, chem said:

Not trying to be a troll although it could be misconstrued that way but why did you make the star craft map bottom right vs top left? The buggy spam from a nod player in bottom right will be OP for a GDI player in top left,? Also the nod player if he starts top left will have a speed disadvantage (being left) and a range disadvantage (being top) making the map unbalanced unfair and unfit for a 1v1 game which it was designed for. (as far as I can see unless you know something I do not?)

 

Which map are you talking about?

[AchromicWhite]

On 10/08/2017 at 5:23 AM, chem said:

Quarry

You made it top left vs bottom right

True, but the entrances to the bases, where you'd actually take a fight in that regard, have attack paths both above and below. So the attacker can choose where to attack from anyway.
And as the game plays out, you're most likely to fight on the outer ring. E vs W.

[AchromicWhite]

I guess you could consider that an advantage. But it depends on where the battles happen. I've found the map to be pretty fair over my time playing on it.

I usually try to stick with EvW, yeah. I think NvS is probably more unfair for the range issue.

[X3M]

You both make good maps. Just adjust the map if a certain starting position tends to win more times. 

 

If only, we could track the winning side for starting position. After playing 100 times on a map. You have enough statistical results to determine if the map needs to be adjusted.

Whether this is done by a programm or manually. It is up to cncnet.

 

Ps. I think we can learn a lot from SC/BW and SC2. And of course C&C3 which is rougly based in design on the Blizzard series.

[X3M]

Well, either way, it would be nice to see more maps where the MCV is already walled in with concrete. Except for the corners for being able to build.

No anoying APC/engi rush

[AchromicWhite]

On 12/5/2017 at 2:11 AM, X3M said:

You both make good maps. Just adjust the map if a certain starting position tends to win more times. 

 

If only, we could track the winning side for starting position. After playing 100 times on a map. You have enough statistical results to determine if the map needs to be adjusted.

Whether this is done by a programm or manually. It is up to cncnet.

 

Ps. I think we can learn a lot from SC/BW and SC2. And of course C&C3 which is rougly based in design on the Blizzard series.

Yeah, this is one of the reasons I wanted the ability to be able to publish maps, rather than just having lots of different versions floating around.
Even if you edit a map, other people will just use older versions.

By having all maps officially uploaded to a CnCNet list, we can make sure that each version is up to date, and can track things like win rates of positions and match ups. All sorts of data that could help us to map better.