Hey all. So I was in a game on greenbelt and I was thinking to myself why are some maps more popular than others, what is the most distinguishable difference between the maps that are regarded as the best and the maps that are regarded as the worst. I think I have found a hypothesis that not only relates to 1v1 maps of OpenRA but maps in every single multiplayer game.
Maps that have a system of 3 lanes no matter how the size are more popular and play better than maps that have more or less number of lanes.
To prove this lets have a look at the current most popular maps, I'll use Smittys list for his favorite maps as a start.
Smitty’s RAGL Map Pool Power Rankings
* No ranking for Crossfire, as I have yet to play a 1v1 match on it, though I’m sure it has entirely too much eco for a 1v1 map.
1. Sidestep
2. Warwind
3. Northwest Passage
4. Behind the Veil
5. Ore Lord (Spawns are unbalanced)
6. Tournament Island (Needs much less eco for 1v1)
7. Winter Storm
8. Dual Cold Front
9. Desert Rats
10. Keep Off the Grass 2
11. Being Hit by a Car
12. Singles
In Smittys maps, the top 7 maps all have the "Three Lane System". There are 3 distinguishable lanes of attack no matter how small or big they are. Orelord can be considered no lane because there are no features that make it look like a Three Lane system however there is still a distinguishable left,centre and right.
After Smitty's top 7, the maps don't have three lanes and judging from thoughts from players are the least liked. Dual cold front has 4 lanes splitting the map. Desert rats is the only anomaly to my theory however the lack of love could be down to the lack of eco and its small size. KOTG has 2 lanes and Singles has 1. From listening to other players singles has the largest dislike by far and it only has one lane. If we look at maps from outside the pool, a large number of players dislike maps such as Greenbelt - Greenbelt has 2 lanes. A map like Shadow fiend is generally liked - it has 3 lanes. Pit Fight is a new map by Km and its gaining alot of popularity and it also follows the system of having 3 lanes.
But this is not only for OpenRA
Dust 2 in Counter Strike is regarded as the best FPS competitive map and it has stood its ground for 10+ years. It follows the 3 lane system. In fact all maps in the CSGO map pool follow the 3 lane rule apart from Overpass, Cobblestone and Nuke - they're the only maps without 3 lanes and they are the most hated by the community. Call of Duty back in its prime all the maps had 3 lanes to go through.
DOTA 2 and League of Legends are both games built upon having 3 lanes and are some of the most popular games out there.
But why do I think this is happening?
If you look at singles, it has one lane. If this lane gets closed off and fortified there's nothing else to do there's no counter attacks at all its closed.
This is why 3 lanes are great. there are 3 routes you can get attacked from and you can only respond to 2 at a reasonable time. There's always options for counter attacks and for a large amount of the game one of these 3 lanes will be weak. In a 3 lane system you cannot divide your army into 3 and defend from an all in push it wont happen which is the beauty of the 3 lanes, there will always be a weak point. In a 2 lane system for example greenbelt there are 2 ways to attack and you could with heavy losses divide your army in two and hold both sides from an all in push.
For above 3 lane sytems however there becomes too many lanes to defend at once so theres plenty of weak spots which bring map rating down but not at the drastic rate of 2 or 1. For example dual cold front has alot of lanes and plenty of weakpoints but is still a very popular map however many will probably agree that maps like Sidestep and Warwind are slightly better.
In conclusion while this post is short for detail needed to prove this type of hypothesis, in my opinion and thoughts the best 1v1 maps are the ones that follow the three lane principle of having a left, center and right. I invite anyone to disprove me or to confirm me because I'm really interested to see if this is correct and if it is shown in the map contest currently underway.
1v1 Maps exposed? - The Three Lane Theory by Rexxy
Re: 1v1 Maps exposed? - The Three Lane Theory by Rexxy
I have a disciple! Wooooooooo!Rexxy wrote: ↑ To prove this lets have a look at the current most popular maps, I'll use Smittys list for his favorite maps as a start.
Some nice discussion of maps lately
I'd agree with this idea in principle. A further, maybe obvious, note is that the lanes should generally be wide enough to allow groups of units to travel though them and manoeuvre. The TD 4v4 map Nullpeter employs lanes, but these come down to tiny, easily defensible choke points which does put me off of it somewhat.
Most of my maps are 4v4s for TD (clearly a little different to 1v1s), but in designing them I've tended to think in terms of lanes and 'strips'. Ie, you can divide the map into strips: two starting strips, two expansion strips and one central conflict strip. Along with that, lanes which run across the strips: around four to six or seven lanes to allow for conflict, manoeuvre and flanking. Usually including a narrow flanking lane running across the map edge.
I also think that it can be nice to place capturables along the map edges or in the corners to draw a bit of attention to these areas.
If you think about the map as an interlinking system of strips and lanes like this you'll usually produce something that is at least playable, I believe. My maps are a little simple in their layouts I guess, but this is how I've approaching putting them together.
If a map has too many lanes then it will start to become a bit laborious keeping track of it all and, perhaps, dilute the importance of any one route in a way that makes the game a little less exciting. Three is a nice easy number to track mentally while still allowing for some variety in strategic decision making, ie push here, defend there, flank here, etc. So yeah, I think I'd certainly agree with the ideas presented here
I'd agree with this idea in principle. A further, maybe obvious, note is that the lanes should generally be wide enough to allow groups of units to travel though them and manoeuvre. The TD 4v4 map Nullpeter employs lanes, but these come down to tiny, easily defensible choke points which does put me off of it somewhat.
Most of my maps are 4v4s for TD (clearly a little different to 1v1s), but in designing them I've tended to think in terms of lanes and 'strips'. Ie, you can divide the map into strips: two starting strips, two expansion strips and one central conflict strip. Along with that, lanes which run across the strips: around four to six or seven lanes to allow for conflict, manoeuvre and flanking. Usually including a narrow flanking lane running across the map edge.
I also think that it can be nice to place capturables along the map edges or in the corners to draw a bit of attention to these areas.
If you think about the map as an interlinking system of strips and lanes like this you'll usually produce something that is at least playable, I believe. My maps are a little simple in their layouts I guess, but this is how I've approaching putting them together.
If a map has too many lanes then it will start to become a bit laborious keeping track of it all and, perhaps, dilute the importance of any one route in a way that makes the game a little less exciting. Three is a nice easy number to track mentally while still allowing for some variety in strategic decision making, ie push here, defend there, flank here, etc. So yeah, I think I'd certainly agree with the ideas presented here
Good topic; great idea taking Smitty's list and using that as an initial validation. I have some observations:
First, what are your alternate hypotheses? i.e. the other indicators of map quality that are (you think) inferior to the test 'does it have three lanes'.
I can think of a number of plausible hypotheses:
1. Number of lanes is correlated with quality (i.e. more is better, why stop at 3)
2. Overall size of interaction area is correlated with quality (essentially the sum of the widths of the chokiest point in each lane)
3. Size of ore-free traversable middle ground is correlated with quality
I'd say that any of these - or better, some combination of these - would do a reasonable job of separating the good from the bad as a rule of thumb.
Second, I want to dispute some of your categorisation of the maps:
- Claiming Warwind is three-lane is dubious: the middle is divided by the water.
- You say Greenbelt is two lanes but it's got a central passage just like Sidestep.
- Sidestep itself is arguably five-lane as there are routes around the top and bottom middle ores.
- Behind the Veil is more like four lanes (six if you include the narrow cliff routes). Version 2 which has generally been well-received adds two extra routes at the edge (and gets rid of the cliff routes)
Third, I'd encourage you to think a bit more about what makes a lane a lane and how this affects your hypothesis. Synergy arguably has four lanes, but in practice units interact over a single cliff. Is it barriers or physical space? River Crossing has two rivers with lots of bridges which makes the lanes porous, and a similar thing applies to the centre in Behind the Veil. How long do the lanes need to be? Warwind I've already mentioned - it's four in the middle but maybe three if you draw the line in a different place.
If you're thinking of a map, I wouldn't disagree that having three lanes is a perfectly viable basis for a design. But I suspect focussing on that - or relying on that - is misleading.
First, what are your alternate hypotheses? i.e. the other indicators of map quality that are (you think) inferior to the test 'does it have three lanes'.
I can think of a number of plausible hypotheses:
1. Number of lanes is correlated with quality (i.e. more is better, why stop at 3)
2. Overall size of interaction area is correlated with quality (essentially the sum of the widths of the chokiest point in each lane)
3. Size of ore-free traversable middle ground is correlated with quality
I'd say that any of these - or better, some combination of these - would do a reasonable job of separating the good from the bad as a rule of thumb.
Second, I want to dispute some of your categorisation of the maps:
- Claiming Warwind is three-lane is dubious: the middle is divided by the water.
- You say Greenbelt is two lanes but it's got a central passage just like Sidestep.
- Sidestep itself is arguably five-lane as there are routes around the top and bottom middle ores.
- Behind the Veil is more like four lanes (six if you include the narrow cliff routes). Version 2 which has generally been well-received adds two extra routes at the edge (and gets rid of the cliff routes)
Third, I'd encourage you to think a bit more about what makes a lane a lane and how this affects your hypothesis. Synergy arguably has four lanes, but in practice units interact over a single cliff. Is it barriers or physical space? River Crossing has two rivers with lots of bridges which makes the lanes porous, and a similar thing applies to the centre in Behind the Veil. How long do the lanes need to be? Warwind I've already mentioned - it's four in the middle but maybe three if you draw the line in a different place.
If you're thinking of a map, I wouldn't disagree that having three lanes is a perfectly viable basis for a design. But I suspect focussing on that - or relying on that - is misleading.
Thank you for your replies and of course im a follower of the church of Smitty 
In reply to crlf's points I didnt actually think of a definition of a lane and after talking to crlf in game as well as listening to over players I've came to a definition that a lane is an area of the map that can be locked down with a single MCV that isn't apart of a base push.
With this definition Warwind and Sidestep would be considered 3 lanes because the mcvs can be placed middle left and right (top and bottom in War winds case)
In respect to Greenbelt while yes it does have a passage I have never once seen a player use it and I didn't even know it existed, the choke seems so small aswell that it doesn't seem worthwhile whether it counts or not im unsure.
Behind the Veil V2 is actually a good point as Lorry driver was asking for a 5 lane map and V2 technically through this definition is 5 lanes because the expansions can be taken by either player with extra paths and be locked down, its also very hard to lock down both ore patches with the single MCV.
In reply to crlf's points I didnt actually think of a definition of a lane and after talking to crlf in game as well as listening to over players I've came to a definition that a lane is an area of the map that can be locked down with a single MCV that isn't apart of a base push.
With this definition Warwind and Sidestep would be considered 3 lanes because the mcvs can be placed middle left and right (top and bottom in War winds case)
In respect to Greenbelt while yes it does have a passage I have never once seen a player use it and I didn't even know it existed, the choke seems so small aswell that it doesn't seem worthwhile whether it counts or not im unsure.
Behind the Veil V2 is actually a good point as Lorry driver was asking for a 5 lane map and V2 technically through this definition is 5 lanes because the expansions can be taken by either player with extra paths and be locked down, its also very hard to lock down both ore patches with the single MCV.
crlf's post above makes some good points
Even in thinking about a map in terms of three lanes being an optimal number, there's going to be additional things to consider (apart from the point of variety: even if three is 'optimal', sometimes you may feel like playing something different)
1. Number of lanes is correlated with quality (i.e. more is better, why stop at 3)
I think the goal ultimately is going to be produce something that allows for interesting, balanced strategic gameplay while also being simple enough to process quickly and easily as the game is played. If three is good, might thirty be better? Well, probably not: even if it's well designed, it'll be too much for an individual player to make sense of. Or at least, the player may need to able to cut the lanes down into bundles, ie of ten in a hypothetical thirty-lane map.
2. Overall size of interaction area is correlated with quality (essentially the sum of the widths of the chokiest point in each lane)
This is another good point, maybe obvious to many here but certainly something to consider in the context of this conversation. I think most here would agree that the most three-lanest map ever wouldn't be a great deal of fun to play if each lane were a single square wide and fifty squares long.
3. Size of ore-free traversable middle ground is correlated with quality
Another good point not touched on as much in OP but surely relevant to the discussion. A big enough open area may naturally create something like lanes within itself as gameplay progresses, even without explicit map features to encourage this other than sheer area?
Ore placement is obv. also important. Lots of ore at starting locations and a paucity in the centre will tend to produce grindy, more static games as even successful pushes aren't necessarily going to interrupt the opponent's income stream. Lots of ore in central areas (relative to starting areas) will encourage expansion and a successful push thru a resource-rich central area is more likely to alter the balance of the match, however many lanes there are.
So it certainly goes further than the number of lanes, but along with other factors I'd certainly still tend to think that it's a good starting point for thinking about what makes a good map.
Third, I'd encourage you to think a bit more about what makes a lane a lane and how this affects your hypothesis.
Again, a really good thing to consider. I've tended to think of a 'lane' as a relatively unobstructed route between base/starting areas, and divided from other lanes by impassable map features such as cliffs, water, trees (which limit at least somewhat travel between lanes, ie committing to an action in one lane will almost necessarily limit at least to an extent the player's ability to contest another or quickly move units to another).
Probably at least 5-8 cells wide at it's narrowest points, or else it may become something more like a choke point or sneak/flanking path. Ore/tib fields may be placed in the lanes or slightly offset from them. Base expansions may also create something like lanes in otherwise open areas (I like to think that Valley of Gold kinda does this even with a highly open centre).
I'm sure that someone else will be able come up with a better developed/further idea of this, but this is what I'd say off the top of my head just now.
Even in thinking about a map in terms of three lanes being an optimal number, there's going to be additional things to consider (apart from the point of variety: even if three is 'optimal', sometimes you may feel like playing something different)
1. Number of lanes is correlated with quality (i.e. more is better, why stop at 3)
I think the goal ultimately is going to be produce something that allows for interesting, balanced strategic gameplay while also being simple enough to process quickly and easily as the game is played. If three is good, might thirty be better? Well, probably not: even if it's well designed, it'll be too much for an individual player to make sense of. Or at least, the player may need to able to cut the lanes down into bundles, ie of ten in a hypothetical thirty-lane map.
2. Overall size of interaction area is correlated with quality (essentially the sum of the widths of the chokiest point in each lane)
This is another good point, maybe obvious to many here but certainly something to consider in the context of this conversation. I think most here would agree that the most three-lanest map ever wouldn't be a great deal of fun to play if each lane were a single square wide and fifty squares long.
3. Size of ore-free traversable middle ground is correlated with quality
Another good point not touched on as much in OP but surely relevant to the discussion. A big enough open area may naturally create something like lanes within itself as gameplay progresses, even without explicit map features to encourage this other than sheer area?
Ore placement is obv. also important. Lots of ore at starting locations and a paucity in the centre will tend to produce grindy, more static games as even successful pushes aren't necessarily going to interrupt the opponent's income stream. Lots of ore in central areas (relative to starting areas) will encourage expansion and a successful push thru a resource-rich central area is more likely to alter the balance of the match, however many lanes there are.
So it certainly goes further than the number of lanes, but along with other factors I'd certainly still tend to think that it's a good starting point for thinking about what makes a good map.
Third, I'd encourage you to think a bit more about what makes a lane a lane and how this affects your hypothesis.
Again, a really good thing to consider. I've tended to think of a 'lane' as a relatively unobstructed route between base/starting areas, and divided from other lanes by impassable map features such as cliffs, water, trees (which limit at least somewhat travel between lanes, ie committing to an action in one lane will almost necessarily limit at least to an extent the player's ability to contest another or quickly move units to another).
Probably at least 5-8 cells wide at it's narrowest points, or else it may become something more like a choke point or sneak/flanking path. Ore/tib fields may be placed in the lanes or slightly offset from them. Base expansions may also create something like lanes in otherwise open areas (I like to think that Valley of Gold kinda does this even with a highly open centre).
I'm sure that someone else will be able come up with a better developed/further idea of this, but this is what I'd say off the top of my head just now.
You're focusing too much on the lanes, and not enough on the objectives. RTS games have to be designed around 3 things : money, strategic Value, and difficulty of objective. In regards to maps, all the lame maps have a poor balance of these values; in other words, there are spots on the map where it has a lot direct value, indirect value, and are easy to seize.
You could possibly design a good 1 lane / no lane map, but then it becomes difficult to separate the money from the strategic value. For a two lane map, it becomes difficult to introduce asymmetry (where the two lanes have different amounts of money/strategic value/difficult level), so the games will become stagnant. Three lanes is the easiest to balance because there are 3 values...Lane A could have more money, good strategic value, but difficult to seize, Lane B could have less money, okay strategic value, but is easy to seize, and Lane C could have no money, great strategic value, and is moderately difficult to seize. Dividing maps based on the number of lanes they have, as CRLF has said, is misleading.
Sidestep - Single ore with good strategic value, Deny double ore down the middle, double expand, etc. Good variety of objectives
Warwind - Top has higher strategic value than bottom, bottom has more money than top. Turns into stalemates a lot of the times;
Northwest Passage - You want to develop one of your bases at the base of one of the cliffs so you can base crawl to 2 ore mines and control the center of the map. You can also be greedy and go to the other base of the cliff.
Behind the Veil - Expanding and protecting the natural double ore is mandatory; very few alternatives. You must secure one corner and deny the other corner, and protect your ore from being denied. Possibility of a basepush straight through the middle. Easier to defend and to deny than to attack and seize.
Ore Lord (Spawns are unbalanced) - Secure your ore, deny the other guy's ore, spam refineries to minimize long distance mining.
Tournament Island (Needs much less eco for 1v1) - defend main choke, secure 2nd island, defend middle choke. Shit diversity.
Winter Storm - If you control the middle, there is good diversity of options. If you don't control the middle, you have no other options other than to attack the middle. If the middle becomes split, game turns into stalemate.
Dual Cold Front - Get to both of the gem mines ASAP. If you can't secure both, you lose, if you secure one, deny the other.
Desert Rats - Secure one corner, deny the other...lack of money means you can't attack haphazardly.
Keep Off the Grass 2. - Secure the middle, mine the corners, profit?
Being Hit by a Car - If guy has no insurance, sue. If he has insurance, get his insurance to pay for everything.
Singles - All the values are in the middle. Horrible map.
You could possibly design a good 1 lane / no lane map, but then it becomes difficult to separate the money from the strategic value. For a two lane map, it becomes difficult to introduce asymmetry (where the two lanes have different amounts of money/strategic value/difficult level), so the games will become stagnant. Three lanes is the easiest to balance because there are 3 values...Lane A could have more money, good strategic value, but difficult to seize, Lane B could have less money, okay strategic value, but is easy to seize, and Lane C could have no money, great strategic value, and is moderately difficult to seize. Dividing maps based on the number of lanes they have, as CRLF has said, is misleading.
Sidestep - Single ore with good strategic value, Deny double ore down the middle, double expand, etc. Good variety of objectives
Warwind - Top has higher strategic value than bottom, bottom has more money than top. Turns into stalemates a lot of the times;
Northwest Passage - You want to develop one of your bases at the base of one of the cliffs so you can base crawl to 2 ore mines and control the center of the map. You can also be greedy and go to the other base of the cliff.
Behind the Veil - Expanding and protecting the natural double ore is mandatory; very few alternatives. You must secure one corner and deny the other corner, and protect your ore from being denied. Possibility of a basepush straight through the middle. Easier to defend and to deny than to attack and seize.
Ore Lord (Spawns are unbalanced) - Secure your ore, deny the other guy's ore, spam refineries to minimize long distance mining.
Tournament Island (Needs much less eco for 1v1) - defend main choke, secure 2nd island, defend middle choke. Shit diversity.
Winter Storm - If you control the middle, there is good diversity of options. If you don't control the middle, you have no other options other than to attack the middle. If the middle becomes split, game turns into stalemate.
Dual Cold Front - Get to both of the gem mines ASAP. If you can't secure both, you lose, if you secure one, deny the other.
Desert Rats - Secure one corner, deny the other...lack of money means you can't attack haphazardly.
Keep Off the Grass 2. - Secure the middle, mine the corners, profit?
Being Hit by a Car - If guy has no insurance, sue. If he has insurance, get his insurance to pay for everything.
Singles - All the values are in the middle. Horrible map.
Personally I would say what we have observed is that several good maps have three lanes, because that is a minimum for several measures of 'interestingness', but few maps have more than three, because it is hard to fit more than three lanes in the approx. 72 cells which map makers have so far tended to give themselves. (Remember that map size and tileset are chosen when first creating a map).
Sidestep is an outlier - it has a big interaction length, at 96 cells - this is why it can do five lanes (it's also slightly diagonal which helps). Even then, the middle lanes and the edges are smaller and not used especially often. I see no reason why more lanes aren't ok, so long as the map size also increases to accommodate them.
A good map will offer players multiple viable alternative strategies which involve different objectives, as OMnom sets out (because otherwise all players would go for the same objective and the game is just a timing/basepush war). I would agree three lanes is the minimum number which can achieve this in an interesting way.
Sidestep is an outlier - it has a big interaction length, at 96 cells - this is why it can do five lanes (it's also slightly diagonal which helps). Even then, the middle lanes and the edges are smaller and not used especially often. I see no reason why more lanes aren't ok, so long as the map size also increases to accommodate them.
A good map will offer players multiple viable alternative strategies which involve different objectives, as OMnom sets out (because otherwise all players would go for the same objective and the game is just a timing/basepush war). I would agree three lanes is the minimum number which can achieve this in an interesting way.
First I want to say how much I've grown to detest Warwind I would place it behind getting hit by a car.
I think Omnom is correct in that it is not about the "lanes" but about the spread of tactical objectives. A good map will force you to displace your assets.
Sidestep forces you to split your assets at least 4 ways. (Main base, first expo, second expo, and mobile army) Note that you don't have to have your assets split evenly four ways. In fact that's pretty inadvisable. I'm not sure what % more an offensive asset needs to beat a defensive asset but I know if the assets are the same the defense will win. Firstly, because of the ability to automatically inject more assets into the fight(production facilities, defensive structures, or just damage soaks) and secondly due to the nature of the game cells. Infantry for instance must move all the way into a cell before firing allowing defensive infantry free shots.
Warwind With Warwind you can keep almost all your assets in one big loose group. Your starting base is so close to both the expansion points that you can reinforce either quickly. Due to the map layout your attack options are limited so you often have to steamroll and area to win. If two players are relatively equal this will cause the game to stalemate.
Northwest Passage
Behind the Veil
Ore Lord
Tournament Island
Winter Storm
and Keep Off the Grass 2
are all similar to Warwind, you can afford to keep your assets within two groups.
Desert Rats forces you to split your assets at least 3 ways. It's biggest problem is the lack of eco makes winning engagements too valuable. Defense tends to win more than offense.
Dual Cold Front forces you to split at least 4 ways. You have your main, expo, and you need to contest the gems in some form.
Singles forces you to keep almost all your assets in 1 group.
Say a map had planned 7 ways to split assets, maybe there is 5 expansions, an area that allows access to 2 or 3 expansions at once, and maybe you needed an army to harass etc. etc. You can't really split 7 ways. That'd be 14.3% at each point. Instead what will happen is that 2 or more of the attractive objectives would be ignored turning it into a game of 5 splits or maybe even 3 splits.
So I think in summary, a good map will make you split your assets at least 3 ways. More is fine but anything more than 5 spreads you too thin. If you need 1.5x more assets to secure a location(my guess) then there is a finite amount of objectives you can control at a time. I don't think a "lane" is an area that can be controlled by a non base push MCV, but rather an area that allows for effective attacks. KOTG2 has 3 lanes, Dual Cold Front has much more than 3. Sidestep also has numerous lanes.
I think Omnom is correct in that it is not about the "lanes" but about the spread of tactical objectives. A good map will force you to displace your assets.
Sidestep forces you to split your assets at least 4 ways. (Main base, first expo, second expo, and mobile army) Note that you don't have to have your assets split evenly four ways. In fact that's pretty inadvisable. I'm not sure what % more an offensive asset needs to beat a defensive asset but I know if the assets are the same the defense will win. Firstly, because of the ability to automatically inject more assets into the fight(production facilities, defensive structures, or just damage soaks) and secondly due to the nature of the game cells. Infantry for instance must move all the way into a cell before firing allowing defensive infantry free shots.
Warwind With Warwind you can keep almost all your assets in one big loose group. Your starting base is so close to both the expansion points that you can reinforce either quickly. Due to the map layout your attack options are limited so you often have to steamroll and area to win. If two players are relatively equal this will cause the game to stalemate.
Northwest Passage
Behind the Veil
Ore Lord
Tournament Island
Winter Storm
and Keep Off the Grass 2
are all similar to Warwind, you can afford to keep your assets within two groups.
Desert Rats forces you to split your assets at least 3 ways. It's biggest problem is the lack of eco makes winning engagements too valuable. Defense tends to win more than offense.
Dual Cold Front forces you to split at least 4 ways. You have your main, expo, and you need to contest the gems in some form.
Singles forces you to keep almost all your assets in 1 group.
Say a map had planned 7 ways to split assets, maybe there is 5 expansions, an area that allows access to 2 or 3 expansions at once, and maybe you needed an army to harass etc. etc. You can't really split 7 ways. That'd be 14.3% at each point. Instead what will happen is that 2 or more of the attractive objectives would be ignored turning it into a game of 5 splits or maybe even 3 splits.
So I think in summary, a good map will make you split your assets at least 3 ways. More is fine but anything more than 5 spreads you too thin. If you need 1.5x more assets to secure a location(my guess) then there is a finite amount of objectives you can control at a time. I don't think a "lane" is an area that can be controlled by a non base push MCV, but rather an area that allows for effective attacks. KOTG2 has 3 lanes, Dual Cold Front has much more than 3. Sidestep also has numerous lanes.
I think I've explained my ideals badly and Juicebox brought this problem to my attention - a lane isnt an actual thing on the map its the actual ways its just a flow or a choice of where to go, ill try and add some pictures. If we counted the actual pathways im sure dual cold front would have like 8. Its more of this, Three Lanes; okay i can go centre left or right and each of those options has RTS strategic value like Omnom said. 2 lane map well I can only go left and right. Dual cold front is 4 because the middle is divided into 2 and both paths go somewhere else. If you count the actual paths then Greenbelt is on 5 where in reality its I can go left and I can go right. These lanes arent actual thing but I guess can be seen more clearly with marking such as cliffs etc. Orelord has no cliffs at all but still you an go center left or right.
" So I think in summary, a good map will make you split your assets at least 3 ways. More is fine but anything more than 5 spreads you too thin."
Kinda like 3 lanes then to split it 3 ways
" So I think in summary, a good map will make you split your assets at least 3 ways. More is fine but anything more than 5 spreads you too thin."
Kinda like 3 lanes then to split it 3 ways
-
Lorrydriver
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:55 am
I fully agree with Rexxy's theory.
For everyone who is troubled by the term lane, I'd recommend having a look at League of Legends, Dota 2 or any other MOBA. You shouldn't understand lanes as sheer paths as crlf did. It's rather something like distinct key areas that have one or more of the following characteristics:
Money, strategic value(in other words, it makes sense to have troops and/or conyards sitting there), a route that can be taken to attack the opponents main base directly. However, I should also mention that strategic value can be rather subjective, which is why I disagree with OMnom.
Let's take a look at a few examples.
Warwind: It has a top, mid and bottom lane/area. The mid lane doesn't have any obvious straetgic value, but it is not only a direct route to the opponents main base but you can also access both expansion areas. IMO stalemates mostly happen on this map because there's only 5 ore mines per player and not because of the map layout.
Sidestep: Also 3 key areas where the action will take place most commonly. Mid lane is again just a direct way to the opponents mainbase, that can be deadly. Bot/left and top/right are very wide open with lots of ore and strategic value (hi cliff teslas)
Pitfight KME: kazu changed his old map, with one major difference, mainbases are now reachable through small forest paths on the sides.
This map has become very popular amongst the high level 1v1 scene and this map somewhat proves that 3 LANES can make maps great again. It has a huge middle area where all the ore etc. is. but theres now 2 paths one to the left and one to the right which are basically nothing but routes to the mainbase of your opponent. They're very small and might not seem like a huge deal at first, but they make all the difference because it not only allows you to go for devastating attacks but also requires you to be very careful with your army positioning.
Obviously theres more to a good map than just having three lanes/key areas but the point is that having that basic layout of 3 lanes in mind, will bring you on the right track when making maps.
For everyone who is troubled by the term lane, I'd recommend having a look at League of Legends, Dota 2 or any other MOBA. You shouldn't understand lanes as sheer paths as crlf did. It's rather something like distinct key areas that have one or more of the following characteristics:
Money, strategic value(in other words, it makes sense to have troops and/or conyards sitting there), a route that can be taken to attack the opponents main base directly. However, I should also mention that strategic value can be rather subjective, which is why I disagree with OMnom.
Let's take a look at a few examples.
Warwind: It has a top, mid and bottom lane/area. The mid lane doesn't have any obvious straetgic value, but it is not only a direct route to the opponents main base but you can also access both expansion areas. IMO stalemates mostly happen on this map because there's only 5 ore mines per player and not because of the map layout.
Sidestep: Also 3 key areas where the action will take place most commonly. Mid lane is again just a direct way to the opponents mainbase, that can be deadly. Bot/left and top/right are very wide open with lots of ore and strategic value (hi cliff teslas)
Pitfight KME: kazu changed his old map, with one major difference, mainbases are now reachable through small forest paths on the sides.
This map has become very popular amongst the high level 1v1 scene and this map somewhat proves that 3 LANES can make maps great again. It has a huge middle area where all the ore etc. is. but theres now 2 paths one to the left and one to the right which are basically nothing but routes to the mainbase of your opponent. They're very small and might not seem like a huge deal at first, but they make all the difference because it not only allows you to go for devastating attacks but also requires you to be very careful with your army positioning.
Obviously theres more to a good map than just having three lanes/key areas but the point is that having that basic layout of 3 lanes in mind, will bring you on the right track when making maps.
Strategic value, regarding the map itself, is not subjective."Routes to attack directly" is a part of the strategic value of an area. If a player doesn't use these routes, does it mean it holds no strategic value? If a player chooses not to tesla camp the single ores on Sidestep, does it mean that that area holds less strategic value? In regards to the meta game, Lorry is right; the strategic value of certain areas will change depending on the players. But in regards to map design and map making, strategic value is something that is created and designed by the map maker.
I would like to clarify and emphasize the concept of difficulty/feasiblity as something map makers should consider. Take the NW and far SE corners of Dual Cold front and the far N and S paths of Sidestep. These lanes are not used nearly as often as the middle lanes because they're more difficult to reach, in terms of travel distance. I realize this may seem like a no-brainer, that closer routes are used more often as compared to distant routes, but proximity is just one aspect of difficulty. If two players contest an area, that route becomes more difficult to traverse (i.e, middle of Winter Storm). If the area requires you to seize territory rather than to deny it, that area becomes more difficult to reap profits from (i.e, Warwind). If an area requires significant time and money investment, that route becomes more difficult to invest in (i.e, all naval routes).
The above paragraph is the subjective part that Lorry probably disagrees with, but this aspect is the whole reason why timing is an important part of RTS games. It's the reason why "whoever gets their MCV there first will win" mentality exists. A lot of maps have one ore two area(s) that have a combination of too much money, too much strategic value, and easy access. The gem mines on DNC, the middle of Shadowfiend, the foothills on NW passage, the middle of KotG2, Singles, the corner orefields of Orelord, etc are all examples of what I am talking about. This isn't to say that having these areas are a bad thing, but I would compare it to the difference between connecting by dots versus connecting by numbers. If you have too many of these areas, all of the dots turn into numbers, and there will be only 1 way to play the map.
I would like to clarify and emphasize the concept of difficulty/feasiblity as something map makers should consider. Take the NW and far SE corners of Dual Cold front and the far N and S paths of Sidestep. These lanes are not used nearly as often as the middle lanes because they're more difficult to reach, in terms of travel distance. I realize this may seem like a no-brainer, that closer routes are used more often as compared to distant routes, but proximity is just one aspect of difficulty. If two players contest an area, that route becomes more difficult to traverse (i.e, middle of Winter Storm). If the area requires you to seize territory rather than to deny it, that area becomes more difficult to reap profits from (i.e, Warwind). If an area requires significant time and money investment, that route becomes more difficult to invest in (i.e, all naval routes).
The above paragraph is the subjective part that Lorry probably disagrees with, but this aspect is the whole reason why timing is an important part of RTS games. It's the reason why "whoever gets their MCV there first will win" mentality exists. A lot of maps have one ore two area(s) that have a combination of too much money, too much strategic value, and easy access. The gem mines on DNC, the middle of Shadowfiend, the foothills on NW passage, the middle of KotG2, Singles, the corner orefields of Orelord, etc are all examples of what I am talking about. This isn't to say that having these areas are a bad thing, but I would compare it to the difference between connecting by dots versus connecting by numbers. If you have too many of these areas, all of the dots turn into numbers, and there will be only 1 way to play the map.
