Design check-list / process
I thought it would be a good idea to identify the design points that make a good map, and try to apply them during the map design.
I've been skimming through
OMnom's thread, trying to identify and sort out the main points, and adding a few ones. Go to that thread for more details.
This list can serve as a reference, and a check-list to verify that the different points are verified.
Of course, this won't be probably the starting point to design a map, but will be probably be used in an iterative process, focusing on 1 idea / subject at a time. I would probably go through the process I've listed : after a CONCEPT, go through MAP SIZE, LANES, OBJECTIVES, MONEY, TEAM COORDINATION. I think it's one possible way to think map design.
Anyway, here's the list :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MAP SIZE :
- References :
Orelord : 61x61 - small
Sidestep : 96x96 - medium/big
128 might be a limit to an acceptable map size.
-
big map = more space to design the map, create lanes and zones
but
too big = difficult to see all the map, to cooperate, long distances for armies. (games becomes too long ?)
- spawn-to-spawn distance (R ratio)
small : more options early game (rush). enemy base first = high value target
high : less options early game. expansions = high value targets.
no necessarily better option, but
gameplay will be different
----------------------
LANES :
- Length :
short, normal, long, air lanes
shorter routes should be riskier ? VS longer routes more rewarding (ex: possibility of sneak attacks)
- Number of lanes :
In 1v1 : 1, 2 lanes maps don't offer a lot of strategical variety.
At least 3 lanes required.
In team maps : At least 3 per player. More than 3 in total, but some lanes can be shared.
- Lane size :
Open, very wide front (cf Pitfight) : can be considered as a
multi-lane. Maximum mobility. But might be less interesting, strategically-wise (absence of obstacles)
10(+)cells : big lane, good for maneuvers / engagements. Counts as
1 lane.
5 cells : medium/choky lane, but can pass a whole army through it if undefended. Counts as
1/2 lane.
1-3 cells : secret passage (sneak attacks, ...). Small / slow (muddy) lanes are hardly usable for army movements. Counts as
0 lane.
----------------------
OBJECTIVES :
- contested areas of interest
ex: contested ore mines.
- make them "
meaningful, but not be required to win"
ex: "get mid first or die". (like in Agenda, NW Passage, ...)
i.e. : should not be : primordial objective / very central / unique (equilibrate with other objectives)
- strategical values :
economy (get or deny eco), map control (control lanes), access to enemy base
- value : high / medium / low
articulate them : each area should get access to 2+ others ?
give a good number of them : 3+ high / medium per player, + some low ones ?
vary the types (ex : high eco but low map control, secured expansions VS deniable expansions, etc ...)
----------------------
MONEY :
- starting ore :
- references :
2ref SD build with 2 harvesters costs 11.3k
3ref 3 harvester build costs $13.8k
-
start with at least 18k / 20k in starting resources in order to allow for different types of games
- maps' starting ore :
Sidestep : 31k, comfortable start, can early tech. But ore can be denied quickly (camping main field)
Behind the Veil : 17k
- References : total ore, mines, derricks per player :
Sidestep : 50k, 6 mines (2 expansions needed), 1 derrick. Eco is correct, if expanding correctly.
Patches : 32k, 6 mines (4 expansions needed), 1 derrick. Eco is tight, needs dropping many refineries early game.
->
40-50k, 6 mines, 2-3 expansions seem to be good values
- avoid middle, shared, and vulnerable ore mines : tend to lead to snowball and stalemate situations.
- ore placement, chokes, cliffs
Makes ore fields more or less vulnerable (ex : tesla ore field over a cliff, very vulnerable)
Depends also on obstacle's orientation.
Make sure to
know how vulnerable and accessible each ore patch should be, and by whom.
----------------------
TEAM COORDINATION :
(results of previous points)
-
size of map : too big = unable to see what happens at ally's base. Will become 1v1s against facing opponents
-
accessibilty to ally's / second enemy base : openness of lanes, cross lanes, ...
-
relative players spawns
(ex : front + back (support) player ? or side to side ?)