I've managed to play a few games on my map, and I've quickly mapped out the most important expansions/locations on the map. The red spots are the spots which I believe high value, the blue spots are of medium value, the orange spots to be of lesser value, and the grey spots are locations of interest. The size of the circles have no meaning, they're just there to mark the general area. For comparison, I've analyzed Mo's new map and Patches in a similar fashion. Both my map and mo's map have a spawn-average mine distance ratio (R) of around 0.75, but mo's map is about 33% bigger than my map. Patches has an R of 0.62. Using these locations/zones, I'll also quickly comment on terrain and how you can predict the progression of the games on these particular maps.
In terms of areas of importance, it shares a lot of similarities to Sidestep. In a mirror-color match up, where both players go to the same spot relative to their position, the game follows a linear progression, much like how the old meta of double-expanding used to play out. However, one thing to note is that there is a Rock>Paper>Scissors dynamic with the red, orange, and blue spots, respectively. If Player A sets up at the Player B's red location, and Player B sets up at his natural orange location, Player A player is going to have an advantageous position. However, if player B sets up at his natural blue location instead, he will be able to turret/tesla camp that middle ore while gaining another ore mine. But if player B went straight for the blue location, and player A goes for any orange location, he will have a double mine advantage (I've changed those patches to be double ores). Sorry to be confusing, but I hope it makes more sense with the picture.
There are a lot of possibilities and ways the game could develop on this map because the only zones that are next to each other are the red zones. I'm trying to think of a way to design a new map where I make it so that none of these zones are touching each other...as people have said before, perhaps breaking this symmetry will make for better maps.
In addition, the terrain between all locations of interest is varied and dynamic. There are lot of different ways to move around the map, and each spot has its own advantage, with no "outstanding" advantage that defines a location as "must get there first". In fact, it's actually much smarter if you're able to scout where your opponent is going to expand to (the capturable civ buildings helps a lot with this) than to just quickly take your own expansion. In addition, each location allows unique access to at least 2 different locations.
The single middle road in Mo's map makes the red locations of do-or-die importance; if I were to get my MCV in the opposing player's red location, I'm going to win more games than I would be losing. I have enough money to send my 2nd MCV straight to that location because I start with 4 ore mines (questionable, but interesting). The other zones play no significant role until the war over who controls the middle passage is decided.
Also, the terrain between each location of interest is extremely limited. Some direct passageways are only accessible by naval or air, which requires a significant amount of time and resources to use, and some do not grant any access to other locations at all (they have 0 map control). In addition, the progression of locations of importance facilitates passive play because the players are encouraged to develop away from each other (Red first, then Blue).
If the game were to progress in a mirror-colored fashion, then the game becomes extremely campy -- there is nowhere else to maneuver. Everything is funneled into the middle, the north bridges, or the south bridges, which would most definitely favor high tech and naval play. It may not be intentional, but the "Singles Effect" would most definitely happen if the game is not ended quickly. Some may not consider that to be such a bad thing, but in my opinion, I would rather just surrender than wait 10 minutes for a nuke. In my opinion, this is why maps should not cater to only high tech/naval play -- we should not have to be forced to spend 5+ minutes diverging massive amounts of resources to expensive units, only to lose all of them in 30 seconds.
Let's take a look at patches. The red zones here are way more important than they are in Mo's map; if your opponent gets to your red location, you're not going to win the game. You get an main ore mine camped, he gets to place a refinery behind his tesla/turret camp for a net +2 difference in ore mines, and you're forced into 2 moves -- all in at his main, or all-in at your red location. Chances are, you'll get out-eco'd before either move works. All 3 maps have extremely important red locations, but the value of the red zone in Patches is terrible map design (not to mention the fact that your harvester is going to bug out and long distance mine to that red zone patch if you don't place a refinery there).
The terrain on Patches is also not well designed. These chokes are just asking to be camped by static defense, and with the low-eco situation, it makes this area even more attractive.
In a mirror-color match up, the game then turns towards the 2 middle patches. However, these patches are extremely vulnerable...most of the resources you get from these patches go towards pillboxes/flame turrets to shore up your weakside. Now, you're faced with the opposite situation that you have in mo's map -- you have too many places to go to, but neither location offers much else other than "dangerous" money. However, you need to get this money, because if you don't expand, and you lose your main army, you wont have enough money to rebuild. If you expand, but you lose your expansion, it's going to be extremely difficult getting that expansion back. As a result, the game becomes extremely fragile on Patches, as one false step is going to set you back tremendously. This is not something I would consider conducive to positive gameplay...players should be allowed opportunities to recover, not forced into "do or die" situations.
Patches, to me, represents one extreme of how maps could be designed, and Mo's map is the other extreme. Some people like playing on these maps, but most people don't. In summary, I think map makers, before placing a tile on the map, really should consider how to mitigate the "get MCV there first" syndrome
without forcing the map to become a mirrored matchup. I don't mean to say that my map is the paradigm map, but I designed it purposely to create as many scenarios as I could. Maps like Patches, NW Passage, Singles, KotG2, and many other maps are too linear in design and creates "one" type of game, repeatedly, without fail. The game already progresses in a linear fashion -- lets avoid making maps that reinforces this linear design.
