Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:59 pm
Power, through superior organizational strength.
OpenRA is a GPLv3 real time strategy game engine which recreates the look and feel of the original C&C games.
https://forum.openra.net/
I did some quick math on it, and it's got an R above 1 with a spawn-to-spawn distance of 45.9c and an average spawn-to-ore distance of 48.6. Even with the trees and blocked off middle, I would expect the actual rush distance to be around 60c, which would still give it an effective R of around 0.8. My gut feeling is that the excess starting eco, combined with the short rush distances, would make early rushes and base pushes very strong on this map. Moreover, there are at least 2 vulnerable spots that would be -2 for the defender and +1 for the basepusher, similar to what patches has right now. All in all though, this looks like a very interesting map and would definitely produce a different game.crlf wrote: Mo's four ore mine starter interested me, and the discussions about tradeoffs between eco and map control prompted me to make this:
http://resource.openra.net/maps/21280/
I'd be interested to know if you see any placements that are do-or-die. My hunch is that there's now enough starting eco and base-to-base access that expanding is a risk.
Very intricate analysis and I recall you discussed these concerns with me, I haven't had time yet but I plan to implement your advice on altering the bridges to a 7-8 wide cell access, and I'll introduce 2 bridges for each island (with respect to bottom island), these will be above and to the right of the orange circle.OMnom wrote:
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.

I fully agree with you on that MateriaMaterianer wrote:Damn i wanted to criticize that 95% of these maps are a bit boring because they are just mirror maps.
Not that mirror maps are fundamentally bad and for a balanced conditions you seem to need this at your 1on1 tourney but i prefer naturally looking maps.
It's an art to create a naturally looking map wich is good playable but if you get this working it will be a champion map.
Creating a just mirrored map is no challenge.