Problems on maps

[Ultra Storm]

Here are some problems I noticed while looking for a map to play on. I didn't check out all the maps though, so there are probably a lot more.

S-Rank:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=26098 There's still the same problem of contested bases. As shown by playtesting, you can intercept the base capture with infantry, which makes victory depend on CO matchups, damage rolls and a long predetermined sequence of moves to counter.

A-Rank:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=47638 The FTA counter isn't optimal, since there's only an inf on 1 of 3 bases. I'm unsure whether the city works, since the RF infantry might choose another path otherwise and the city gives 2 days of funds in exchange for a unit.
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=24780 I played on this one, and it tends to stalemate because the only way of truly advancing is through the middle. The launchable silos are also kind of dubious.

A-Rank pending / Good maps:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=51641 This is from the Colosseum. The FTA counter is off, giving the 2nd player a headstart on 2 bases out of 3.
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=49863 The FTA counter is off. The 2nd player has an advantage since the infs on the main island are more important and produce funds more quickly than the one on the airport island.
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=48997 The FTA counter is off. The 2nd player has an advantage.
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=52006 I'm not sure if this FTA counter works either. Does this compensate enough and would BM send their first inf in that direction?

The Colosseum map aside, these were just among the first few maps. I don't know if this is the standard for this category, but I think the problems are too great to consider the maps good or potential A-rank material.

Good maps:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=24390 The FTA counter doesn't work and BM has a huge advantage. Even if it worked, there'd be a recon and APC rush to the airports.

Hall of Fame: (I'm unsure whether these are supposed to be at least somewhat balanced.)
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=28159 You can do a recon rush to the neutral bases.

As a general note, on many maps the FTA counter inf is placed on the most important base such that it will also end up capturing the neutral base. This tends to give too much of an advantage to the 2nd player. Preferably, the FTA counter should be placed on one of essentially equal bases in order to give a headstart of half a turn.

[Walker]

Thank you for making this thread, it's much easier to discuss maps when you have concrete examples in front of you.

As a disclaimer, maps in the Hall of Fame category are just maps that were once A- or S-Ranked. This doesn't mean they're balanced or great maps necessarily, as map quality has improved greatly over the years and at one time even unbalanced maps were among the A-Ranks. Also, A-Rank (pending) maps are maps that are in the process of being tested and tweaked. So thank you for pointing out some problems, but most of those maps still have yet to be analyzed very thoroughly.

Now with the A- and S-Ranks, you have some valid points. If I remember correctly, LKML was controversial and debated pretty heavily when it was originally S-Ranked. I'll go back and look at some of the discussion on that, but we might be tweaking the S-Rank category soon anyways, so it will be considered. I've personally only played once on it quite a while ago, so I don't remember how it plays.

I see what you're saying with Panopticon, but I'm not convinced that the counter doesn't work. If a second counter infantry is placed on either of the bases on the right side, then the second player is ahead on both fronts. So basically you give the counter to CI on one side, give them a funds advantage and slow down RF on that front by a turn. Then each side has the turn advantage on one side of the map with a small funds counter to balance the small FTA caused. It's impossible to balance the map perfectly, but I think that the current counter is pretty good. I'm playing a game on it with airob right now and haven't noticed any major problems with it.

I've never played on Copper Daisy, but it sounds like your problems have more to do with the gameplay on the map rather than fairness. I can't speak of gameplay other than that the map was a leading candidate for S-Rank because many former Map Committee members thought highly of it after playing on it.

[Ultra Storm]

As a disclaimer, maps in the Hall of Fame category are just maps that were once A- or S-Ranked. This doesn't mean they're balanced or great maps necessarily, as map quality has improved greatly over the years and at one time even unbalanced maps were among the A-Ranks. Also, A-Rank (pending) maps are maps that are in the process of being tested and tweaked. So thank you for pointing out some problems, but most of those maps still have yet to be analyzed very thoroughly.

But we are playing Colosseum games on such a map, so one might assume there are requirements of at least moderate balance. I don't want my Colosseum games to be testing for an uncertain map.

I see what you're saying with Panopticon, but I'm not convinced that the counter doesn't work. If a second counter infantry is placed on either of the bases on the right side, then the second player is ahead on both fronts. So basically you give the counter to CI on one side, give them a funds advantage and slow down RF on that front by a turn. Then each side has the turn advantage on one side of the map with a small funds counter to balance the small FTA caused. It's impossible to balance the map perfectly, but I think that the current counter is pretty good. I'm playing a game on it with airob right now and haven't noticed any major problems with it.

It's widely known that having infantry units half of the number of bases is often a good starting point for an FTA counter. It was seen as a better choice than using cities, which was another common early theory of FTA balancing. The problem is mainly whether giving 2000 funds and forcing a specific route to an infantry of the 1st player is equal to giving the 2nd player an advantage of half a turn.

It depends a lot on the map and the capture route used whether giving a city is more valuable than an extra infantry. The inf can be worth more than 2000 in terms of captures and unit numbers but possibly less if the capturable cities are far away and extra funds allow building an early recon, arty or tank. You also have to consider forcing the first capture of the infantry of the 1st player. Have you found any specific guidelines when to use cities and how to estimate their value?

I've never played on Copper Daisy, but it sounds like your problems have more to do with the gameplay on the map rather than fairness. I can't speak of gameplay other than that the map was a leading candidate for S-Rank because many former Map Committee members thought highly of it after playing on it.

I thought gameplay has some relevance to the rankings. Otherwise, you could technically make maps that are entirely balanced but end in a total stalemate. The design of the map is original, but it's literally impossible to advance with vehicles through the middle, which is the only way of doing so.

I'm also interested in how the silos work out. I'd imagine you'd save it for a SCOP turn when you try to charge in, especially if your powers are mass damage or of missile type.

[Walker]

It's widely known that having infantry units half of the number of bases is often a good starting point for an FTA counter.

Half the number of starting bases, not half the number of bases. That's why on 2-preowned, 1-neutral base maps the standard counter is one infantry, not the equivalent of one and half infantries (an infantry and a city) as it is for 3-preowned base maps.

It depends a lot on the map and the capture route used whether giving a city is more valuable than an extra infantry. The inf can be worth more than 2000 in terms of captures and unit numbers but possibly less if the capturable cities are far away and extra funds allow building an early recon, arty or tank. You also have to consider forcing the first capture of the infantry of the 1st player. Have you found any specific guidelines when to use cities and how to estimate their value?

Agreed. I think the best fix for panopticon would be to make one of the preowned bases into a neutral base and use the standard 1 infantry counter, because it's the uneven number of starting bases that causes the imbalance. There's not a perfect way to balance FTA for maps with uneven numbers of starting bases, and so we either use an infantry and a city or two infantry depending on the map. I'm saying for panopticon the way it is now, the best option is the infantry and city, rather than two infantry. Obviously the best fix is the one I suggested above. But I think the counter is correct the way it is now.

Also no, I haven't found any specific guidelines about using cities to counter FTA, partially I think because it's an imperfect counter.

I thought gameplay has some relevance to the rankings. Otherwise, you could technically make maps that are entirely balanced but end in a total stalemate. The design of the map is original, but it's literally impossible to advance with vehicles through the middle, which is the only way of doing so.

I'm also interested in how the silos work out. I'd imagine you'd save it for a SCOP turn when you try to charge in, especially if your powers are mass damage or of missile type.

Gameplay does have relevance. I was pointing out that former Map Committee members enjoyed the gameplay. Whether it was because of the way the silos affected the stalemate or due to the way an aerial battle accentuated the ground battle, I don't know. I haven't played the map, so I can only offer their validation of the map as my argument. And yes, the silos change the game considerably. You would probably want to save them to break through, although it depends heavily on the situation on the map.

[Ultra Storm]

It's widely known that having infantry units half of the number of bases is often a good starting point for an FTA counter.

Half the number of starting bases, not half the number of bases. That's why on 2-preowned, 1-neutral base maps the standard counter is one infantry, not the equivalent of one and half infantries (an infantry and a city) as it is for 3-preowned base maps.

Yes, I meant initial bases.

It depends a lot on the map and the capture route used whether giving a city is more valuable than an extra infantry. The inf can be worth more than 2000 in terms of captures and unit numbers but possibly less if the capturable cities are far away and extra funds allow building an early recon, arty or tank. You also have to consider forcing the first capture of the infantry of the 1st player. Have you found any specific guidelines when to use cities and how to estimate their value?

Agreed. I think the best fix for panopticon would be to make one of the preowned bases into a neutral base and use the standard 1 infantry counter, because it's the uneven number of starting bases that causes the imbalance. There's not a perfect way to balance FTA for maps with uneven numbers of starting bases, and so we either use an infantry and a city or two infantry depending on the map. I'm saying for panopticon the way it is now, the best option is the infantry and city, rather than two infantry. Obviously the best fix is the one I suggested above. But I think the counter is correct the way it is now.

Also no, I haven't found any specific guidelines about using cities to counter FTA, partially I think because it's an imperfect counter.

Some maps seem to be designed so that the city is supposed to be equal to one infantry, some that it's half an infantry or some other fraction. Usually, I'd say it's less than a whole inf but it's hard to say how much exactly, so I'd prefer to use better FTA counters. As such, it's easier to balance panopticon if there are 2 initial bases.

I thought gameplay has some relevance to the rankings. Otherwise, you could technically make maps that are entirely balanced but end in a total stalemate. The design of the map is original, but it's literally impossible to advance with vehicles through the middle, which is the only way of doing so.

I'm also interested in how the silos work out. I'd imagine you'd save it for a SCOP turn when you try to charge in, especially if your powers are mass damage or of missile type.

Gameplay does have relevance. I was pointing out that former Map Committee members enjoyed the gameplay. Whether it was because of the way the silos affected the stalemate or due to the way an aerial battle accentuated the ground battle, I don't know. I haven't played the map, so I can only offer their validation of the map as my argument. And yes, the silos change the game considerably. You would probably want to save them to break through, although it depends heavily on the situation on the map.

It sounded as if you're only judging balance and not gameplay, but there's room for interpretation.

I've never played on Copper Daisy, but it sounds like your problems have more to do with the gameplay on the map rather than fairness.

The map design is original and I'm aware of the airports, but air units and infantry aren't able to hold the area on the other side of the river. This leaves the middle as the only front for pushing forward and it is a fest for indirects.

One major problem on Copper Daisy I didn't mention is that the initial funds per turn are 4000 instead of the usual 3000, which is emphasized by the neutral base being so far away. Thus, YC has a significant advantage and they will stay ahead in vehicle count for basically the entire game. The FTA counter, which will go for the least important base, is insignificant compared to the fund advantage.

Also, I'm repeating this:

As a disclaimer, maps in the Hall of Fame category are just maps that were once A- or S-Ranked. This doesn't mean they're balanced or great maps necessarily, as map quality has improved greatly over the years and at one time even unbalanced maps were among the A-Ranks. Also, A-Rank (pending) maps are maps that are in the process of being tested and tweaked. So thank you for pointing out some problems, but most of those maps still have yet to be analyzed very thoroughly.

But we are playing Colosseum games on such a map, so one might assume there are requirements of at least moderate balance. I don't want my Colosseum games to be testing for an uncertain map.

It's important since using these maps for major tournaments kind of contradicts the idea that the maps don't have to be balanced yet.

[Walker]

One major problem on Copper Daisy I didn't mention is that the initial funds per turn are 4000 instead of the usual 3000, which is emphasized by the neutral base being so far away. Thus, YC has a significant advantage and they will stay ahead in vehicle count for basically the entire game. The FTA counter, which will go for the least important base, is insignificant compared to the fund advantage.

Now that is a legitimate concern, and I'll make sure to look into that when I get some time. Uneven vehicle counts that arise from funding imbalances on the fronts or from improper counters is probably the most important aspect of FTA or STA in my opinion.

But we are playing Colosseum games on such a map, so one might assume there are requirements of at least moderate balance. I don't want my Colosseum games to be testing for an uncertain map.
It's important since using these maps for major tournaments kind of contradicts the idea that the maps don't have to be balanced yet.

Yes, I admit that Snake Crawl was a poor choice for a map due to the improper FTA counter. I would like to point out, however, that maps with similar balance issues have been used in the Colosseum before without complaint. It is difficult to find maps that are perfectly balanced and fun, without being overused (as most of the S-Rank maps are). So I think it is acceptable to use fun maps that have slight imbalances (not as large as Snake Crawl obviously), but that are still very playable as a sort of compromise. After all, you play 2 games a month and you can choose which country you'd like to be (1P or 2P) for one game each month. So you play as 2P one time versus each person and 1P one time versus each person, and the small imbalances should cancel each other out over the course of the season.

Once again, I apologize for not looking closely enough at Snake Crawl (on some maps the 2-infantry counter for 3 bases is the most appropriate one after all), but Colosseum games have not been, and will not be played on maps that are not at least very close to being perfectly balanced.