Crescendo [3.0] is submitted for review.

Discuss maps and help map makers make the best possible maps.

Crescendo [3.0] is submitted for review.

Postby LPhillips » Sun Jan 22, 2012 3:25 am

New map: Crescendo [3.0] by LPhillips.
Map editor link: Crescendo [3.0]


Image
LPhillips
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:25 am

Re: Crescendo [3.0] is submitted for review.

Postby LPhillips » Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:11 am

General notes on Crescendo:
This is a map focused on stretching players' strategic capabilities. Positions are not equal in all things, but should be balanced overall. Some will have better opportunities for expansion, some will have better incomes, and some will have more secure starts. Likewise, all players suffer some disadvantage. Some come under contest very quickly, some have lesser production, some must travel further to access ruins but for greater rewards.

It is both a team map and a FFA map. Its main purpose is 4v4 team play, though I will strive to balance it over time for other forms of play. It is, at the least, very entertaining as a FFA map because of the very different situations and opportunities presented to each player.

Version Notes:
Several extensive changes have been made. Some are essential fixes; others will require a good bit of playtesting for balance. I was very surprised to see the map approved so quickly for ladder play, but I understand the need for diverse maps may have been the motivation. It was very encouraging and I am pleased someone found it worthwhile. Since I'm such a newbie to map balancing, it would be prudent to hold off replacing the original until we can see if I've done well with the economics. The first version was decently balanced just because I didn't fool around with city and ruin settings :)

Fixes:
1) No more end-arounds at ridges. I wasn't previously aware that was possible, but all of those unintended shortcuts are now fixed.
2) My browser is not perfectly compatible with the editor window, so by scrolling down I found the source of the gap at the bottom of the map. Fixed it. The ridge-barrier fix is crude, but it could be worse. I'll do better in future.
3) Some travel distances have been carefully looked over and adjusted, whether by migrating structures a few tiles or adding/breaking roads. It hurt the organic look a bit, but the balance is better. There's still the potential for more of those adjustments, as I don't want many minor differences to add up to significant unintended advantages for some players.

Balance changes:
1) All castles have set incomes and production. I'm worried the map may be too rich, so I suggest waiting for some good playtesting before going official with this version. 4v4 scenarios make the map pretty fair by nature of the mirrored setup, but it's looking far less balanced for FFA until I can test it well and make income adjustments.
2) Topmost and bottommost pairs of players got some heavy-handed adjustments. The terrain is now friendly to various strategies for each side, particularly territory control. Terrain types changed to match unit distribution. Access points were adjusted. I may remove some roads for the forest-dwelling spawn, depending on how well they flourish. Both sides have strong production, so a stalemate between the two becomes increasingly risky the longer you allow it to continue. Details aside, one expands quickly and the other expands further.
3) A few guard towers and some lightweight denizens were added to the map. Little speed bumps, small xp gains.
4) Ruin contents were almost all set at specific values. I am well aware of how unbalancing ruin rewards can be. Some rewards specifically encourage/enable certain behavior, hopefully to the benefit of the strategies required to achieve victory from those starting points. The ancient desert ruin houses a great Patriarch.
5) All sites were assigned values reflective of the difficulty of taking them, and suitable to the income needs of the local faction.
6) Map features and travel distances were slightly tweaked to encourage certain situations that I believe equate to a fair challenge for all players. This may be further adjusted with time.

As always, all suggestions and contributions are welcome! Please help me to improve this map in a timely fashion :)
LPhillips
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:25 am

Re: Crescendo [3.0] is submitted for review.

Postby LPhillips » Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:19 am

If you would like to participate in the test, just ask for the password. It's available to anyone, just drop a message here or directly to me.
LPhillips
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:25 am


Return to Map feedback

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Not able to open ./cache/data_global.php