Bullrun5 [3.0] is submitted for review.

[KGB]

New map: Bullrun5 [3.0] by KGB.
Map editor link: Bullrun5 [3.0]

[KGB]

Changed the 4v4 setup as per discussion with MoonKnight. It's now White/Yellow/Green/Black vs Blue/Teal/Red/Orange (2 sections vs 2 sections).


Prior updates for version 0.8 are:

- Addition of Undead Lore temples in areas of the map not currently used much to encourage more game play there.
- Minor road additions in places that aren't often visited to encourage more game play there.
- Minor terrain mods for game play balance.
- Income buildings in far off places now have minimum income of 20 to encourage players to capture them. All now have a view radius of 5 to help with viewing in FOW.
- Changed the item in the Archon and Dragon city.
- Revisited all Neutral production and changed based on SnotlinG's update to Poor/Normal/Good/Powerful definitions. Each start spot now has a couple of close by poor cities. The majority of the rest are Normal with a few Goods scattered around evenly.
- Set starting spots for 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, 2v2v2, 2v2v2v2. These setups are different enough that they should all play uniquely (ie 2v2 and 3v3 are not simply top vs bottom).

Please add this map to the ladder list and remove the prior one so there is no confusion. That reminds me that it would be nice to allow map creators to update their versions themselves without needing Piranha/Snotling's help.

KGB

[Moonknight]

Thanks KGB, I'll let you know what I think the next time I have a 4v4...which is usually often b/c this is a great map!

[LPhillips]

This is a good change. We've just dominated two matches on this map because of the sandwich situations created by previous spawn settings. Nice work as usual, KGB.

[KGB]

I just hope it doesn't lead to a problem with the narrow gaps in the mountains. Most don't have nearby cities and few people would build snow units to take advantage but still it may be an issue.

Which is why I suggested the alternate 4v4 which had you fight in every major section which made for more open terrain to maneuver.

I guess we'll know more after a few games worth of play.

KGB

[LPhillips]

Must not allow chokepoints with current game mechanics, eh?

[KGB]

LOL. Actually I'm not worried about them for the Ambush reason.

It more in terms of the map design. It was never intended to be a choke point control map. There are choke points of course but winning a game on this map shouldn't revolve entirely around controlling them. The idea is they should be just one part of winning on this map (along with owning the 4 super production cities, controlling the major roadways, scouting/patrolling the vast open center of the map, searching out of the way ruins/gold sites etc.)

And of course ideally I want the 8 positions to play as differently as possible which is why the NE and SW corners aren't mirrors of each other nor are the East/West middle spots mirrors. You should have to do different things depending on where you start and depending on game type.

KGB

[Moonknight]

By the way, I never see any of the four super cities taken over. The game is usually decided before there are strong enough forces to take down the neutrals.

The new alignment in 4v4 games might change that though.

[Modman74]

[LPhillips]

Still seeing problems with the spawns in team games. Top right is out of the picture for a good while, leaving top left/mid to gang up on mid left. A little anti-air will keep top right out of the game effectively for the first 10+ turns (one city of Elf production!). Mid right has the choice of attempting to help mid left or bottom left (who is also being ganged by bottom right/mid) while being effectively isolated from both by distance. Helping bottom left and stalling top left/mid is the correct choice, but mid right has poor/slow expansion and is simply open to aggression from bottom without being an effective aid (a distraction at best). Focusing entirely on the south surrenders map control to strongly entrenched mid/left top.

I'm not seeing any balanced possibilities for this asymmetrical map unless you want to do a right vs. left. Anything else becomes a matter of people getting ganged/sandwiched on one team or the other. You've got two slow expanding mid players on the same team right now, along with the top right whose position is normally useful only against the mid right (his teammate in this setup). You've got all 4 quick expansion spots on the other team. They're meant to counter each other by threat of proximity in FFA play, giving the slower players needed time, are they not?

It's a recipe for complete disaster. We ran it with an impeccable strategy from the weaker side, and probably even if we'd all managed our parts perfectly we would still have lost. One possibility is an altered version for team play with just a few extra cities and one or two terrain alterations (close a pass here, create one there, add a little speed bump here, etc.) I don't really want a right vs left stalemate on the current map, but right now it's just broken.