Desert Gate Balance

[hastaga]

I do like this map a lot.
But I feel like the benefit that topside brings outweigh what bottom side can offer, very often leads to T1 victory at top snowballing too hard. Bottom side is often considered to be a secondary objective only after top side is secured

A few reasons why bottom side fails to provide as much of an incentive for players to fight for compare to top;

1. If top side is controlled, the gen farm in mid can also be controlled by the top side dominant team with relative ease because of the close distance. Thus, there is no trade-off in the decision of forcing top instead of bot.

2. Bot side is difficult to 'hold'.
The worth of bottom side is supposedly gen farms. The natural gen farm there is easy to reinforce however, making the risk to linger for the pressing side greater.

Also, counter play against a hostile occupied gen farm is easier to pull off; by destroying gens, which is easier than capturing a victory point.

Gens are also closer to each other compare to top and mid gens, which makes it easier to do consecutive gen farm wipe.

Due to landscape (compare to top side), Bottom walls are also very easy to breach, making the gen farms easily 'accessible' (to destroy).

Suggestion:

- Swap mid power and req position

- Or swap mid power with top victory point

Something that increases the incentive to pull players to bottom side, instead of always capping top and have power and victory point advantage over the other side at the same time.

[ThongSong]

if anything I feel what happens mid-bottom in early game has more of an impact than anything that happens top does. bottom has the majority of the resource nodes. the team that controls that in the first part of the game usually gains a major eco advantage. It's only when people start hitting late t2 or t3 that the mid/top becomes a major focus.

[hastaga]

if anything I feel what happens mid-bottom in early game has more of an impact than anything that happens top does. bottom has the majority of the resource nodes. the team that controls that in the first part of the game usually gains a major eco advantage. It's only when people start hitting late t2 or t3 that the mid/top becomes a major focus.

No offence, but I highly question the authenticity of your opinion. All the replays I watched from Indridcasts showed that teams highly favor the top side instead of the bot side since the very second they can mobilize their starting units.

The reason was explained with my argument in the original post; it is harder to siege due to limited access and provide as much resources control (3 nodes for bot, and 2 nodes top plus one for mid, which is in fact closer to top side). Also, attacking top after zerging bot risks encountering setup team, making the siege significantly more difficult. (Of course, one would argue the same could be done to bot side, but as stated, it is easier to go around.)

I think that node in the middle (along with the impassible terrain) really contributes a lot of incentive to players deciding to collapse at top at the beginning of the game. The node is right at the entrance of mid to top, making it within the defensive perimeter of the team that has held top. It is very safe to say that the team that holds top has easier access to the power node at mid.

It is possible for teams to swing to bot after losing their contest at top, but what would happen next is that they would lose their natural and bleed even more victory points. Assuming bot side was a draw at first, by the time the situation described above happens, the effect of that power deterrence should be minial, because everyone would have 4 squads + gears and half way to enough power to t2.

[ThongSong]

if anything I feel what happens mid-bottom in early game has more of an impact than anything that happens top does. bottom has the majority of the resource nodes. the team that controls that in the first part of the game usually gains a major eco advantage. It's only when people start hitting late t2 or t3 that the mid/top becomes a major focus.

No offence, but I highly question the authenticity of your opinion.

based on?

[Sub_Zero]

Just agree to not double and you will see that there can be 1 v 1 + 1 v 1 + 1 v 1 on this map. People just got used to double top.

[Torpid]

wtf do you mean agree to not double, that's the whole fucking point of team games, otherwise you should be playing 1v1 for the emphasis on micro/macro -_-

Anyway, how can the map be imbalanced when it is symmetrical? Are we calling a map imbalanced if every single starting position hasn't the same value and applications? Is Arena of Ashes imbalanced because eldar are better than most races in the top slot and SM/chaos better than most in the bottom two? This would make every map in the game unbalanced, but this is DOW2, it is meant to be unbalanced which is why we have 19 different heroes. Rather than the innate balance being the main motivating factor of victory though, it is usually one's ability to react and adjust to changes in the game that decides who wins.

Anyway, next time you're on argus go IG/nids/SM fixed positions, have SM top spamming snipers, IG bottom with 2x sents/2x GM + spotters, eventually turreting the central node on the side CLOSEST to the foe. Have nids and their early pressure middle and have the nids ignore top and just double bot/cap middle. Don't build gens top, just let the SM spam snipers for attrition while 2 gen farms are purchased in the bottom lane and another potentially in the middle/natural of SM all depending on what the top/mid player are focusing on most. You can do similar ideas with any race and you can adjust your build orders based on where you spawn on the map, this isn't imbalance, this is the whole premise of DOW2 ffs...

[Bahamut]

dunno about the rest of torpid's post but his initial statement is undeniable. The map is symmetrical, it's virtually impossible for a symmetrical map to be imbalanced

the only balance issue that can come out of symmetrical maps is that some races need to be gen bashed early game more than others in order to keep said race in line but that's a race balance issue not a map issue

[appiah4]

I think swapping botton Req and gen farm places would be the way to fix it. As is, there is way too little incentive to bash gens, they are too far and too natural and the mid node is pointless to cap/node, so why not make it a req pt anyway? That would make the lower lane a million times more interesting and worthwhile. This way the mid player will have more incentive to help both sides rather than automatically double top.

Also, please change the places of power and req nodes at top; the gen farm is too far away to defend after a retreat as is.

[Nuclear Arbitor]

it's not an issue the map being unbalanced for game play, it's a matter of certain parts of the map being uninteresting for players. i think the reason the map has so much emphasis on the top is because all there are only two points on each side and a vp in the middle combined with the only useful way down which leads to conflicts there for the top to players regardless of what else is happening on the map. in addition the natural vps are hard to take and so controlling the top not only gives you the vp edge but also lets you potentially burn half the enemy's power. because the power is there a player has to be there to defend it and while they're there they might as well push for the vp since there isn't anything else to do and you need it to win the game. the middle player has more points to manage but by doubling the top they not only help secure the crucial vp but also secure their gen farm and threaten the enemy's. there are two contestable points and a vp you can decap for 30 seconds or so and those can be fought over when not helpin the top. in addition a middle player flanking top has a very good opportunity to get squad wipes on an over extended player because there is so much room to come up at the stairs.

the bottom has more points than the top but is much narrower, leading to slower and more entrenched game play, especially in t1, and is so far from the rest of what's happening that it just turns into a 1v1 off to the side, occasionally influenced by the middle player. because about half the contestable resources are a team can control the top and middle and still have enough resources.