What makes a good 3v3 (or 2v2) map?

[Tsototar]

So, I just got a new PC, and after some stumbling blocks managed to get World Builder running. I'm thinking I'm gonna try my hand at putting together a couple of maps. So, would like to solicit opinions -

What do you feel makes for a good team game map?

What is your favourite 3v3 map, and why do you like it?

What is your least favourite, and what's wrong with it?

What 3v3 map is there that you would love just that there's that one niggling problem with it, in which case what is that problem?

[DandyFrontline]

>What is your favourite 3v3 map, and why do you like it?

There is a lot of good 3vs3 maps (unlike 2vs2). Favourite 3vs3 maps "Kesyr Lutien redux", "Argus Gate", "Estia Province", "Deathworld temple", "Calderis Refinery" and "Angel Gate".

>What 3v3 map is there that you would love just that there's that one niggling problem with it, in which case what is that problem?

"Argent Shelf reduxV2" is really good map, but there is one thing i hate about it - the solo lane is too small and really hard to flank and there is no way to change it (unlike on "Argus desert gate" where wall's can be destroyed). So solo lane is a bit boring and i think unbalanced for some factions against other.

>What is your least favourite, and what's wrong with it?

"Ashes of Typhon" - the way bases are placed is just silly

>What do you feel makes for a good team game map?

Make less small "corridors". Or if there is such a - there should be possibility do destroy those walls. Maps should be wide, so there is always were a possibility to flank. Points should be placed in that way players forced to play together. I love when the middle player can chose witch player to help (like on "Kesyr Lutien redux", unlike "Argus" where middle player should always help Top player for example). I dont like stupid ladders like it is on "Capital Spire". Also, i love the "Angel Gate" map style where all 3 players can easily play together. Several other thoughts i said in another Swiftsaber's post about 2vs2 maps.

[Torpid]

Flanking routes are very important.
Lots of LoS blockers, but in positions such that they don't make tank/transport play utterly useless.
At least one farm must be fairly accessible by the opposite team and thereby vulnerable to bashes.
Largely symmetrical.
If it's big it should be horizontally big not vertically big.
Try to avoid too much elevation too or if you do have it separate it off via narrow passage ways to get up to, don't have an open hill sort of thing.
In general don't have too many open areas that cover VPs and so on as it just becomes an artillery-fest which is lame as hell.

[Tsototar]

>What is your favourite 3v3 map, and why do you like it?

There is a lot of good 3vs3 maps (unlike 2vs2). Favourite 3vs3 maps "Kesyr Lutien redux", "Argus Gate", "Estia Province", "Deathworld temple", "Calderis Refinery" and "Angel Gate".

and why do you like those? are you able to define what is it about those maps that make it your favourite?

unlike "Argus" where middle player should always help Top player for example

actually, this isn't necessarily ALWAYS the case. one strategy for that map is to quickly double and smash the left lane, in which case the power income of that losing side can be really ruined, since people tend to "expect" to have one genfarm on the left.

i love the "Angel Gate" map

I'm glad you like Angel Gate too, a lot of people seem to hate it (basically because they don't know how to play it).

[Tsototar]

Largely symmetrical.

I actually think asymmetry is nice. Symmetry in a map is an easier way for "competition fairness" (I don't have the term for it), but I think it's often nice to have a situation where "ok these are the cards that life has handed you, you've just got to play them the best you can". I agree there can be too much asymmetry (Selenon Fissure in 2v2, for example).

If it's big it should be horizontally big not vertically big.

I don't fully understand this. The map should be "long" and not "tall"? That seems to reduce the flexibility of players to choose either to blob up with a teammate or operate independently - if the midsection is "narrow" then everyone is funnelled into the centre?

Try to avoid too much elevation too or if you do have it separate it off via narrow passage ways to get up to, don't have an open hill sort of thing.

I don't understand - what makes this not fun?

In general don't have too many open areas that cover VPs and so on as it just becomes an artillery-fest which is lame as hell.

how about buildings?

[DandyFrontline]

@Tsototar

and why do you like those? are you able to define what is it about those maps that make it your favourite?

Well, it's symmetrical. I like symmetry.

"Kesyr Lutien redux" - very good visually map. Feels like urban fight in destroyed city with a lot of well placed cover. A lot of place to flank, sweet open areas near VP's for good battles with some nice cover a little further. The map is wide, so it is good balanced for all factions unlike map's with tunnels like solo line on Argent Shelf Redux V2(or not just that version of the map). As the map is symmetrical from all sides, and in the middle of the map there is only VP, the middle player can always choice witch side to help and he always can easily change it so he is not attached to any side and not forced to fight middle all the time.

"Argus Gate" - the most popular map. What i dont really like about this map, there is solo thin line, but the walls is destructible, so you can make some ways to flank later on (or if you use fatass commanders like WB or CL, or got senti you can break the walls from the very beginning).

actually, this isn't necessarily ALWAYS the case. one strategy for that map is to quickly double and smash the left lane, in which case the power income of that losing side can be really ruined, since people tend to "expect" to have one genfarm on the left.

Yea, i know. But it's really unpopular tactic and even when it used, the TOP guys double that lone guy, destroy nodes as well and control the VP. When the at the start you fight on the top-bot lines, the end game usually relocated to middle. For me it's hard to say why actually this map is good, maybe because it's just very simple.

"Estia Province" - wide, a lot of place for flanking, good visually, well placed VP's and power.

"Deathworld temple" - can say pretty same as i did for "Estia".

"Calderis" - Love it because there is 1 important line with VP and energy, and 2 other lines are unimportant, so there is a lot of place for different tactics

"Angel Gates" - very extraordinary map where all 3 players can play together all the game, nice urban battles. Really fun map if your m8's are not dumb to sit all the game at the bottom .

[Torpid]

I actually think asymmetry is nice. Symmetry in a map is an easier way for "competition fairness" (I don't have the term for it), but I think it's often nice to have a situation where "ok these are the cards that life has handed you, you've just got to play them the best you can". I agree there can be too much asymmetry (Selenon Fissure in 2v2, for example).

Well that can be imbalanced and that sucks, but it isn't the end of the world, ultimately you can randomly get a bad MU in a team game where chance could have gave you a good MU since the opponents had 3 separate heroes. It's ok, but asymmetry is risky. You always want the points to be an equal distance for each player to get them at, that is the natural on either side can be obtained in about the same time. I think making it so that one side gets easier access to power and the other a VP is quite interesting and can work though, so there is some room for play.

I don't fully understand this. The map should be "long" and not "tall"? That seems to reduce the flexibility of players to choose either to blob up with a teammate or operate independently - if the midsection is "narrow" then everyone is funnelled into the centre?

Ugh, what I mean is make it such that the centre of the map is not miles away from the bases. Additional space to make a map bigger should be added horizontal to the base rather than vertical to it. So take Argus desert gate. If we wanted to make it bigger, given the positions of the bases we would stretch each lane to make them wider, but not stretch each lane to make them longer. Basically this is because stretching them longer maintains the same level of linearity - if the map lacks linearity in the first place, fine stretch them via length, but otherwise stretching them in width is better as it reduces linearity and linearity is bad.

I don't understand - what makes this not fun?

Well it just causes too many elevation problems really. Even with the change to artillery to make it arc it goes crazy when you shoot artillery down from high elevation by going too far. I remember in the past there being an issue with smoke not working on certain elevation too, not sure if that was ever fixed.

They're OK and they serve as great line of sight blockers in the late game. Can emphasis the LoS blocker bit and minimise the garrison potential by making the firing windows poor, as in only 1 or two windows covers the VP. Too many though or having ones with lots of firing windows in key points like near power points or VPs can be very unfair to some races, but if you have a good horizontal map you can flank around that still.

[Cheekie Monkie]

Does any her her except me love Valhalla? Such an under appreciated gem.

Also, please don't make yet another butthuhuge map, nids never sleep is a prime example of this.

[Tsototar]

I don't really want to "reimplement" maps that already exist (though I should definitely do that first to learn how to do things - WorldBuilder is SUPER COMPLICATED, I'm getting a real appreciation for the amount of work that went in to the existing maps (no wonder the game doesn't have more maps).

What do I like about the games (and Dawn of War 2 in general)?

I really like the need to fight and move around (as opposed to just turtling in one spot like in other games). I really love how the economy mechanics (generally) allows for come-from-behind victories. In team games, I really like how there's a lot of scope for either operating together, or one-on-one battling. As general principles these are what I hope I can have in any maps I make.

To that end, yes, I don't really like maps that are too "lane-y", where you're basically smashing head-on one player against another and that's it for the whole game (that's actually one criticism for Argus).

In terms of symmetry, that's one way to shut out any complaints about "unfairness" in the map. But I do believe it's possible to be "practically-symmetric" without being "absolutely" symmetric - like, with careful placement of impassable terrain it should be possible to make it take the same amount of time to reach particular objectives without it being just a mirror image of each other (care must be taken allowing for teleporting heroes, though).

But I really like what Argent Shelf was doing, I think - as a kind of, "one side has an advantage in X, the other has an advantage in Y, let's see what they make of it".

Anyways, it's going to be a real slog, the "documentation" PDF for WorldBuilder leaves out a LOT of stuff, and there's so much information not obtainable except through trial and error I suppose - I don't even know how big the official maps are, all it said was that 1v1 maps aren't smaller than 256x256, 3v3 maps are never bigger than 512x512, which in my first test is HUGE (much too big). There's YouTube videos and various things findable by Google and I'm gonna rely on those, but it does not look like I'll be unleashing new maps upon the world anytime soon

[Indrid]

Grab London Duncan's guide Tsototar, it has the measurements of some of the retail maps to give you an idea of size. Also lots of useful basic info. You get better at the WB by using it obviously. You'll learn how to do things quickly for your own style of building, and what looks good.

I don't agree that asking people what they are looking for in maps is very useful though. You'll just get loads of conflicting answers; players have very different tastes. It's also easy to say "I want a map that XX" when you have no experience in the WorldBuilder and how things work, ideas that seem good to people on paper are sometimes just not workable or fun.

I think it's better to just have your own clear design vision and follow it through, it's why I tend to not show off my maps until they are finished or at least ready to be played on. It's a blend of having conviction for your own ideas and being willing to change your map, sometimes drastically, when you yourself see problems. Like I did with pretty much all of mine (big changes to Kathari is next build). If you're not willing to put a lot of effort into your map and not half-ass it, don't start. You need to not be blind to the problems and pretend they're not there, and put time into fixing them.

Don't take criticism too harshly, but try to take it on board when it seems reasonable and well informed. It's not easy to take it in your stride because making a polished map that just looks good is hours and hours of work, let alone one that people want to play. Just remember that when people mention little niggles they have with a map, it doesn't mean they don't like it in general and won't play it. I have lots of problems with Angel Gate, but I don't refuse to play it. There is a lot of "map whine" in DoW2 though, and you will get people that will just refuse to play it. Again, don't take it personally when it happens.

[Tsototar]

Hey, thanks for the link, I just found this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=163

from a Google search, even though I *thought* I'd clicked through the "Modding" section to see if there was anything about World Builder....

If you're not willing to put a lot of effort into your map and not half-ass it, don't start. You need to not be blind to the problems and pretend they're not there, and put time into fixing them.

After reading just the install-included worldbuilder doc I can totally see the amount of work it'd take just for a single map!

There is a lot of "map whine" in DoW2 though

oh it's not just about *maps*....

[Batpimp]

What do you feel makes for a good team game map?

A map that is open but has a lot of cover and avenues to advance in.

What is your favourite 3v3 map, and why do you like it?

Argus Desert Gate. I love it because of the above. If for whatever reason I cant push my lane I can always move somewhere else and apply 2v1 pressure.

What is your least favourite, and what's wrong with it?

Angel gate. It is so cramped and small that its impossible to do anything. Or white Walls of Calderis because bottom 2 players are directly across from each other and the distance is incredibly small.

What 3v3 map is there that you would love just that there's that one niggling problem with it, in which case what is that problem?

I think tiber outpost is a great idea for a map but must be made like 30% smaller. Siccarus plateau could also be a great map if it was smaller by 25% and the bottom half of the map was stretched out a bit.