Could large 3v3 maps be designed to promote capping and minimize blobbing?

[Oddnerd]

Hey all. There have been a few discussions about the differences between 1v1/2v2/3v3 in the last couple weeks and the general consensus seems to be that in 3v3 the lanes and maps in general are too small to be conducive to heavy micro gameplay. I have never used the map editor so I am not familiar with its limitations, but is it possible that 3v3 maps could be designed in such a way that more 1v1-style gameplay would be needed? I imagine if resources were more thinly spread and lanes were not as tight, people could still blob up if they wanted, but would be punished by a major loss in map control. It might be a way to keep the fun of playing with lots of people but reduce the amount of frustrating bull-rushing by races with tanky units.

Thoughts?

[hastaga]

I actually almost never have problem with my opponents blobbing up. Coz they'll eventually go away because of the resources points they've conceded else where in the map.

Anyway, this is what I think;

1. There are larger maps, except people prefer lane maps/smaller maps more

2. Larger maps actually cause a problem of 'regrouping too slow'. Once you're forced to retreat, it takes much longer for you to regroup. Meanwhile the other party can just cap w/e he/she wants. So there's an issue of it being too punishing. And don't think you can always just come back with full health and turn the table. (Therefore, it's not a good idea to spread resources point thinner than they are now because of enjoyment issue)

3. To mitigate the chance of being forced/out, blobbing is still the ultimate answer; and the squad amount of 2 armies should always be more than enough to cover all the resources point of 1/3 of the map. The harder for individual player to recover, the easier the map forces players to blob. (Lane maps like desert gate actually don't have as much of a 'blobbing' issue early on).

If you look at other RTS games that existed (such as warcraft, starcraft, age of empire). Map size based on player count does not scale with mobility/maneuver potential. The more people involved in the game, the more teamfight oriented it is. Besides, what's the point of playing a multiplayer match 'solo'?

[Indrid]

The majority of players don't like large maps, so if you make one it won't get played. Tiber Outpost is probably the upper limit of playable size, but most refuse to play that because they say it's too big.

[Adeptus Noobus]

I concur with Indrid. There are plenty of big maps which simply do not get played.

[Asmon]

This map size issue is easily solved with webgates. I'm always glad to play large maps oldschool style =)

[Indrid]

Webways and Ravener tunnels begin to dominate and give advantages exponentially as the map gets bigger. Tiber Outpost exasperates this by being an all-contested layout, so gates/tunnels can quickly contest all three VPs whereas other factions (especially Chaos, who have no quick transport) usually must foot-slog it to the middle areas to contest. If there were natural VPs that you could hold easier and get to on foot easier it wouldn't be as bad for them. You can still be victorious by killing things obviously, but if the engagements are pretty even then the gates can win the game.

Can't really blame Eldar/etc for using their advantages, but it can make for very un-fun matches.

[Lichtbringer]

Maybe a better Idea to solve the "problem" (if there is one, we have to keep in mind there is a reason why people like 3v3s, and making them more like 1v1s... is not everyones cup of tea), would be to reduce the Resourcegain to 1v1 levels.

[Dark Riku]

Maybe a better Idea to solve the "problem" (if there is one, we have to keep in mind there is a reason why people like 3v3s, and making them more like 1v1s... is not everyones cup of tea), would be to reduce the Resourcegain to 1v1 levels.

Recourse points in 1v1 generate more than those in 3v3 ... --> http://www.dawnofwar.info/index.php?pag ... ssary#cost

[Lichtbringer]

Maybe a better Idea to solve the "problem" (if there is one, we have to keep in mind there is a reason why people like 3v3s, and making them more like 1v1s... is not everyones cup of tea), would be to reduce the Resourcegain to 1v1 levels.

Recourse points in 1v1 generate more than those in 3v3 ... --> http://www.dawnofwar.info/index.php?pag ... ssary#cost

Absolutly true, but I think I am still right when I say that you get more ressources in a 3v3 then a 1v1 or not?^^ Your economy overall is stronger?
Or maybe I confused it with CoH2...
I don't think it would be a good Idea to lower it so much that everyone can field 1/3 of a 1v1 army aswell, but maybe some changes there could really shake it up in a way the OP wants.

Ok, what about this Idea: Make the maps more 1v1 like, maybe a bit bigger, and most importantly: all 3 Teammates start at the same point.
How would it play out if we took a normal 1v1 map and put 3 HQs right besides eachother?

[CSM Emperor]

we need bigger 3v3 maps with well spread resource points true, think of argus desert gate and calderis refinery combined like separate bases and large fighting area. Kathari Ruins is a good map to stretch even more and spread to make new map as well.

[CSM Emperor]

Absolutly true, but I think I am still right when I say that you get more ressources in a 3v3 then a 1v1 or not?^^ Your economy overall is stronger?
Or maybe I confused it with CoH2...
I don't think it would be a good Idea to lower it so much that everyone can field 1/3 of a 1v1 army aswell, but maybe some changes there could really shake it up in a way the OP wants.

Ok, what about this Idea: Make the maps more 1v1 like, maybe a bit bigger, and most importantly: all 3 Teammates start at the same point.
How would it play out if we took a normal 1v1 map and put 3 HQs right besides eachother?

Terrible idea.

[MaxPower]

we need bigger 3v3 maps with well spread resource points true, think of argus desert gate and calderis refinery combined like separate bases and large fighting area. Kathari Ruins is a good map to stretch even more and spread to make new map as well.

Nobody would play those bigger maps. We have bigger maps in the map pool right now, but they are rarely being played.

[Lichtbringer]

Absolutly true, but I think I am still right when I say that you get more ressources in a 3v3 then a 1v1 or not?^^ Your economy overall is stronger?
Or maybe I confused it with CoH2...
I don't think it would be a good Idea to lower it so much that everyone can field 1/3 of a 1v1 army aswell, but maybe some changes there could really shake it up in a way the OP wants.

Ok, what about this Idea: Make the maps more 1v1 like, maybe a bit bigger, and most importantly: all 3 Teammates start at the same point.
How would it play out if we took a normal 1v1 map and put 3 HQs right besides eachother?

Terrible idea.

Ah ok, good to know. Thanks for your contribution.

[CSM Emperor]

we need bigger 3v3 maps with well spread resource points true, think of argus desert gate and calderis refinery combined like separate bases and large fighting area. Kathari Ruins is a good map to stretch even more and spread to make new map as well.

Nobody would play those bigger maps. We have bigger maps in the map pool right now, but they are rarely being played.

The bigger maps need a better spread of resource points.

[Toilailee]

Well they would need to be wide and not too long like all the current big ones are. So the points could be spread out well and it wouldn't take forever to run back to and out of base.

[Laplace's Demon]

The issue of map layout actually speaks to balance in some ways. Armies with low durability but high speed benefit, because the map allows them to use their strengths and punishes the slowness/ durability of others. Its the one scenario where being fast offsets being fragile. As has been said, most games are on maps that make camp/ blob tactics feasible, which rewards slow, high durability factions and punishes high speed, low durability factions.

Solution? Give each faction access to capable durable/ slow options, as well as fast/ low durability options that don't easily dominate the options of others. Maybe we'll see more games on bigger maps if more factions are more competitive on them.

[Wise Windu]

Solution? Give each faction access to capable durable/ slow options, as well as fast/ low durability options that don't easily dominate the options of others. Maybe we'll see more games on bigger maps if more factions are more competitive on them.

That would have very strong balance implications across all game modes and map types/sizes, not just large 3v3 maps.

[Impregnable]

Sometimes I don't get why people complain greatly about fast, fragile factions being weak in current 3 v 3 maps especially eldar.

It is certainly true that some of most used 3 v 3 maps nowadays make flanking by fast factions very hard and favors blobbing up by slow, durable factions. Well, I can name some maps ex) argus, argent shelf, armageddon river crossing but most of the maps give a very good chance for fast factions to use their mobility in a very dominant way.

kathari ruins, kasyr ruthien, wrath of baal, estia province, meridian high city, avensa stronghold, death world temple, tartarus harbor
- all of these maps have very wide outskirt areas and hard to see corners for gates and tunnels and moving from one side of the map into the other takes a considerable amount of time.

A decent eldar or tyranid player can make life hellish for sluggish faction by quickly 3 v 2 or 2 v 1 one side using gates and tunnels and return to out number the other side before the other side have enough time to bash gens or take points. if they bunch up too much to keep their armies safe, then fast faction based teams can gain more points and overwhelm enemy using their fast tech and resources. Keeping up with mobility based factions on a gen bash contest is very difficult combined with above advantage.

I think its the nature of 3 v 3 that makes this kind of misconception that mobility based factions are weak in current maps. In order for these high mobility factions to use their strength to their fullest, they need a good coordination of actions and a preset strategy planning for each map but most of the team games consist of random people gathered in some random team without knowing each other's strategy which makes these kind of coordinated mobility based strategy nigh impossible in some cases. As as a result these fast factions go up against slow, durable factions on a line based war with fixed lanes and of course this is in favor of durable factions thus people decide to play as SM, Chaos, GK more than other factions which do not require too much coordination compared to mobility based ones.

[saltychipmunk]

there are large maps that dont promote blobing, no one plays them because no one actually likes large maps , probably because the individual races have uneven proficiency at map control and mobility.

as the big mek probably said at one point ... *fuck walkin*... (flawless ork)