Small Change to mapgen?

I think it could be a good idea to have the mapgen system try and avoid 1v2 starting positions, such as this one

I just think that it is a pretty bad gameplay mechanic having a player just get abused by two players and out the game within the first 5-10 minutes, should have just joined a dual gap lol

obviously very dependant on teammates and map design but we cant always choose our teammates and how much support they want to give.

Disagree, 2v1 positions like that can be very fun to play.

I do think that this is only a problem if the rating range is quite large. E.g. when a 1800 player faces someone below 1200 it usually results in a shitshow, e.g. like my last game #20204388 (Salt included! POG).

Besides that asymmetrical maps do create a way better gameplay cuz e.g. you can't simply scout and react to your direct opponent. With such an asymmetry you have to zoom out and plan way ahead, e.g. do you want to crush your side or do you want to assist your fuckspot with e.g. air?
Besides that, most "fuck spots" are not even that fucked. The map you sent for example, the player still has a lot of mexes. Yeah, he faces two ACUs which isn't easy to handle for e.g. a 700, but one player managing the eco of two bases is way better than two players managing the eco of two bases.

Or in short:
Large rating gap: I agree ; Otherwise, I disagree cuz more interesting gameplay

Without wanting to judge on your actual intention.

How do you come to the conclusion that this is a small change? I'm not related into the map generator at all, but I could imagine that this is super complicated to detect from randomly generated terrain.

@brutus5000 said in Small Change to mapgen?:

Without wanting to judge on your actual intention.

How do you come to the conclusion that this is a small change? I'm not related into the map generator at all, but I could imagine that this is super complicated to detect from randomly generated terrain.

I might be wrong, but from the way the map, starting points and expansions look it seems like this is 4v4 preset in 3v3 scenario. Or rather, I'm like 99% sure this is 2v2v2v2 map. So maybe changing number of teams to 2, and tweaking the symmetry options is gonna be enough. And by that I mean the "Num teams:" and "terrain symmetry:" options being restricted to certain predetermined options instead of using the current ones.

Btw, I'm talking out of my arse as I never took a proper look at the code of it. Just saw certain patters over generating thousands of maps.

Yea this is my main problem with the 3v3 tmm. Most of the maps suck, and they're just not actual 3v3 maps such as this one. It's clearly generated as a 4v4 or 2v2v2v2.

While I agree being that one spot person can be fun, what's not fun is when the person in that spot on your team isn't nearly as good as the other team's single position and the game is over before it starts.

Don’t know how this isn’t a 3v3 map. If one of the spawns that are together doesn’t go t2 air your team is gonna die to air. So the only real 2v1 aspect are the ACUs, but the guy spawning alone gets all the mexes to his left and can just turtle up in his base and be fine in map control. Gun ACUs can’t break 5 t2 pd.

While you can play it as 3v3 it is clearly a 2v2v2v2 type of map. There are 8 spawns and the symmetry used is the one for 4 teams mapgens.

In this scenario the map was very small so 2 coms just walked straight upto the single slot and it was game after that, no time for t2 pd.

The reason there are eight spawns is because that is what the settings can be, even up to 12 spawns:

The matchmaker team can change that up as they see fit.

@jip said in Small Change to mapgen?:

The reason there are four spawns is because that is what the settings can be, even up to 12 spawns:

The matchmaker team can change that up as they see fit.

This is what I was trying to say. I don't understand why the 3v3 isn't using 6 spawns as a setting. The maps would be far more balanced around 3v3.

Because that's like 0 mex

Imo it's more of number of teams/symmetry problem than amount of spawns.

@caliber said in Small Change to mapgen?:

In this scenario the map was very small so 2 coms just walked straight upto the single slot and it was game after that, no time for t2 pd.

So did the other team not do the same? Sounds like a skill issue.

@veteranashe said in Small Change to mapgen?:

So did the other team not do the same? Sounds like a skill issue.

my team actually won the game, but its not about winning or losing, its just not fun being used as a punching bag for 5 mins then being killed, i feel like theres no point in playing a game like that.

@caliber unironically being in such a spot sometimes is way more fun ; At least my personal experience and the ones of some dudes I usually play with. I'd say around 70% of the ppl I know enjoy being in such a position from time to time.
Cuz either you win and carried the game bc of that
Or you lose and noone can blame you due to being in a gas spot with e.g. 15 mexes less

@sladow-noob I agree that on larger maps it is fun if you can establish control and get set up, so i guess my grip comes from the smaller maps where you only have time to make maybe 3 factories before two coms decide to push you and its just a lose from there.

Isn't that the fun part though? I could give you 10+ replays where I was in that spot and it's the challenge I love ; Making decision to counter smth which is way stronger than your current stuff

Reason why most people fail is bc they're like "Oh I need t2 mexes in order to have equal eco" which dooms them

@caliber i actually think gimped slots are fun to play every once in a while. If you know you're gonna lose playing normally, it means you can try something weird

Even something basic as rushing t2 land for very fast pd is already different from usual gameplay and gives you room to maybe 3v1 the enemy gimped slot with t2 air