Five or Six Tech Points
After reviewing the list of maps, including the official one, it seems that the dominant form of play will involve five-tech maps, and a close second will be a six- tech map. Nine to Seven so far.
Generally a 5 tech map wants to see a lot of teir2 action. That is, Both sides will likely be able to secure one tech point and then fight over the third. The victor will secure the 3rd and then it will be a teir3 vs a teir2 battle. Which is cool, teams should
So the 6 tech map operates under a similar premise, but generally assumes that generally teams will both be able to get tech 3. Which is fine.
But my thought is, why isn't any effort being invested into a map with 4 tech, or 7 tech, where Teir3 is either virtually impossible or virtually assured. Either state gives an interesting twist on gameplay. The first forces a situation where tech 2 is end-game for that particular map. The latter forces players to be ready to deal with tech 3 at a much earlier point than 5 or 6 tech maps.
Just something I was thinking of after compiling the index list.
Generally a 5 tech map wants to see a lot of teir2 action. That is, Both sides will likely be able to secure one tech point and then fight over the third. The victor will secure the 3rd and then it will be a teir3 vs a teir2 battle. Which is cool, teams should
So the 6 tech map operates under a similar premise, but generally assumes that generally teams will both be able to get tech 3. Which is fine.
But my thought is, why isn't any effort being invested into a map with 4 tech, or 7 tech, where Teir3 is either virtually impossible or virtually assured. Either state gives an interesting twist on gameplay. The first forces a situation where tech 2 is end-game for that particular map. The latter forces players to be ready to deal with tech 3 at a much earlier point than 5 or 6 tech maps.
Just something I was thinking of after compiling the index list.
Comments
4TP's sounds too one sided.
Of course it's early to speculate on weather not having t3 would break the fun aspect, I think it would work out fine in ns1. You'd have to reconsider which chambers to take since you'd never get the 3rd one. Marines probably now have similar limitations.
I guess I agree with the 7 tech thing, it would probably make it easier to draw a game out. maybe with the right map design though...
but a 5 tech map will only ever allow one team at a time to use t3, so it's not that much different to allow neither team access to it.
Once we get to know the ns2 gameplay, one might be able to design a fun 4TP map, maybe with a bit more node areas, where you can choose between very low res 3rd tier or only 1 tier with huge res income.
T1 vs T3 is pretty much game over though. A team beeing able to come back from that would be so rare that it's not wise to design a map around getting that possibility. So basically, in a t2 vs t2 map once a team gets a hive/cc down, they lack the resources to put up T3 but not the resources to keep the push going on T2. Atleast, that's the theory, anyway.
Once you go above T6, with atleast 7 res nodes, T3 is pretty much guarranteed. That can still be balanced by making it a resource fight (as in don't put in more then 8 res nodes) and use 10 or more techpoints to give multiple options for expansion, in which you really never know where the enemy will pop up...
But those are niche scenarios. I guess everything now are just normal maps aimed at having a proper NS match like we all remember and the fun/siege maps come after that (no matter how much people hate them they are part of the experience, too). Personally, should i ever make a map after prospecter i was planning on making a "fun" map myself :p
Would encurage superfast games, maybe whit 2 resnodes in the spawns, thues making it 3 teck 4 res (6 nodes - incase of +10min battles)
Would become a mix of a ns1 combat game and ns2 :D