layout idea
None of the layouts provided in the mapping guidelines quite fit the shape of the map I'm planning, so I started toying around and came up with this:
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/NyMW4.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
(version #2; original linked below)
The idea is that each tech point has particular implications for resource availability. The layout is symmetrical, so for simplicity I'll describe it from the point of view of only one team, and refer to res points as "near" (just outside the starting base), "middle", "far" (the two in the upper left) and "corner" (in the lower-left/upper-right).
At tech 1, each team only has "safe" access to the near res node. From there, the center res provides access to the two far res nodes, so a team that can hold them all gets a 5-to-2 resource advantage at this stage in the game. However, both the near and middle res nodes are vulnerable; losing either one will cut off the two far nodes.
At tech 2, each team has a choice between the near and far expansion tech points. The near tech grants access to one more corner res node, plus it helps support the middle node so that the near node is no longer a vulnerable bottleneck. This in turn makes it easier to focus defense on the middle in order to hold the two far res nodes. On the other hand, the far tech point makes it possible to hold the far res nodes without holding the middle, which has its own advantages for deployment and defense.
At tech 3 all resources become available. The middle is no longer so critical at this stage, although it offers some support for the far nodes, and its position always makes it valuable for territorial control.
Comments? Critiques? Suggestions?
==========
original version: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/bbZmD.png" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/bbZmD.png</a>
<strike>Each team's third tech point is the most attractive region on the map, granting access to the majority of the available resources, but getting there quickly means rushing either tech or resources at the expense of the other. The third points themselves are hard to defend against so many incoming routes, one of which leading almost directly to an enemy tech point. The center resource is also hard to defend and will probably change hands often, but without it, the second tech point becomes a critical vulnerability.</strike>
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/NyMW4.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
(version #2; original linked below)
The idea is that each tech point has particular implications for resource availability. The layout is symmetrical, so for simplicity I'll describe it from the point of view of only one team, and refer to res points as "near" (just outside the starting base), "middle", "far" (the two in the upper left) and "corner" (in the lower-left/upper-right).
At tech 1, each team only has "safe" access to the near res node. From there, the center res provides access to the two far res nodes, so a team that can hold them all gets a 5-to-2 resource advantage at this stage in the game. However, both the near and middle res nodes are vulnerable; losing either one will cut off the two far nodes.
At tech 2, each team has a choice between the near and far expansion tech points. The near tech grants access to one more corner res node, plus it helps support the middle node so that the near node is no longer a vulnerable bottleneck. This in turn makes it easier to focus defense on the middle in order to hold the two far res nodes. On the other hand, the far tech point makes it possible to hold the far res nodes without holding the middle, which has its own advantages for deployment and defense.
At tech 3 all resources become available. The middle is no longer so critical at this stage, although it offers some support for the far nodes, and its position always makes it valuable for territorial control.
Comments? Critiques? Suggestions?
==========
original version: <a href="http://i.imgur.com/bbZmD.png" target="_blank">http://i.imgur.com/bbZmD.png</a>
<strike>Each team's third tech point is the most attractive region on the map, granting access to the majority of the available resources, but getting there quickly means rushing either tech or resources at the expense of the other. The third points themselves are hard to defend against so many incoming routes, one of which leading almost directly to an enemy tech point. The center resource is also hard to defend and will probably change hands often, but without it, the second tech point becomes a critical vulnerability.</strike>
Comments
<img src="http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/8527/bbzmd.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
It's an interesting tweak; can you elaborate on what exactly you prefer about it?
On the one hand maybe that third tech node has too many of the resources, but on the other hand I like the tech-rush route being explicitly low-resource, so if a team wants to balance tech and res, they can't rush down either route.
I don't think center needs to be a double res however, since it's already a strategic enough location and the layout already has the maximum recommended resources. Besides, with an even number of tech points I think I'd prefer an odd number of resources, so the two teams can't ever have exactly the same situation.
So I've re-thought the layout with that in mind and edited the first post. Let me know what you all think.
On the one hand maybe that third tech node has too many of the resources, but on the other hand I like the tech-rush route being explicitly low-resource, so if a team wants to balance tech and res, they can't rush down either route.
I don't think center needs to be a double res however, since it's already a strategic enough location and the layout already has the maximum recommended resources. Besides, with an even number of tech points I think I'd prefer an odd number of resources, so the two teams can't ever have exactly the same situation.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was reminiscing about playing commander and thinking about how having 4 far away nodes would have been pretty tough for marines to keep under control. My first impression was that it was heavily sided towards aliens since they'd also require two additional hive locations too. The only way I could think of locking down those far away nodes would be a turret farm (thinking NS1).
Your new design doesn't have that cringing feeling (to me) anymore :) FYI - I'm not a mapper though.
The only thing was the ressource nodes drawback that I've made in the alternative that I think are really much better, but the double node in the middle might be a bad idea after all. I think you should keep that first layout, the second one is more generic and similar to other layouts I've seen.. and there isn't that "tech way" or "ress way" as much as the first layout which was much creative compared to most layout I've seen.
The only thing was the ressource nodes drawback that I've made in the alternative that I think are really much better, but the double node in the middle might be a bad idea after all. I think you should keep that first layout, the second one is more generic and similar to other layouts I've seen.. and there isn't that "tech way" or "ress way" as much as the first layout which was much creative compared to most layout I've seen.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the problem was I originally thought the "tech way" would actually have to be a linear progression -- I thought the team would have to build the near tech point before they could get to the far one. But since I think tech points can be built at any time, the first layout has absolutely no reason to build on the near one first; it provides no access to anything, so both teams would always go for the far one first, and then hit the near one only when they were ready for tech #3. In that context, of being able to use either tech point first, your tweak of moving the bonus node to the second point makes a lot more sense to me, and I used it in the revision.
So the only difference between my revision and your tweak is whether the second tech point should reinforce the middle, and whether the middle should give access to the far nodes. I can see arguments either way. Having he middle connect to the far nodes makes it more important, which in turn lends some importance to the second tech point; on the other hand, giving the third tech point some exclusive res makes it more attractive for the team that already holds the middle.
The main things I'm shooting for is making either tech expansion valuable in its own way, so teams don't always build in the same order, and also having a few res chains at some points in the game so that teams can make use of the "cut the supply line" tactic. Most of the provided layouts seem to have tech and res alternating everywhere, so there are no res chains to break.