Starry Isle
Creator: Lunanova || First Published: 03/29/2015 || Players: 5 || Size: 30x30
Categories: None
Rating: 9.20 in 5 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
the-deadly-shadow (03/30/2015 01:38pm):
I think this one will turn out in a big stalemate. There is to little to attack for. Even if you attack, your other oponent
might wait until the two of you ruin each other. I would recomment putting more properties in the center ring and
putting the neutral base a few 2~3 tiles from the mountains.
Lunanova (03/30/2015 02:18pm):
i have a game running of this so we'll find out! its unlikely that all 5 players will have the same idea to hold ground i
think but ill see how this game plays out and tweak, TY!

most 'perfect' maps (that are symmetrical) i find just look plain ugly. im hoping to break that chain and put out
maps that are more refreshing haha

-L
Xmo5 (03/30/2015 06:43pm):
Symmetric maps can certainly lose a degree of natural appeal to them, but the problem is that it's
extremely difficult (though not impossible) to balance asymmetrical maps sufficiently. 99% of the
time, the vast majority of serious players and serious mappers will prefer a map that's symmetrical
to one that isn't because they simply play much nicer and balance like a charm (if you do everything
else right).

The problem is that there are just so many factors to consider just to get "casual play" level of
balance that often the only people to even bother trying are new map makers who haven't
played/mapped enough to realize the challenges they're up against. Achieving a degree of balance
that would be fit for league matches and high-level competitive play is something as-of-yet
unobtained (though there have been some good attempts). It's basically the AWBW equivalent of a
worm hole; it's theoretically possible, but we have no direct evidence of any such thing actually
existing. Even some of the best map makers have tried this without success (though decent
playable maps exist).

You can take me as an example: While there are plenty of much better map makers out there, I
consider myself fairly adept at making/balancing/critiquing maps yet, despite my laborious attempts
to succeed in this regard, I have been unable to make a fair asymmetrical map. Feel free to take a
look at an attempt of mine and understand that I spent hours calculating distances to key properties
of all kinds of units, terrain defense, ease of access, vulnerability, funding, etc. but failed to sync up
the expansion/capture rates, giving one side a major advantage:

http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=60696


That said, you are absolutely more than welcome to keep making asymmetrical maps, but I just want
you to be aware of what you're getting yourself into; you're not the first to feel this way and I'm
sure you won't be the last. Odds are you'll get a lot of criticism full of balance issues that need to be
addressed (assuming the critics are helpful) but there might not be any valid solutions with the way
the map is designed. So as long as you're prepared for that, map away to your hearts content!

Lunanova (03/30/2015 09:43pm):
Yeah it's a sticky situation huh? I'm glad people have been vocal about my maps it means that they noticed my
work which is nice ! But the comments totally help me try to better the map. Maybe super good players will
purposely pick the side which has the least advantage for more of a challenge? Maybe haha
Ty ty!

-L
the-deadly-shadow (05/09/2015 07:47am | Edited: 05/09/2015 08:00am):
I do agree with Xmo that making fair assymetric maps are harder to create, and I do agree that they are less
boring. However I do not agree with the fact that they are almost impossible to make them fair. Consider
European Diplomats, one of the best maps on the side and every side has won a decent ammount of games,
though some side seem to be something stronger.

I think the map is better now. I believe you added some central properties.

I think it is essential for multiplayer maps to consider what players will do. If there are no contested properties
on the border with someone, you can agree with your position and if your enemy also decide that his position is
good, you have one less border which allows you to attack your other oponents more violently.
To trigger attacks between all neighbours you should give them something to fight over and it needs to be
captureable for both sides. If there is for example one contested city with several forests behind it, nobody
thinks it would be wise to attack that in fog of war.

I think there is not so much reason to fight with both neigbours on this map. Which will result in the players
closing one border and sending more troops to the other. Which can ruin an oponent (also a player who
deserves a fair chance), especially if two of his neighbours decide to do so. Another reason why you need
struggles between all neighbours is to prevent all players from sending troops to the center. This might turn the
center in one big mess with nobody getting on top. I think that in a good map setup owning the center should
help you, instead of granting you a curse that makes the others attack you from all directions. A final reason for
the need of fronts with both neighbours is the base count. I expect than 3 bases for someone who does only
little fighting is gonna be pretty much an infantery build-up.

I think this map has insufficient contested properties between neighbours. I think you could do with adding 5
well-placed cities. Maybe replacing the neutral 3rd bases near the HQ with cities is also a good idea, as this
map might not really support 3 base very well.

Anyway it looks cool now. I give you a 9/10
superspeedy (08/12/2015 02:40pm):
OS doesn't have a chance in hell of get one of the central 2 factories so give them more cities or
something to compensate for it but put them on the border line between its neighbors so they have
to fight for them



Advance Wars is (c) 1990-2001 Nintendo and (c) 2001 Intelligent Systems. All images are copyright their respective owners.