Point taken. I don't play mp, so the finer points of the argument may be lost on me. However, you seem to argue that whoever is tempted to grab the centre is then obliged to turtle there. The assumption is that all the other players will try to dislodge him. But if I were playing in such a game, I would simply attack the bases of my neighbours as they "waved their willies" out in the centre.Iluvalar wrote:And you are wrong here ! While AI dont understand the dynamics, mp players all know that the target in square is to control the middle. Not to rush into a base. Once you control the middle, you can attack at 3vs1 and repeat.zydonk wrote: Again, I am talking about sk here, not mp, tho' open-centre maps seem popular among mp players.
By filling the middle, NoQ force the dominant players to "declare" their positions to neigbors. They expose themself to more frontiers. That's exaclty what we are looking for in FFA. For 3v3, the middle filling prevent the players to control the map on a single turling spot while the paths a close enough to still permit turtling.
That's perfect NoQ !
The point about a clear centre is that the players are obliged to confront each other, which leads to good old fashioned war of all on all. There is no simple focal point, so battles can erupt almost anywhere on the map. For instance, I placed oil in the centre of Cockate, but also laid out back roads between the bases - which are intended to facilitate sneak attacks. This works very well even in sk. But there are no wells in the centre of Squared because there is only one way out of the bases - into the centre. This is in a way a rush map, but the bases are extremely difficult to destroy...
Extra wells can be provided off-centre. They will be fought over but they will not become focal points - well are only worth as much as they produce.
As I say, I see WZ from the point of view of sk, where strategy can be important. Imbalance, varied terrain, and complexity are a virtue here. A game can easily last six hours or more, so maps have to be designed for long play. In mp, on the other hand, games are short and direct, with speed all-important. "Flag" style maps make sense here. But I still think open-centred maps provide better play, if only because some element of unpredictabily is built in to them.
Your last sentence is a bit garbled: "For 3v3, the middle filling prevent the players to control the map on a single turling spot while the paths a close enough to still permit turtling." I think you are refining the argument to say that the player controlling the centre will struggle to turtle without success. That's pretty obvious: control the wells, if only to stop others controlling them. It is a negative account of the filled centre argument, which only underlines its weakness.
But if you do like well-centred maps, then try this one. It's small and very very tight. I should have called it Bitch, but that would give the game away - as it were...
though i don't see many instances of it down here)