I like some dualGap from time to time. When you want to relax and not think about 171638183661 things, you can sit back and just play your role on that map. Land, air, navy, eco, they are all very chill.
You can apply the same logic used on astro and dual cap to setons. It's an open map, but because of the way it's designed and how old it is, it directs players to follow certain tactics. A lot of the team maps inspired by setons suffer from the same problem.
Setons is essentially a much more advanced version of Astro. It is very repetitive, but it has a much higher skill ceiling, therefore allowing for more variety in the lower rated lobbies. The high rated setons games end up being extremely repetitive, usually with the team that has the first death being the winning team if full-share is on.
I agree there - all the 'pinch point' maps really do is encourage people to eco hard and build game enders and experimentals. I've had a few battles on Dual Gap where people have tried early bomber harassment or corsair snipes, but those are outweighed by the games in which I've been criticised for not "knowing my role" and following some predetermined script. While Setons still fits in that, there are enough opportunities to do different things - artillery drops, bomber harassment, hover spam, etc - to make it more interesting.
In my experience sualgap is about preparing for an optimal endgame. For example t2 air anipes are common against rambo coms, which are a huge advantage in taking the middle against t1 spam. The game is ended by artillery duels, but it is decided by the midgame fight for position usually.
I quite agree with your points. I'm one of the people that like to play the 'bad' maps because they are a lot less daunting. At the same time, I'm trying to learn to play other maps (setons!), and something that I find similar between setons and these other maps is that to win against good players, one needs to do almost a mechanical opening and messing the initial eco spirals into losing that side and/or air. But one of the good thing about the good maps, is that it's possible to come back after a good (or lucky) fight.
I recommend just playing mapgen or 4vs4 matchmaking if you're new! 4 vs 4 matchmaking is still very light on apm demands, but teaches you all sorts of basics (such as raiding with t1 units, defending against or pushing with gun coms, basic unit micro, expanding to contested mexes, using the 'build just enough to defend so you can tech up' vs the 'all in at t1/t2 phase to do critical damage' play-styles, and most importantly, fighting over any reclaim field created by yourself or your opponents). Setons is not considered a great map by top players simply because its too safe early game as well, and it has been played so much to the point where it is almost 'solved' thus limiting the creativity of the best players. At the same time, you skip over the boring (and mostly pointless, non skill related) stuff like having to memorize build orders (beyond the basic opening 30 seconds) because nobody really optimizes build orders for 4vs4 matchmaking maps, and it's impossible on a map gen map. Sure if you're doing a 1 vs 1 match against a top tier player and you were equally skilled mechanically then yes, a build order will tip the odds in your favor, but this basically doesn't happen much unless you're in a tournament. If you really want to improve fast and become a really great player, spam some 1 vs 1s, and get a trainer to play against you or review your gameplay! 1 vs 1 massively increases the apm required, but also any excuses are eliminated (i.e you can't blame a teammate for losing). If you can do decently at 1 vs 1s, you'll be more than capable in a team setting. You could also watch casts of very high rated players by very high rated players as well (JaggedAppliance has a great channel for this). Once your skill gets above a certain point, you will be amazed that you ever found any of the bad maps fun, as when your skill improves those maps are really snore-fests because basically nothing unpredictable happens all game. I'd also like to contest Duelist's point about those maps being 'good' for learning eco. In fact they teach rather bad eco concepts, because ecoing is very safe on maps like astro. One t2 mex is approximately 20 t1 tanks for instance, and on astro that means nothing. On another map however, a bad t2 mex upgrade at the wrong time would cost you the game. If someone is brand new to the game however, it would be fine for learning basic controls I guess, like hotkeys for buildings, move orders, queuing up orders, and general UI things. Beyond that though, I'd say it's not very useful at all. It would be like if you were playing a FPS game like counter strike and everyone was only allowed to use knives; you'd still learn how to move with WASD and general mouse movement, but it would be nothing like the actual game.
the problem that i have with DG or astro that it is actually not chill at all, at least for me... in normal game you poke into opponent and when they pull back you may get indirect info that they are doing something else other than t1 spam... classic astro is 6 mex + hydro per player and 6 mex in mid for both teams it is kinda low eco and it brings all coms to the mid and gun rushes are possible at the same time there are no expansions and it feels like it is all about defending and ecoing but at the same time it feels kinda hardcore to the point that you afraid not to be even able to afford scouting enemy can just push and try to kill aa and combine it with jester snipe. 2300 rated astro players also start with air fac to harras early imagine how it feels like when the meta is to make 2-4 engineers to make eco and reclaim your land factory while moving com to front. losing engies at the back while not having a factory would be painful, can also lose upgraiding mexes... also there is TML, Nothas, strat rush, ML rush, Nuke rush... maybe something else like navy... tho after those you only have tele and t3 arty + stelites i'd say. astro is not that bad... but you need to know about all those strategies and their timings or you risk to lose all your eco to 2 nothas or 1 strat. basicly meta seems to be just ecoing and scouting and eco can grow big and at the any moment enemy can assemble some random bullshit very fast and you actually need to scout if enemy keeps ecoing or not. same for dual gap, com drop, nothas, start rush, nuke rush can decide the game... it kinda feels like there is less "buffer" there, you can lose air and lose the game or have 1 unit less and lose the game, shield not in time and lose the game, similar how you would lose 80% of your enginers in 1v1... tho many players just eco and build all kinds of defences... best players tho just play greedy and don't make defences and that can make game kinda chaotic.... they just keep making more and more eco so anything can popup within 20 sec so you need to keep scouing all the time
Just started FAF one month ago, a lot earlier I was playing Starcraft: Brood War. Out of 1v1 competive community people fall off to just watching pro replays or VODs, as it was less stressful and demanding, a better option than quitting. I don't remember team game scene being big, it was mainly 1v1, but there was also a big scene of UMS players (Use Map Settings) where people would play Turret Defense, Changeling or other mods. When it comes to FAF craters/thermopilae analogy, it would be "Fastest Map Possible" and "Big Game Hunters" where resources were concentrated and easy to gather, fights would happen in chokepoints. Each of these types of gamers wouldn't get in each other's way, as ladder/UMS/teamplay would be displayed or listed separately, while in FAF one sees global lobby.
a big problem for me is i'm Australian. my time zone limits the amount of games i can join and players online. and even then a lot of eastern European players (who are the majority online at this time) will instantly kick me because of my flag icon, they assume im going to lag the game (even if i've played with them before and 9 times out of 10 the game glides as smooth as butter) and theres usually 0 players queued for ladder at my time, i tried but got immediately paired with a 1000+ rated so i take what i can get, which is usually dualgap or crater. i would love to play setons for once but i only ever see "1000+ rated only" games being hosted on such maps. occasionally theres a couple mapgens, especially a group of australians but again they're all highly rated and i join i usually get curb stomped and let the team down (or again its rating limited) at least in dualgap i have a chance of winning reminds me of a time i joined a regular game and at one point my team mate just started going off in allchat how im a bad player, i need to stop ecoing, stop playing so much dumb dualgap and learn to play better and im just, why do you think im here??
To make the most as an aus get online from 4pm est till 12am. Or get up early and play with the US eg Saturday mornings are great! I play most days and only aim to get 2 games in = 4hrs (2hours game time, the other 2 hours lobby sim and watching UA-cam/work) As for the 1000 plus rank feel ya man that shit is rough and you will need to just take your time with that. Aus lobbies even if most players are 1k plus will let you join and play all the time provided you try to do the team thing not astro turtle play
Pro tip watch brinkofsanity's tutorial videos on UA-cam. (His channels a mess and thier not easy to find) To this day the only in depth Tier one, two and three units break down videos. They are like 7yrs old but are completely relevant and will! Help you learn how to play because of the explanations given in those videos.
@@zima2352 thanks for the tips! I try to watch replays of high rated players I fight with/against but I always seem to have trouble replicating the t1 spam while managing good eco
Playing a map that is deemed a "noob map" like Astro or Dual Gap comes with a big advantage that wasn't mentioned: Nobody expects from you doing well ... note that these games are typically named "noobs welcome" or something like this, that alone is a big draw. Regarding Dual Gap: The map is actually quite good for what it is. Like Setons there is a huge meta around it and players mostly have dedicated roles, that alone tells you that it's more than just turtling. The fight for the middle is usually quite extensive and can include navy because the southern main spots are within range of battleships and cruiser missiles. Air is very important, too. Drops can happen all the time. Taking mid isn't certain victory, 75% at most. Players aren't THAT densely packed and divided by the river, I've seen games where only one half was wiped but the other continued and won. Basically this map has spots for all types of players, from air players to turtlers to agressive players to supporters and, of course, guys that just eco and build game-enders (the last one is actually a dedicated player in the meta - but only a single one out of 6). Strategies vary in the number of navy and air players, the level of support for mid (do we just hold or want to win it?) or how to win once you got mid. Stand-off tactics are dominant of course but can't be achieved without proper airplay or while ignoring mid. Dual Gap ha it's own ecosystem and community, only surpassed by Seton's, and it wouldn't have if it was too dull. Evidendenced by the fact that you DO see high rated players on Dual Gap from time to time. I even remember at least 2 Gyle Casts involving Dual Gap and you only get cast there if the game is interesting enough.
Dualgap makes for a fair bit of variation in how games torn out. I have also never seen it develop around a chokepoint. By the time the enemy makes it there game enders are usually in play.
I agree entirely. Bad maps take away the rock, scissors, paper. Bad maps are like training wheels. Some people like to stay in toddler mode, some prefer to be more adventurous and to challenge themselves more...
One of my fav maps is a version of Astro Crater 3v3 where you start with 4 core mexes and the center has 6 more so you end up having to get into AC fights right away.
reminded me of 2 bad maps in COH 2 The first is suppoesed to be a very small map that seens more like "get a MG and Mortar you control the only cap"... on top of being unbalanced as one team need to walk half the map to get over a clif for resources the other just walk a simple path directly to it (artistic but its a RTS). The other is some map that you can control Fuel and Ammo that are clustered in one position, but they are extremely hard to attack because of impassable terrain creating chockpoints, so you rush that place and you win the map. this is the other kind of bad maps, not RTS, but Project Reality has a map that is Vietnam D-Day, I think they removed it, but dam that was bad, never saw US team winning that.
4:10 the choke points on dual gap are more or less irrelevant to winning the game, especially land. Most games mid will be taken over and then retaken by the other team likely because they have ecod faster then built experimentals before the other team that has put resources into early units. Navy dominance also is not inducive to winning the game but a dominant navy will clear most of mid and allow for snipes. A land push is rarely successful
bad map = Vibe map. Very chill gameplay with only a few opportunities for surprises. For new players the linear maps are great for teaching eco even if they lose the game horribly you still get to understand how powerful mex upgrades and power upgrades are. However those maps are a trap since they give you a cozy and predictable experience rather than the normal hectic and complex gameplay that FAF exemplifies. Once you become a gap player its hard to get out.
Phantom is another format with an interesting play style, but yeah I played a lot of Dual Gap etc as a newer player. But now I play mostly Ladder… I find ladder is much more difficult/challenging, but good games and good skills on display.
Big shoutout to our resident 2500 rated Blodir, who summarized what makes a good map here: forum.faforever.com/topic/4661/what-makes-a-map-good/2?_=1667396487947
There for tech rushing, some want big units sooner, it’s one end of the spectrum with ladder at the other where t1 usually decides the game. 4v4 and other custom are somewhere in the middle
I do mostly agree with everything you said, but to play devils advocate for a moment. How is it any different for a map like You shal not pass making going all in t1 land a pointless endever that wont win you any games, different from a map like Open palms which makes going all in on t3 a pointless endevor that wont win any games? The map design pretty much hard dictates that skipping t1 and t2 will make you lose regardless of how good you are at t3 land rushing.
I see an Astro variant being played EVERY time I login, personally I never bothered with the map, it looks boring and hastily thrown together and it probably plays as such. I agree with all your points, I always felt they were literally just for people looking to play tower defense type games or comp stomps and not for anybody looking to play the "Strategy" aspect of Real-Time-Strategy.
I would say setons is functionally very similar to those other "bad" maps. Got a single avenue for land attack in a choke point, t1 is almost always completely ignored except for navy, and the victory is decided 99% of the time by who can get the first game ender. So basically all the same criticisms of other 3, the only difference is its much Bigger. This makes a little harder to manage than the previous ones I guess, like an intermediate step up to other maps. But it is still basically the same. Anyway, I wouldn't say that any of them are actually "bad". Just depends on what you find fun and what you feel like playing at any given time. Tying to gatekeep by criticizing or demeaning players that don't enjoy playing the exact same way that you do is exactly you prevent the growth of the community. Sure its can be entertaining to make fun of gap for being simple, but calling it "bad" or telling people who enjoy it they are playing the game "wrong" is a bit elitist imho.
Astro and Dualgap are good maps because they give beginners room to play. Do you want to become a good SupCom general? Start with Astro and play your way up to 1000, switch to dual gap and play your way to 2000 rating.
i would strongly disagree with the points you make, while agreeing that these maps are bad, but due to completly different reason. each of the map, well maybe except for thermo, have multiple viable ways to play it, however these strategies to be viable require teamplay, and way more teamplay than mapgens or ladder maps which for the most part leave the players at their respective lanes for at least half of the game+. dual gap strongly depends on standoff tactics, thus cooperating with the team and ballancing economy to rush t4 game ender is usually the win condition, however most of the players, that for some reason love this map, can't play as a part of the team. astro gap with a smaller number of players give a handful of abusive tactics for premades of 3-4 people while playing against randos, be it guncom rush ml rush or even strat bomber rush since the mexes are all clumped together so badly there, so my main issue with these maps is the low factor of teamplay with random players, while a decent premade of few people with voice chat can abuse that advantage trough the roof. and about seton's..... it's just boring, it's a good map tho.
This is part of the reason i stopped playing. Im only an 800 or so rated player, and 95% of players in that range only want to play these crappy maps. Yes i have tried hosting other maps myself, but i dont get anyone joining. FAF is a great game, but unfortunately i would rather not play if these are the only maps i can play :(
There are a few groups that have players in your range that host map gen or other maps. Add me on discord. I try to host all welcome games regardless of rating.
FFA or more than 2 teams don’t suit the win condition either, if you attack you might lose but you certainly will not win as you will lose out eco wise to the team you didn’t attack?
Are they bad or are they just different? An open map is going to bias certain strategies just as much as a "closed map" is going to bias others. Would you rather have only "good" maps or all kinds of maps? Also, corridors are fun. Static structures tend to suck in every RTS game because "balance". Imagine having a map where people don't just walk around them.
lol based on these bad learning ideas Setons is a bad map because of the choke point. I SAY - all maps have good and bad points and weaknesses for good and easy strats. A bad is a map that cant be played at all. People think thermopolae is bad coz it has no air mostly and has a huge choke., but if you play with Werf and Superintendent its awesome. Reality is thermo choke type war is similar to the map Canis 4v4 in that everyone has their own lane within your team game.... Reality is also that these choke maps teach Eco and that you need INTEL.
Bad maps (generally) are bad because they don't allow early agression, which is a big part of learning a game, if you sit on your base ecoing, you would better be playing some game about eco (this is not a insult) as big part of strategy is "Small war" aka raids. Btw not even talk about unbalanced maps since everyone would agree those would be "terrible maps"
Dual gap above 1500+ is usually fine bc usually thinking ur safe and trying to turtle works against u A lot of ppl don't expect early combat and then don't adapt fast enough Tho oddly enough it's usually the higher ranks who have this problem bc they have a certain build for a certain spot that they refuse to deviate from
it's bad because the skill you learn in that, aren't transferable to other maps. Tiny build area, so over reliance on hives, and a strategy that either comes down to nuke rush, or para/mavor rush, and first one to does it wins. Navy and Air isn't effective, not without mass spam of strats.
These maps are what they are and I cbf watching discussions bout them regardless. All that needs to be known is gap is a good beginners map that showcases everything air, navy, land and most of all teamwork
I like Setons because I find land combat boring. It seems that any land unit can counter any other land unit in sufficient quantities. Naval combat is more interesting. You have to use your brain when you make units rather than just making tanks.
A 2000 rating astrogap player = 1500 rating normal team game player = 1000 rating ladder player 🤣I really wish blackops mod became a core part of the game and had the same popularity of astrogap.
normally I do not comment on videos but here I go. I'm kind of disappointed that you emphasized the point of these maps being simpler to play but then still concluded that this maps are bad. I think a game is a tool to be used to have fun. and everybody uses that tool to their liking should be fine. if I like to play autoclickers maybe I like to hard eco to t4 on shall not pass. this person could not care less what ladder mechanics there are and the importance of air control. Faf like any other game is just a tool to be used. And nobody should try to gatekeep something to be used in a specific way.
Had a while, but learning how to balance it and set it better. The scripted content will usually sound better because there's less inflection and reaction. Need to make a couple more upgrades though on the audio side.
Personally I think a core pillar of competitive game design is limiting players to play a certain way. I don’t think faf is an objectively better game for having goofy sandbox game modes that lack strategic depth. For instance, it was a huge improvement to the play experience of Doom: Eternal when it (at most diff levels) neutered the common strategy of using only the super shotgun in Doom 2016.
@Jonathon J. Rockman Really? As one counter-example, what about chess? chess is a highly competitive game with an incredibly deep metagame. And yet it has rules that limit what pieces players can move and how they can move them. The limitations give the game a defined structure that players can think about and interact with.
The people I find that dislike dual gap tend to be snobs that just prefer another map over and over. The fact is that dual gap is fun. The people crying are soy wojaks basically crying “Nooooo, you aren’t suppose to have fun!!!!!”
I like some dualGap from time to time. When you want to relax and not think about 171638183661 things, you can sit back and just play your role on that map. Land, air, navy, eco, they are all very chill.
You can apply the same logic used on astro and dual cap to setons. It's an open map, but because of the way it's designed and how old it is, it directs players to follow certain tactics. A lot of the team maps inspired by setons suffer from the same problem.
Setons is essentially a much more advanced version of Astro. It is very repetitive, but it has a much higher skill ceiling, therefore allowing for more variety in the lower rated lobbies. The high rated setons games end up being extremely repetitive, usually with the team that has the first death being the winning team if full-share is on.
I agree there - all the 'pinch point' maps really do is encourage people to eco hard and build game enders and experimentals. I've had a few battles on Dual Gap where people have tried early bomber harassment or corsair snipes, but those are outweighed by the games in which I've been criticised for not "knowing my role" and following some predetermined script. While Setons still fits in that, there are enough opportunities to do different things - artillery drops, bomber harassment, hover spam, etc - to make it more interesting.
In my experience sualgap is about preparing for an optimal endgame. For example t2 air anipes are common against rambo coms, which are a huge advantage in taking the middle against t1 spam. The game is ended by artillery duels, but it is decided by the midgame fight for position usually.
I quite agree with your points. I'm one of the people that like to play the 'bad' maps because they are a lot less daunting.
At the same time, I'm trying to learn to play other maps (setons!), and something that I find similar between setons and these other maps is that to win against good players, one needs to do almost a mechanical opening and messing the initial eco spirals into losing that side and/or air. But one of the good thing about the good maps, is that it's possible to come back after a good (or lucky) fight.
I recommend just playing mapgen or 4vs4 matchmaking if you're new! 4 vs 4 matchmaking is still very light on apm demands, but teaches you all sorts of basics (such as raiding with t1 units, defending against or pushing with gun coms, basic unit micro, expanding to contested mexes, using the 'build just enough to defend so you can tech up' vs the 'all in at t1/t2 phase to do critical damage' play-styles, and most importantly, fighting over any reclaim field created by yourself or your opponents). Setons is not considered a great map by top players simply because its too safe early game as well, and it has been played so much to the point where it is almost 'solved' thus limiting the creativity of the best players. At the same time, you skip over the boring (and mostly pointless, non skill related) stuff like having to memorize build orders (beyond the basic opening 30 seconds) because nobody really optimizes build orders for 4vs4 matchmaking maps, and it's impossible on a map gen map. Sure if you're doing a 1 vs 1 match against a top tier player and you were equally skilled mechanically then yes, a build order will tip the odds in your favor, but this basically doesn't happen much unless you're in a tournament.
If you really want to improve fast and become a really great player, spam some 1 vs 1s, and get a trainer to play against you or review your gameplay! 1 vs 1 massively increases the apm required, but also any excuses are eliminated (i.e you can't blame a teammate for losing). If you can do decently at 1 vs 1s, you'll be more than capable in a team setting. You could also watch casts of very high rated players by very high rated players as well (JaggedAppliance has a great channel for this).
Once your skill gets above a certain point, you will be amazed that you ever found any of the bad maps fun, as when your skill improves those maps are really snore-fests because basically nothing unpredictable happens all game.
I'd also like to contest Duelist's point about those maps being 'good' for learning eco. In fact they teach rather bad eco concepts, because ecoing is very safe on maps like astro. One t2 mex is approximately 20 t1 tanks for instance, and on astro that means nothing. On another map however, a bad t2 mex upgrade at the wrong time would cost you the game. If someone is brand new to the game however, it would be fine for learning basic controls I guess, like hotkeys for buildings, move orders, queuing up orders, and general UI things. Beyond that though, I'd say it's not very useful at all. It would be like if you were playing a FPS game like counter strike and everyone was only allowed to use knives; you'd still learn how to move with WASD and general mouse movement, but it would be nothing like the actual game.
the problem that i have with DG or astro that it is actually not chill at all, at least for me...
in normal game you poke into opponent and when they pull back you may get indirect info that they are doing something else other than t1 spam...
classic astro is 6 mex + hydro per player and 6 mex in mid for both teams
it is kinda low eco and it brings all coms to the mid and gun rushes are possible
at the same time there are no expansions and it feels like it is all about defending and ecoing but at the same time it feels kinda hardcore to the point that you afraid not to be even able to afford scouting
enemy can just push and try to kill aa and combine it with jester snipe.
2300 rated astro players also start with air fac to harras early
imagine how it feels like when the meta is to make 2-4 engineers to make eco and reclaim your land factory while moving com to front. losing engies at the back while not having a factory would be painful, can also lose upgraiding mexes... also there is TML, Nothas, strat rush, ML rush, Nuke rush... maybe something else like navy... tho after those you only have tele and t3 arty + stelites i'd say. astro is not that bad... but you need to know about all those strategies and their timings or you risk to lose all your eco to 2 nothas or 1 strat. basicly meta seems to be just ecoing and scouting and eco can grow big and at the any moment enemy can assemble some random bullshit very fast and you actually need to scout if enemy keeps ecoing or not.
same for dual gap, com drop, nothas, start rush, nuke rush can decide the game...
it kinda feels like there is less "buffer" there, you can lose air and lose the game or have 1 unit less and lose the game, shield not in time and lose the game, similar how you would lose 80% of your enginers in 1v1... tho many players just eco and build all kinds of defences... best players tho just play greedy and don't make defences and that can make game kinda chaotic.... they just keep making more and more eco so anything can popup within 20 sec so you need to keep scouing all the time
Just started FAF one month ago, a lot earlier I was playing Starcraft: Brood War. Out of 1v1 competive community people fall off to just watching pro replays or VODs, as it was less stressful and demanding, a better option than quitting. I don't remember team game scene being big, it was mainly 1v1, but there was also a big scene of UMS players (Use Map Settings) where people would play Turret Defense, Changeling or other mods. When it comes to FAF craters/thermopilae analogy, it would be "Fastest Map Possible" and "Big Game Hunters" where resources were concentrated and easy to gather, fights would happen in chokepoints. Each of these types of gamers wouldn't get in each other's way, as ladder/UMS/teamplay would be displayed or listed separately, while in FAF one sees global lobby.
a big problem for me is i'm Australian. my time zone limits the amount of games i can join and players online. and even then a lot of eastern European players (who are the majority online at this time) will instantly kick me because of my flag icon, they assume im going to lag the game (even if i've played with them before and 9 times out of 10 the game glides as smooth as butter) and theres usually 0 players queued for ladder at my time, i tried but got immediately paired with a 1000+ rated
so i take what i can get, which is usually dualgap or crater. i would love to play setons for once but i only ever see "1000+ rated only" games being hosted on such maps. occasionally theres a couple mapgens, especially a group of australians but again they're all highly rated and i join i usually get curb stomped and let the team down (or again its rating limited)
at least in dualgap i have a chance of winning
reminds me of a time i joined a regular game and at one point my team mate just started going off in allchat how im a bad player, i need to stop ecoing, stop playing so much dumb dualgap and learn to play better
and im just, why do you think im here??
To make the most as an aus get online from 4pm est till 12am. Or get up early and play with the US eg Saturday mornings are great!
I play most days and only aim to get 2 games in = 4hrs (2hours game time, the other 2 hours lobby sim and watching UA-cam/work)
As for the 1000 plus rank feel ya man that shit is rough and you will need to just take your time with that. Aus lobbies even if most players are 1k plus will let you join and play all the time provided you try to do the team thing not astro turtle play
Pro tip watch brinkofsanity's tutorial videos on UA-cam. (His channels a mess and thier not easy to find)
To this day the only in depth Tier one, two and three units break down videos. They are like 7yrs old but are completely relevant and will! Help you learn how to play because of the explanations given in those videos.
@@zima2352 thanks for the tips!
I try to watch replays of high rated players I fight with/against but I always seem to have trouble replicating the t1 spam while managing good eco
i fear no kangaroo, it's the russian flag that gives me rehosts and lags vietnam flashbacks
Glad I made a cameo here. :)
The important part is to have fun guys. Whit love
ps I did a 16 min monkey on that game (where you try to rush the monkey) and defend you it's possible :p
Playing a map that is deemed a "noob map" like Astro or Dual Gap comes with a big advantage that wasn't mentioned: Nobody expects from you doing well ... note that these games are typically named "noobs welcome" or something like this, that alone is a big draw. Regarding Dual Gap: The map is actually quite good for what it is. Like Setons there is a huge meta around it and players mostly have dedicated roles, that alone tells you that it's more than just turtling. The fight for the middle is usually quite extensive and can include navy because the southern main spots are within range of battleships and cruiser missiles. Air is very important, too. Drops can happen all the time. Taking mid isn't certain victory, 75% at most. Players aren't THAT densely packed and divided by the river, I've seen games where only one half was wiped but the other continued and won. Basically this map has spots for all types of players, from air players to turtlers to agressive players to supporters and, of course, guys that just eco and build game-enders (the last one is actually a dedicated player in the meta - but only a single one out of 6). Strategies vary in the number of navy and air players, the level of support for mid (do we just hold or want to win it?) or how to win once you got mid. Stand-off tactics are dominant of course but can't be achieved without proper airplay or while ignoring mid. Dual Gap ha it's own ecosystem and community, only surpassed by Seton's, and it wouldn't have if it was too dull. Evidendenced by the fact that you DO see high rated players on Dual Gap from time to time. I even remember at least 2 Gyle Casts involving Dual Gap and you only get cast there if the game is interesting enough.
those high rated gap players get trounced whenever they decide to leave gap
Dualgap makes for a fair bit of variation in how games torn out. I have also never seen it develop around a chokepoint. By the time the enemy makes it there game enders are usually in play.
I agree entirely. Bad maps take away the rock, scissors, paper.
Bad maps are like training wheels. Some people like to stay in toddler mode, some prefer to be more adventurous and to challenge themselves more...
One of my fav maps is a version of Astro Crater 3v3 where you start with 4 core mexes and the center has 6 more so you end up having to get into AC fights right away.
reminded me of 2 bad maps in COH 2
The first is suppoesed to be a very small map that seens more like "get a MG and Mortar you control the only cap"... on top of being unbalanced as one team need to walk half the map to get over a clif for resources the other just walk a simple path directly to it (artistic but its a RTS).
The other is some map that you can control Fuel and Ammo that are clustered in one position, but they are extremely hard to attack because of impassable terrain creating chockpoints, so you rush that place and you win the map. this is the other kind of bad maps, not RTS, but Project Reality has a map that is Vietnam D-Day, I think they removed it, but dam that was bad, never saw US team winning that.
4:10 the choke points on dual gap are more or less irrelevant to winning the game, especially land. Most games mid will be taken over and then retaken by the other team likely because they have ecod faster then built experimentals before the other team that has put resources into early units. Navy dominance also is not inducive to winning the game but a dominant navy will clear most of mid and allow for snipes. A land push is rarely successful
bad map = Vibe map. Very chill gameplay with only a few opportunities for surprises.
For new players the linear maps are great for teaching eco even if they lose the game horribly you still get to understand how powerful mex upgrades and power upgrades are. However those maps are a trap since they give you a cozy and predictable experience rather than the normal hectic and complex gameplay that FAF exemplifies. Once you become a gap player its hard to get out.
Phantom is another format with an interesting play style, but yeah I played a lot of Dual Gap etc as a newer player. But now I play mostly Ladder…
I find ladder is much more difficult/challenging, but good games and good skills on display.
bruh since when did u actually put voice filters and do better editing? 10/10 video
Big shoutout to our resident 2500 rated Blodir, who summarized what makes a good map here: forum.faforever.com/topic/4661/what-makes-a-map-good/2?_=1667396487947
There for tech rushing, some want big units sooner, it’s one end of the spectrum with ladder at the other where t1 usually decides the game. 4v4 and other custom are somewhere in the middle
Neroxys map generator was the best thing to happen to FAF. But dammit not enough people use it nowadays
I feel personally attacked.
I do mostly agree with everything you said, but to play devils advocate for a moment. How is it any different for a map like You shal not pass making going all in t1 land a pointless endever that wont win you any games, different from a map like Open palms which makes going all in on t3 a pointless endevor that wont win any games? The map design pretty much hard dictates that skipping t1 and t2 will make you lose regardless of how good you are at t3 land rushing.
I see an Astro variant being played EVERY time I login, personally I never bothered with the map, it looks boring and hastily thrown together and it probably plays as such. I agree with all your points, I always felt they were literally just for people looking to play tower defense type games or comp stomps and not for anybody looking to play the "Strategy" aspect of Real-Time-Strategy.
I would say setons is functionally very similar to those other "bad" maps. Got a single avenue for land attack in a choke point, t1 is almost always completely ignored except for navy, and the victory is decided 99% of the time by who can get the first game ender. So basically all the same criticisms of other 3, the only difference is its much Bigger. This makes a little harder to manage than the previous ones I guess, like an intermediate step up to other maps. But it is still basically the same.
Anyway, I wouldn't say that any of them are actually "bad". Just depends on what you find fun and what you feel like playing at any given time. Tying to gatekeep by criticizing or demeaning players that don't enjoy playing the exact same way that you do is exactly you prevent the growth of the community. Sure its can be entertaining to make fun of gap for being simple, but calling it "bad" or telling people who enjoy it they are playing the game "wrong" is a bit elitist imho.
Nice video as usual.
Astro and Dualgap are good maps because they give beginners room to play.
Do you want to become a good SupCom general?
Start with Astro and play your way up to 1000,
switch to dual gap and play your way to 2000 rating.
Bad maps don't require developing out from your base.
Yes they are. Okay, now I will watch the video.
I have watched the video. They are still bad but now I have details.
i would strongly disagree with the points you make, while agreeing that these maps are bad, but due to completly different reason. each of the map, well maybe except for thermo, have multiple viable ways to play it, however these strategies to be viable require teamplay, and way more teamplay than mapgens or ladder maps which for the most part leave the players at their respective lanes for at least half of the game+. dual gap strongly depends on standoff tactics, thus cooperating with the team and ballancing economy to rush t4 game ender is usually the win condition, however most of the players, that for some reason love this map, can't play as a part of the team. astro gap with a smaller number of players give a handful of abusive tactics for premades of 3-4 people while playing against randos, be it guncom rush ml rush or even strat bomber rush since the mexes are all clumped together so badly there, so my main issue with these maps is the low factor of teamplay with random players, while a decent premade of few people with voice chat can abuse that advantage trough the roof.
and about seton's..... it's just boring, it's a good map tho.
This is part of the reason i stopped playing. Im only an 800 or so rated player, and 95% of players in that range only want to play these crappy maps. Yes i have tried hosting other maps myself, but i dont get anyone joining. FAF is a great game, but unfortunately i would rather not play if these are the only maps i can play :(
There are a few groups that have players in your range that host map gen or other maps. Add me on discord. I try to host all welcome games regardless of rating.
FFA or more than 2 teams don’t suit the win condition either, if you attack you might lose but you certainly will not win as you will lose out eco wise to the team you didn’t attack?
These maps mainly are just too turtly and enforce the latest tech. By making these maps too choke-hold-y... You miss the fun parts of T1 and T2!
Are they bad or are they just different? An open map is going to bias certain strategies just as much as a "closed map" is going to bias others. Would you rather have only "good" maps or all kinds of maps? Also, corridors are fun. Static structures tend to suck in every RTS game because "balance". Imagine having a map where people don't just walk around them.
How about casting the game that you showed on you shall not pass? Give us a deeper analysis of the gameplay that the map forces.
Have you played any maps from author Afiend?
lol based on these bad learning ideas Setons is a bad map because of the choke point. I SAY - all maps have good and bad points and weaknesses for good and easy strats. A bad is a map that cant be played at all. People think thermopolae is bad coz it has no air mostly and has a huge choke., but if you play with Werf and Superintendent its awesome.
Reality is thermo choke type war is similar to the map Canis 4v4 in that everyone has their own lane within your team game....
Reality is also that these choke maps teach Eco and that you need INTEL.
Bad maps are those without diagonal frontline. The bigger the frontline - the better.
Bad maps (generally) are bad because they don't allow early agression, which is a big part of learning a game, if you sit on your base ecoing, you would better be playing some game about eco (this is not a insult) as big part of strategy is "Small war" aka raids.
Btw not even talk about unbalanced maps since everyone would agree those would be "terrible maps"
'Btw not even talk about unbalanced maps since everyone would agree those would be "terrible maps"' Which was why I didn't talk about them :)
Well said mate
Only measure of map is - how fun is to play on. Other metrics are just too boring.
Dual gap above 1500+ is usually fine bc usually thinking ur safe and trying to turtle works against u
A lot of ppl don't expect early combat and then don't adapt fast enough
Tho oddly enough it's usually the higher ranks who have this problem bc they have a certain build for a certain spot that they refuse to deviate from
it's bad because the skill you learn in that, aren't transferable to other maps. Tiny build area, so over reliance on hives, and a strategy that either comes down to nuke rush, or para/mavor rush, and first one to does it wins. Navy and Air isn't effective, not without mass spam of strats.
These maps are what they are and I cbf watching discussions bout them regardless. All that needs to be known is gap is a good beginners map that showcases everything air, navy, land and most of all teamwork
I like Setons because I find land combat boring. It seems that any land unit can counter any other land unit in sufficient quantities. Naval combat is more interesting. You have to use your brain when you make units rather than just making tanks.
A 2000 rating astrogap player = 1500 rating normal team game player = 1000 rating ladder player 🤣I really wish blackops mod became a core part of the game and had the same popularity of astrogap.
any static map is bad, mapgen rulez
Generated maps FTW!
because there are a lot tutorials for this maps for beginners XD
normally I do not comment on videos but here I go.
I'm kind of disappointed that you emphasized the point of these maps being simpler to play but then still concluded that this maps are bad.
I think a game is a tool to be used to have fun. and everybody uses that tool to their liking should be fine. if I like to play autoclickers maybe I like to hard eco to t4 on shall not pass. this person could not care less what ladder mechanics there are and the importance of air control.
Faf like any other game is just a tool to be used. And nobody should try to gatekeep something to be used in a specific way.
New mic?
Had a while, but learning how to balance it and set it better. The scripted content will usually sound better because there's less inflection and reaction. Need to make a couple more upgrades though on the audio side.
Personally I think a core pillar of competitive game design is limiting players to play a certain way. I don’t think faf is an objectively better game for having goofy sandbox game modes that lack strategic depth. For instance, it was a huge improvement to the play experience of Doom: Eternal when it (at most diff levels) neutered the common strategy of using only the super shotgun in Doom 2016.
@Jonathon J. Rockman Really?
As one counter-example, what about chess? chess is a highly competitive game with an incredibly deep metagame. And yet it has rules that limit what pieces players can move and how they can move them.
The limitations give the game a defined structure that players can think about and interact with.
😰
The people I find that dislike dual gap tend to be snobs that just prefer another map over and over. The fact is that dual gap is fun. The people crying are soy wojaks basically crying “Nooooo, you aren’t suppose to have fun!!!!!”