A lot of the unbalance is because of the cv being able to drive ahead and build a rax before his units even reach that point, the minor difference in time it takes for both teams to reach the chokepoints aren't that important as it's all about actually coming up top in that battle and being able to gain that map control, I agree the a2 area is the hardest to defend, which puts BE in a huge disadvantage, along with NF being able to control the north east area much quicker than BE can as their side is a narrow chokepoint, but theres some viable strategies for both teams. Trying to shift the balance to BE is a bad idea I think as NF really does not have the favourable base area. I personally think it's a weird development to have someone work on someone else's map, sometimes it's the best option, but for a map like canyon I would say it should either come down to having the original creator fix it, keeping it as it is, or eventually removing it if it really does not fit in with the progress of the game. About the latter, I doubt it will come to that and I think some changes in the gameplay of Empiresmod will make this map more balanced and allow it to stay as it is.
Both my drawings exclude comm rushing. Changes to the game aren't going to change where the infantry meet. NF does have a slightly worse starting base but I think that is mostly because of the rax sizes (BE can hide theirs on hill) and if BE is in that territory the game is probably over anyways.
this is easily the best solution i've seen; not too much abuse of the map shape and makes total sense- the reason it's hard for BE to secure that ref is that barracks placement is difficult and the ref is too far forward. not that you're ideas are bad simon, this just seems better. i have never seen that the near base cliffs are especially unfair, though it is fair to say it's harder to assault an enemy on the NF cliffs than the BE cliffs. that said, if ark's changes are still minorly bias towards NF, then keeping the cliffs as they are will ensure that the map is equal. the biggest reason that the cliffs near BE are more useful is that the BE barracks can actually hide on the enemy cliffs behind walls, while the NF barracks is absolutely massive.
A1 should still be a BE refinery and is probably a more pressing concern than north as BE can get a barracks up around that refinery north before NF if they do rush it whereas at A1 its anyones game with a slight advantage going to NF. Having cliffs different levels of ninjable isn't a good way to make up for resource unbalance, its a one off tactic easy to stop and not viable in all games whereas a resource advantage comes into play every game. Of course I'm going under the normative assumption that if each team runs at each other full speed down each lane on a 2 lane map until they meet they should end up with the same number resource nodes behind them. I'm not entirely sure how I can make it more clear I even drew pretty pictures to explain.
North hill needs to be changed as suggested on one of the drawings: the "gate" has to be close to the NF base, so the same turrets can protect the base and the hill. Just like BE's hill. Why NF has to build additional defences and pay attention to guarding an outpost of their near-base ref, when BE has it for free? Have You ever seen some NF team rax-rushing BE ref-hill and winning the game almost instantly? No? We have removed 9mine to ensure no fast&stupid game endings. Currently the north hill of the canyon supports BE APC rushes, which end the game quicky. About the BE's having a hard time with their base: I have no clue how to fix it... Did We consider making the map symmetric with minor diffrences, like emp_money, emp_crossroads, emp_mvalley, or totally symmetric like emp_badlands and emp_midbridge_b2? Those maps aren't told they are better for one of the factions, if there is a problem with the balance, it's the game balance (n00b-can-handle dualrail heavies with no real alternative for NF, for instance). Maby the almost-symmetric maps are the only real solution?
Non-symetrical maps are just harder to balance. You guys keep going on and on about the hills. They aren't that big of a deal. Yes they should be changed. But the biger issue is the resource placement. I mean in duststorm BE can get an armory up on middle cliff to snipe nf base. OMG UNFAIR. But its not a big deal because it hardly ever gets done. The resource placement effects every single game played on canyon. And I've seen NF rush up that hill and take it ftw more than once. Its just harder because they can't get a barracks up there. You are all overstating the differences in the distances to the cliffs as well. They are actually about the same distances to starting barracks for both teams.
The north east ref is just as open as the south west one, I don't see the real issue in who gets somewhere first, it's expansion and map control that gives the disadvantage, not where fighting occurs necessarily, if refs were less fragile, or it would be more common to destroy and rebuild them at a fairly high pace, it would fit in more and these cases wouldn't be such a problem.
Yeah but look at the path BE has to run to get to both. They have to do a triangle type thing(go north first to get to sw and west first to get to ne) whereas NF just has to run in a straight line to get to NE and SW. Can BE win? Sure. But you would expect equally skilled teams for NF to win a majority of the time. I mean BE can make up for it by being better at expanding but NF get a fairly unfair advantage at start.
I never disagreed with you, but you should put emphasis on "unfair advantage at start." I also don't see why every map should be 100% balanced, NF gets an advantage on some maps, BE gets and advantage on others... Unless BE never has an advantage on any map, in which case it's even less map dependant but an issue in balance between the teams, or the BE's strong points in design not used effectively enough.
on this map i think NF wins 70% of the time, including occasions where BE has been a better team. currently, NF can build a barracks right next to the east ref, on their side. the nearest BE can place one is much much lower, which means that if they fail to get a barracks up in the first minute above that ref, they'll lose the ref and the area for the remainder of the game. basically that east chokepoint is too thin.
flatten out an area in the east chokepoint, so BE can build a rax closer, and voila, fixed. oh, and maybe add extra 'walkable' ramp type entryways up to the SW corner and the northern middle cliffs.
This seemed so much more obvious than anything I thought of so far. /facepalm I also want to move BE's rax a little bit closer, maybe about where the refinery is.
Woah wut, why is BE given an extra ref Ok, so NF will probably get the middle right ref aswell, but still
that gives NF 5 safe refs, BE 4 safe refs but a better chance than NF to get the remaining two. sounds fair.
urban chaos: protection against this needed. a griefer blocks in the NF right at the start of the match.http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=imwsqtdxtyd&thumb=4
