Contested bases

[ichbinsehselber]

I am not experienced in map analysis, but I would like to understand more about some aspects of it. So I would like to ask people who have more experience here:
Why is it considered bad to have contested neutral bases?

I would imagine, that the effect of who gets these contested bases is a very high one. Basically the result of the game is determined by who wins the bases. But why is this bad for the game? Is the "real" game too short?

I searched a bit about contested neutral bases and found

ultra storm gave an interesting comment here:
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=13600&p=239744&hilit=contested#p239744

This is already an answer to my question. But it would be nice if an expert (perhaps ultra storm or people from the map committee or others) could expand a bit more on this topic.

and walkerboh here:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=54350

Again perhaps you can say a bit more? Ok I am currently playtesting this map, so maybe I will find out that way as well

[Walker]

Having contested bases doesn't really affect the fairness of the map at all. Maps with contested bases can be balanced so that each side gets to one base first and each side has an even chance of capturing a base. The main problem with contested bases has to do with the "fun factor" of the map.

As you noted, whoever has the base advantage is almost guaranteed to win the game. Even if you manage to capture a neutral base just a day or two ahead of your opponent, that unit advantage is often enough to be decisive. Not to mention the advantage if you are able to gain a base advantage over your opponent for more than a couple days. This is especially true in high-level matches where even the smallest discrepancies in unit count or funding can be ruthlessly taken advantage of. So because of the importance of the bases, the entire game is based on who can execute the early game the best and gain a base advantage. On most maps the game turns into finding the "perfect" way to open the game to capture a base first and prevent your opponent from getting theirs, and that just isn't much fun compared to a normal game without contested bases. The entire game is decided in the first few days, and the smallest of mistakes can mean certain defeat.

So for casual, lower-level games there's nothing wrong with contested bases. But for competitive, high-level maps it can be a pretty big deal, and that's why I commented about it on the map you linked. I hope that answers your question.

[ichbinsehselber]

Yeah, thanks!

More comments (also from other people) are welcome

[blanci1]

its not only bases. For example a map with one comm tower (or misile silo or whatever) right in the centre ... a contested item, is basically a silly race, not much fun.Whoever gets it wins. Even an important central contested city can be bad. There can be exceptions.. perhaps if it is enclosed in pipe and not easily winnable.... or if there are LOTS of contested items, then it might be ok.

Surely they can be unfair, (more so depending on CO)..though one can "try" to balance it as walker says. Sometimes eg. with only one contested item it might be impossible, or even with a pair, or it just might be very difficult to be sure about balance, and basically a very unpleasant headache in the opening, balanced or not.

Also we might need to be careful of terminology.. for example an apparently "contested" item may in fact be simply capturable by one side following the best opening (which may not be too obvious).