A critical analysis on Synthwave's forking lanes

Introduction

Synthwave introduces the runner to a new layout configuration, a forking lane.

After crossing the penultimate checkpoint, the player is presented with 2 possible lanes, a right one and a left one, based from the runners perspective. Both lanes have 2 turns and lead into a series of trap infested straights before converging again. On the first playthrough, they seem to follow a symmetrical pattern, however, this all changes when heading into turn 2.

The right lane will turn left and directly present the player with a newly added automated TNT-trap, after which the junction occurs. This will then lead to the final sprint.

The left lane will turn right and instead present a long straight, with Western-like barriers, forcing the runner to dodge them (if no leap available) and compromise the ideal running line. After that, analogously to the right path, an automated TNT-trap follows, after which the aforementioned junction occurs.

The issue

This descrepancy adds an obvious advantage to the right lane, making it simply more optimal in all regards. Thus, the left lane becomes obsolete, removing the duality of the forking path. Even accounting for the Death’ s lane and the playability of a Death player during this section, I don’t see a valid reason for such an unbalanced layout. Therefore, I’m asking for an explanation. Maybe there are elements I haven’t considered during my observation. I’d gladly take everything back and reconsider my position.

Simplification and considerations

To simplify the problem at hand, a pareto optimality has already been present numerous times in DR maps, e. g. the first Viaduct turn, where the shortest ‘paths’ used red, risky platforms, while the longest green, safe ones. This makes the discernment of optimal ‘paths’ more difficult, situational and fun!

A forking lane is a perfect playground for such events. By adding various elements that help or hinder a runner while keeping the average time it takes to run the individual lanes not too dissimilar, the choice between left and right becomes strategically relevant and longterm interesting. Viaduct’s first turn does it perfectly, Synthwave’s forking lane not so much.

To clarify the meaning of averge time in the context, it’s not about the relative distance needed to cover, it’s the runner’s average speed considering the different obstacles that might slow them down or speed them up. Distance, from an abstract view, can slow them down, but so can soul-sand traps, slimeblock jumps, ladders, parkour platform sequences and many more. Ice, speed pads, shorter distances, etc. can increase their speed. The element of risk, such as a trap, adds a chance of being slown down drastically because of the imminent setback, thus the average speed decreases.

Conclusion

I view this section as a missed opportunity and want to express how it could be improved in future maps, turning it from a weakness into a strength. I hope this post was coherent and helpful. I have linked a very rushed sketch to better visualize and highlight the issue. Thank you very kindly for reading!

I am not demanding any changes to the current layout, but I’d welcome one for sure and would love to contribute to suggestions :slight_smile:

Hello! Welcome to the Forums! :wave:

First I’d like to mention that the TNT trap after the right lane turns left is not automated; it’s activated by the Deaths.

More to the point, I see what you mean about the left lane being longer. The distance alone (in my opinion) is a big disadvantage. The only advantage I might be able to give to the left lane is that, because the right lane is more popular, the Deaths may be looking away from the left lane and let a Runner sneak through.

In my opinion, having two lanes that are different would still lead to the same problem you’re mentioning now: one lane will be faster and 90% of players will just use that one.

I think that the only way to solve this in future maps would be to have two lanes that are identical, so that neither side has an advantage. Though that may seem pointless, as I mentioned earlier it could lead to interesting gameplay as a Death would have to pay attention to both sides.

Or, of course, the Hive could just continue to make forked lanes with one having a clear advantage. The players who are dedicated and skilled would always use the same lane, but not every Hive player is like that. In my opinion, having multiple options, even if one is better, adds more to the gameplay than it takes away.

Thanks for bringing your opinion to the Forums! I’m looking forward to further conversation. Have a great day :slightly_smiling_face:

3 Likes

Hello! Thank you for the quick response

First, I want to apologize for misremembering the automated TNT-traps. However, both the left and the right lane contain the same final ‘Death-powered’ TNT trap at the end, it’s just an overlapping patch.

The angle from which the Death can activate this trap favours the left lane, because the Death has a better line of sight for runners on the right lane entering it. But due to the glassy bridge, this bias is very small and can be ignored for 95% of the cases. A Death focused on maximizing kills or targeting the first runner will easily catch their prey no matter the lanes they’re on. Given the nature of the final trap, even without direct focus of the Death, sneaking past it contains the same risks on either side, since opposite runners might tempt the Death to set it off prematurely.

The same applies to the trap preceding it. I agree with your statement about the distribution of runners skewed towards the right lane, but it affects the left lane too. If most runners are willing to take the right lane, the chance of a runner to simply run over the trap on the right lane increases, and so does the Death’s motivation for setting it off, and by doing so, obstruct both runners on different lanes, one of which unintentionally.

There are many instances of pareto optimality on various DR maps, where neither path offers an absolute advantage. I believe that different forking lanes are feasible and wouldn’t cause an uneven distribution if done right. It’s all about calibration of the position and type of traps, obstacles etc, while accounting for Death’s navigation and visibility.

A mirrored version can suffice to achieve a balanced outcome, but it makes little use of the full potential while also offering little incentive to switch lanes. It’s more of a Death’s treat and challenge, just how you rightfully elaborated.

By making one lane objectively better, it forces the experienced runners to mindlessly pursue it if the goal is to win. For the average runner that may not be the case, I agree. This will always lead to every lane being used no matter the benefits they can provide.

By adding a forking lane, I see the possibility for more strategy and content. A single lane can achieve the same as unbalanced forking lanes. I am not against the idea of them, but I see no point in further develop this feature if they cannot provide a utility. They are neither removing, nor significantly adding to the gameplay, so why bother building them?

Thanks again for taking the time to answer, I appreciate it!

2 Likes

FINALLY someone else noticed this, yes this a pretty big issue. Voted!

1 Like