AchromicWhite

Yeah, there's actually quite a lot of good maps around.

Thing is, if you see someone going 1 ref, you can just sit back and go crazy on your own econ.

Maybe wait for the man to actually decide that he's doing it.

I have little idea how to deal with mass APC in the early game, if you're relying on troops. I've said that sort of thing before. This is one of the reasons that I think APC should be GDI only. But this game is what it is, and each strategy may well redefine the meta completely. Heck, maybe an earlier WF would be a way to go.

I think it can depend on who you're playing... but all this assumes that someone will play the same way, regardless of what you do. Personally, I like to have some sort of aggression up my sleeve, to force my opponent to do things. If I can predict those things, that makes me life a lot easier, as I have control over the game. With SSM in particular, while you certainly can get those "mother of all shots" moments, it can also, more or less, miss and do nothing. And it has a very slow reload time. For that reason, I'd say it's better suited to situations where people can't really attack into each other. But it certainly has a tendency to shut down troop support in a radius.

Yeah, that land bridge is pretty neat. Haven't done any hex editing myself, so I'd have to learn a bit to get started; but it's helpful, for sure. A simple copy/paste tool would be good. It means that people don't have to learn simple hex to be able to make what they want in maps. Most of the "tricks" I've done in mapping have just been to make roads work when the lengths available are not quite right... pretty simple stuff, lol.

I thought that if Ferret organised it, that he's just say what the maps are.

Yeah, that's about right. I do think that direct NvS maps can be hard for the north, though. I have some that are NvS, but have tried to put other areas where you can fight EvW by manning chokes. GA, of course, has little to no chokes, so it is what it is. This looks about right for a remake of GA... Maybe a bit more resources. Particularly around more central tib fields. I know there was a remake of Tib Garden, which was an old favourite, as well. I'm unconvinced that GA was maybe ever that greater map, but it was played a LOT, because the original WW client didn't show previews of the maps at all, and GA was the first map on the list. Due to people not knowing what any of it was, or not remembering which map went with which name, they just clicked the first one. Still, GA was certainly not the worst on the original list of maps. It made for decent games.

Recon bikes, turrets, rocket soldiers. I think light tanks are just bad. Honestly, even on a head on fight, I think the bikes are better. Especially considering their range is the same.

I can't believe I never really looked at this... is that entire lake made from disjointed river tiles? And the island too, for that matter?

Cool thread. Only just seen this... makes me want to make an island map.

Yeah. I think that's true. Was a long time back... not sure we ever finished it. I think I was beaten by LoveHandles xD

Yeah, I'd think a double elimination system would be good. Means people get more than one match, too. Which I think helps to make it more fun... else half of ALL the people get knocked out first round.

Interested. But this should probably not be in multiplayer maps, lol.

Interesting! And a capture point in the middle.

Oh cool. You're getting right into it! Nice to see fellow modders having a crack. Boy, I REALLY agree with what you say that a lot can be improved. This game has so much untapped potential. Nice list, too. Good to see you state your ideas (philosophy behind the mod) before beginning. I do agree with what X3M said about the squishing, though. But hey, have a crack at making infantry and other anti-tank weapons more useful without nerfing, first, and see how you go. It's often important to see things for yourself just for learning purposes either way. GLHF!

Yeah, I'm not yet totally ruling out non-symmetrical maps, but they're something that needs to have an eye kept on them. I've had great games on them, but on many occasions I've thought to myself "if I didn't start here, or he didn't start there, then I they couldn't have won like that" etc.

F.ex. Green Acres is pretty much all wide open, but by base creeping GDI can deny Nod control over a big chunk of the map. Could this be a result of middle spawns? I've had the same issue, even in GDI v GDI on Blistering Sands, where, if one person starts in the middle, they can cut the map and just hold until the resources run out.

There are some maps where you can just wall at the entrance anyway, if you know how. Quarry is a good example... in that way, I'd rather the strat of APC rush just be viable on certain maps. Like, they can be potent, but they also can be defended. You mostly have to be careful about making a load of infantry, because the APC can end up paying for itself via crushing. Not sure if there's a way to change the starting units like you've stated, though. Making 5 or so rocket men is not too hard, either. Just go double barr/hand if you have to, to spit them out where you need them. I don't so much disagree that this wouldn't help, as much as that I'm not on board with the idea of trying to flat nerf strats. If we wanted to nref such a strat through editing the game, the obvious way would be to just place the engineer at comm tech and maybe remove APC from the Nod arsenal. But I don't really want to do either of those things. The only edit I've become open to would be moving Chem Warrior and MLRS both to comm centre tech, so that we actually get to use them.

This thread is born from the discussion being held in this thread here: (some of it's a bit of a mess, so I've linked the comment where the discussion gets down to business) https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/7930-spirit-of-design-funkyfresh/?do=findComment&comment=66046 If you're not aware of that thread and are reading this, I highly suggest that you check out the first one before proceeding here. The idea that I'm trying to push is to get an official base for a ladder, up and running. I'd say it'd be better to get the settings and standards for the ladder first, before actually releasing points/placings for players to collect. This thread is to discuss what features belong and don't belong on maps used for this mode of play, and what features are scaling variables. Hopefully what we can come to the conclusion of will give us both a standard to the maps, and also an archetyping system, somewhat similar to the EARC system of StarCraft II: http://i.imgur.com/IQPAEpu.jpg If all maps in a standardised also have an archetype, then whenever we create a smaller pool, we can easily select a varied pool for a tournament or a season of ladder. If it was thorough, we could maybe have an automated system set up to just roll new maps out from the larger standardised pool, several times during the year. This would give a fresh set of maps to practice and play on, and we might see different people do well under different circumstances. It also means that if there are map types that simply don't suit you, a simple veto system would mean that you would not ever be forced to play on such maps. >>>Topics of discussion for what SHOULD NOT be on a map<<< (Note that I'm just listing everything that people MIGHT have an issue with). Basically, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit. As we come to some sort of conclusion, and it'd be good if we could (so reasoning behind your argument is important), I'll tick them a pass or fail. If you have more topics you want to discuss, say so and, I'll add them to the list. >Seas of tiberium (you know what I'm talking about) >If tiberium fields should have a max/min number of cells per field (so you could say; no less than 20, no more than 70, or something like that). >Blocking routes using tiberium (How important is the route. How many cells of tiberium counts as blocked etc) >Minimum number of blossom trees (so that resources never quite run out) >Starting with blossom trees in or behind a players spawn (unlimited money/placement of blossom trees) >Capturable assets; Production, Tech, Power Plants, Transport heli >Pre-placed units/defences (including civilians and powered super weapons) >Walls (not cliffs) that completely surround where the con yard is placed (stopping APC rush, etc) >Completely open and extremely closed maps (obvious bike/buggy and turtle maps) >Non-symmetrical maps (we'll assume closeness on this one... like if something's out by 1 cell, that'd be counted as symmetrical) >Maps with middle spawn points (note that if a host starts near the middle, they can know where their opponent has spawned, but their opponent wont know where the host has spawned) >>>Topics of discussion for what be scaled variables on a map<<< (Same as before, I'm putting all the stuff in). >The overall amount of tiberium >The amount of tiberium near the players spawn >The amount of tiberium a considerable distance from the players spawn >How open/closed the map is in general >How open/closed the area is around a spawn location (ability to wall early enemy units out) >How open/closed the area that is a considerable distance from the players spawn (how open skirmishing areas are) >Harassability of tiberium a considerable distance from the players spawn >Accessibility of tiberium (related to base creep) >How close the rush distance from spawns is >How close the actual spawns are (flyer rush distance) >Potential to "cheap shot" con yard (short actual distance from spawns, long rush distance... but can shoot up a cliff to hit the con yard etc) >Base creep potential (I added this in because cn2mc mentioned it. I wouldn't mind a bit more explanation so that I can understand exactly how this differs from map to map). From this list, it'd be good to be able to cut it down the number to AT LEAST four. So coming up a way to calculate a meld of multiple topics into an over arching term, would be perfect. For example, we could call "offensive" a combination of an open area around a spawn location, an open area that is a considerable distance from the players spawn (lack of terrain between players), highly harassable tiberium fields, a short rush distance between spawns and a high chance of 'cheap shot'. Yet each topic of the "offensive" typing maybe more or less important, for example: How open/closed the area is around a spawn location would probably rate quite high, while how open/closed the area that is a considerable distance from the players spawn is maybe rated lower. So we could say; for a map to be "offensive", it has to score at least a 15 out of these 5 categories. So then we rate each category with a potential amount that it can attribute towards the potential "offensive" typing. Ex. >How open/closed the area is around a spawn location (ability to wall early enemy units out) --- (score out of 10 points) >How open/closed the area that is a considerable distance from the players spawn (how open skirmishing areas are) --- (score out of 5 points) >Harassability of tiberium a considerable distance from the players spawn --- (score out of 5 points) >How close the rush distance from spawns is --- (score out of 10 points) >Potential to "cheap shot" con yard --- (score out of 2 points) In this case, the higher score obviously goes towards it being more offensive, but each score would also give a counter score for an opposing type; let's say "defensive". So, if >How open/closed the area is around a spawn location (ability to wall early enemy units out); scores an 8/10 for openness, then it automatically scores a 2/10 for closed, which might well be an attribute for "defensive", but we would still want to decide what archetyping we feel really describes the play style of a C&C95 map. So, now I see yourself asking "What the hell am I supposed to start with when discussing this topic?!" I'll break it down. Step 1. >Add any extra features for what you think should not be in a map. >Make a decision as to what you think should stay and should not (try not to sit on the fence too much, shit needs locking in). Step 2. >Add any extra features for what you think should be a scaled variable in a map archetyping system. >List any of the features you think are irrelevant, state why. >List 2-4 (honestly, even 4 is a lot... I'd love just 2) typing systems you think describe a C&C map. (ex: offensive vs defensive, rich vs thrift, roaming vs constricting). If you look at this through the lens of the EARC system, 2 variables gives 9 types, 3 gives 27 and 4 would give a whopping 108 types. (for later) Step 3. Once we have a list from step 2 which not only gives the variables for the over arching variables (offensive vs defensive etc), but also what variables make up the over arching variables, (what makes offensive etc); we can go ahead and place a score next to each variable to complete the system. It's complex, I know; but the point is to consolidate this information into simpler and simpler ways to parcel a map, so that a system for tournament styled play is made easy for future users. GLHF

Interesting, so both X3M and nariac both would like to see a cash limit at 7000, and also talking about going as low as 5000? Something I was thinking of was the idea that some features may be chosen for the players, and they just veto some options/maps. So, say you had a pool of 7 maps, and each map is a different type (has a different combination of the 4 (or more) points that describe a map), and each person gets 3 vetos. And then we have 5 (or so) different amounts of credits to start with, say; 5K, 6K, 7K, 8K, 10K (so, in this case no 9K) and you veto 2 of them. You're then randomised a map and an amount of credits that both you and your opponent didn't veto. The reason I say 5 credit amounts, is that you need an odd amount of options if you have a veto system, and if we want to include 5K and 10K then an amount needs to be cut, and I think that 9K is not that interesting... as it's already close enough to 10K. However, that does mean you're always more likely to be randomised a smaller amount). For those who like smaller amounts going up against those who like larger amounts, you'd basically always play with 7K, which I think is a good mid ground. Could make it 7.5K though. OR 5.5K, 6.5K, 7.5K, 8.5K, 9.5K Dang it Cn2. I agree with too many of your thoughts xD Let's see. Instead of going through what I agree with, let's try and find what I don't... Yeah, regarding capturable tech; that could be a check box system. So you'd only have 1-2 maps with something like that. But I agree. I think that production buildings in particular are a no no. They not only unlock units you ever wise can't build, but they speed up production at points in the game where the production speed should still be ramping up. They make all-ins that are already powerful, completely insane. One issue that I have with buildings on maps is that you can't see them in the preview of the maps, and I think that it's important for the veto system to be intuitive for newer players. Like, they may still be screwing themselves over even with a good preview, but at least they're looking at the actual map. Maybe a veto screen could show better previews (or at least have a link to a page with pictures on). I'm honestly 100% against having ANY extra units to start with. Just the MCV. Even with 3 units, nod gets 2 light tanks, while GDI gets a med and a rocket soldier. I don't consider that fair. On Game speed; I'd like to see it just locked at 6, but I'd be alright with it being 5-6. For me personally, it throws off my rhythm. But I do think that not allowing to be stupidly slow, and also locking the speed during the game is a good idea. Game pause would be a nice addition. Regarding non reffed matches, it's important that there's a way for the player whom didn't pause the game, to be able to continue. If someone is losing a match and can just pause the game... yeah.

Yeah, both super weapons cannot be captured. In XCCeditor there's a function for save map as image. It's just under the "file" drop down menu.

"Bloody awesome", is what I'd like to say. Good to see you back mapping again, this looks like a real gem (mind the pun). Really interesting spread with the multiple really small fields of tiberium. I'm interested to see how that feels in a match.

Yeah. I've been thinking of making a thread regarding what features we'd want on maps. Regarding that; I think it's better to say what features/restrictions/design we'd want for the maps, rather than strait picking them, because then picking them as a community is easier and we can clearly show WHY we're doing that, and show that it's not some scheme to annoy, get cheap wins or anything else. The thread I have on map design helps that. If we could then answer major points regarding mapping like: -Features that should never be on tournament maps -Features that should always be on tournament maps -Features that change (like resources) on tournament maps Particularly, regarding features that change, if we have say 4 major points that can be higher or lower, we can place those into categories, so that if we have a tournament (or a ladder or whatever) that pools of maps will always contain a spread of different styles, without having absolute nonsense maps in the mix. The more I think about different amounts of starting credits, the more I'm open to it. I think it maybe shouldn't drop below about 5,000, though, as when it's that low, you can't scout effectively in the early game and still have any sort of econ. Again, I think that APC would be insane with that econ. The tricky part is; IF we decide to have that as a competitive mode for newbies to practice on... but then we all just play 10,000; are we just misleading new players? Because we CAN already play with less than 10,000, but almost no one does, anyway. On resolution. I still really like the idea of locking it. Not only because it makes sure that everyone's playing the same game, but it also means that people who have camera skills can use those to raise their win rates over those who don't have that skill. It gives people something to master which they can be proud of, as they grow. Also, could we not have a feature which allows resolution to be locked through CnCNet on certain game modes, and further more, show a breakdown at the end of a match that would tell all players what they were playing with etc?

I actually miss when it looked like the menu of C&C95. Classic...