AchromicWhite

Well that's the sort of system I was looking to make; but to have a way that people could add more maps to the list. Creating space for more community content, and an evolving ladder. Maybe we could even rotate official maps a few times a year or so. Come up with a list of attributes for official maps to have... and a veto list would be great, too. By having archetypes (which, I'd be happy to work on) we could categorise the maps, so that exact balance doesn't matter so much. Let people play a best of 3, or something, if they wanted to run a tournament. Still not 100% sure if a ladder is actually a good idea... just considering how elitist people can be about it. The attitudes of people in this thread illustrate that.

You didn't see me lose to anyone either... lol And yes, I can see that the purpose of everything you and Chem do is to annoy and bait people. It's also against forum rules to do that. So congrats. Your list made me laugh, because you kept saying that Cat was one of the best GDI players. Cat's cool and all, but I know a lot of GDI players that are a few steps above. "I will tell it anybody; lets see, how the ppl think about you xD. " See, here's the problem. I don't know what you're saying. " i never said the more ppl say sth, the more truthful it becomes." ...Again I'm not "smarter" than other players. That assumes I'm all around more intelligent. I'm not. I have game and RTS knowledge because I've played for 15 years, have been involved with modding/mapping and have done research into game design. "And you talk much about, which victories you had against sb. " ... and again. See, here's the real problem; you're just slurring everything I'm saying. Either you're doing it on purpose, or you actually don't know what I'm saying. Either way, it doesn't bode well for you to not be able to reply properly. "You are smarter than a MrGearhead, a justme, a rootbie, a Cat, etc? NO. But i will tell it anybody over and over again ;)." LOL "FACT: You would be crying after a game with Chem. He beats you like a boy fighting against Muhammed Ali." The last real match I had against him I beat him. The other match he claims was so easy, I literally opened 4 (might have been 5) refs + 2nd PP before WF (thought it was GDI v GDI, new player... was messing around). He was using a different name so that if he loses, he can just claim it was someone else... And then tries to actually USE this as leverage to say he's better than me. I play Ferret, LoveHandles, Jacko.... and I play them over and over. No issues. Yet, these players are better than me. Why then will I play them when I lose? Because they're not Grade-A Trolls.

I thought hat myself, when I looked at it!

Pretty much sums up what you do in this forum. At least you can see that.

Cool map man. I really like the simple yet well thought out design. Welcome to our wee mapping community! Just for future reference. The new patched game allows you to name your file anything (as long as both the ini and bin are the same name) Can't wait to see more from you! *Downloaded!*

Again, walls of text. Chem replied to me, and didn't even reply to anything I'd written. Literally just trying to tell me I'm bad at things. While I don't even claim that my newer maps are balanced... give me one other person who's made something that looks more closely balanced that my own maps, and explain why/which aspects of my maps create an imbalance. --- Your argument is that if MORE people believe something, that it's more likely to be true... let's use a mental experiment to check if that's true, I'll even use C&C as an example; Let's say it's early days of CnCnet, that 10 people play the game regularly in an extremely small player base. They get good at the game and have reasonable knowledge of the game. Now, let's say that the CnCnet advertises and gets 30 new players. Your argument is that anything the 30 new players say is true, simply because there's more of them. lol, ya. You're also accusing me of being elitist? (I think?) I'm not elitist if I say that I claim to understand something more than other people. I'm elitist if I deny your ability to ever achieve. There are understandings about games that designers of games understand, which most gamers do NOT. This is well known, and if you'd like to know more about game design, I'd advise the series "Extra Credits" that you can find for free on Youtube. I've never claimed that I know better than any other player... I'm literally arguing that we shouldn't try to have only "balanced" maps, because it's boring. You seem to be saying that I'd not allow open maps, when I'd be happy to have them on it and just placed under a certain archetype. and BTFW engineer "rushes" as you call them, are a part of the game that I fully accept. Why the fuck are you accusing me of trying to cut them?! You're just saying rando shiz about me now. (less so then chem, but still) The type of maps that I think suck are ones where you CAN'T do stuff, not where you CAN. That's been my conclusion as I've thought more and more about archetypes and not worrying about balanced maps, as much as I've thought about making interesting maps. The next part of your statements starts talking about a ladder... I've not mentioned my want for a ladder in this thread. In fact I actually advocate that perhaps a ladder is a bad idea, because it creates an elitist community. I don't play Chem, and we've taken plenty of games off of each other. I don't play Chem because he's a horrible person... would you like me to fetch you a list of all his threads where he attacks community members? ALSO You two are the worst people on this forum! LOOK at what you're doing in this thread! You're NOT talking about the topic, you're personally attacking me over game skill? I don't even play one of these people so no one knows who's better, and more importantly, has nothing to do with the topic... jus so you know... I recently played a bunch of those people high up your list, syrianrefugeeengineer. I didn't just beat, but THRASH them. NOT on my own maps, either. So, you know jack shit. I can see why the forum is now dead, too. Because who the FUCK can get anything done here? Enjoy your desert.

I ASK YOU A THIRD AND LAST TIME: WHY DO YOU/THE COMMUNITY KNOW BETTER WHICH MAP IS GOOD FOR A LADDER GAME OR NOT THAN THE PLAYERS WHO FIGHT? Because I've played for competitively for 15 years and have done decent study of RTS design, through modding and mapping, and compared competitive systems for said games. Chem is asking the same thing over and over and I've answered him. He trying to change what this thread is about, because he's jumping the gun.

Chem STOP shit posting. I didn't read most of your reply, because you're clearly trying to make this into a 'pick and choose maps thread'. NEWS FLASH There IS NO official maps list. Nothing exists. I'm trying to get a ball rolling, and you dropping crap here is just showing devs that we're not ready to work together to make such a project happen. Grow up. I didn't make thread for us to go through every damn map and say yes or no. That's why I'm not answering your question. You're just cluttering it with crap, now. ------------------ " I can tell you: In my opinion, any map, which isnt open enough for engineers, should be and therefore would be rejected. This is "my" attribute for any map. Would you like that? I dont think so." That's the part I was referring to when I talked about you saying that engineers should be possible. Maps can be open enough, or closed enough and still be competitive. They just need to be relegated to a proper archetype list. If we're all just deciding by popularity what goes on a list, then there's no point in a competitive mode. If it's just popularity, then it's just exactly what we already have. I've JUST explained the issues and you agreed. Now that we're talking maps, you think it doesn't make a difference. Of course is does. What's important is keeping the spirit of the design of the game in tact. Else we may as well all by playing mods like P4. Having maps that test a range of skills will help to show who a better player is. Again, go and look at SCII/SCI. Have a look at the ladder maps, vs, "Big Game Hunters", "Fastest Possible Map", You'll see the same thing that we have going on in C&C95. Real pros don't play on BGH and FPM. (and no, we don't have real pros), but we can at least cultivate/emulate competitive play. And pass the skills onto the next lot of players.

'Black gold' silo... and some interesting PPs. Camo plants?

WOW what a lot to say... Most of it seems to be "let popularity decide'. I've actually already addressed that argument. You say that some people are noobs/afraid because they play a certain way. Well, they're not noobs to their own style, and I think they just enjoy their way of playing. They don't understand 'proper' matches, so it's not fun for them. Also, playing in such a way can still teach someone who knows almost nothing about the game, a lot about how to play. This thread is NOT an attack against anyone. It IS important to not attack our community, just because they enjoy the game another way. You mention that I wouldn't like engineers to be able to capture buildings or something... this would be addressed through the archetypes system. Where some maps would have it and others not. So that's actually not a big deal. I do want variety in a map system, so that's part of how we'd figure what maps are usable and what maps are not. Even briefly looking at WW maps, we see that some are open and others are cut off. That's fine. We also see that ALL of the maps have separated tiberium fields and don't put tiberium in such a way that completely restricts how you can build your base and also move your infantry around, so maps that completely cut the map apart with tiberium, not so much. Tiberium fields also create contention points on the map, to fight over. Which adds the element of capturing the map... rather than a match just coming down to; -who can destroy production structures -who can destroy the enemy army (in other words, where your units/structures are matters) By doing this, 'balanced' doesn't matter. It can favour one side or the other knowingly, but it'd be in a category that would become more well known for favouring one side or another. I'd actually consider this a good thing, as it'd give us more information about exactly what makes maps bias to one side/strategy and just by how much. It'll help us to make more balanced maps, while we can still play on 'bias' maps just challenge ourselves and enjoy the range of matches provided by different archetypes. This is another reason I'm still a bit cringy about a ladder in particular. Playing for fun means wins matters little; yet with a map system we can understand the game better, and create a better path for others to get into the competitive game. If you'd like to know more about RTS maps, I'd really suggest checking out SC-Remastered/SCII and how there are a range of communities within the single games. Yet both the casual and competitive scenes thrive side by side.

Inspired by Manu's fantastic map, Circle of Death, I bring you; Zodiac Key differences include; -Tiberium used as contention points (Those who expand will reap benefit) -Terrain to skirmish around in the centre (A DOUNUT ROCK!) -Sandbags to help you to expand in the direction you choose to (Gives you an idea where you've started) -No single large tiberium fields (Will help harvesters to path better) -No paths blocked by tiberium (Troops can go where they like) -No back doors into tiberium fields (but with more open fronts to the fields) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDIT: 24/12/17 -Added Blossom Trees -Extended Tiberium fields in the 4 corners of the map, right out to the very edges. (Wht)Zodiac.ini (Wht)Zodiac.bin

No, you asked me which maps I think should be on the list. My reply is that one person's opinion (including my own) should NOT be enough to place a map on a list. That instead we should have a format, a list of attributes that a map should have, to be allowed onto the list. I, and may other community members, are not always going too be here to nit pick such things. By creating a format to competitive play, it creates the ground work for the next generation to carry it on.

"Will you allow them to do that...? Yes The only reasons I have to say that people should be allowed to play the way they want is because YOU accuse me of saying that they can't... and now you're accusing me of being a dictator because I'm being clear about it, and advocating the freedom for people to play as they like. Well that makes sense.

Yeah, I had like "Dave" and someone else. It's fine, they can do that. But they seemed to think that they were playing C&C as intended... Heck, even the designers didn't allow over 9999 credits or 12 units with bases on. So they KNEW that over doing it outright broke the game and didn't want people competing like that... and they had 'no bases' mode and 'capture the flag' etc. Which I'd consider not to really be 'proper' competitive play.

Well, I wouldn't want to pick any until we'd discussed what features of a map are important. There's no point in just picking and choosing from "What do I like?". It needs format. By using a format we could then have real reasons to show that a map is/isn't balanced, is/isn't competitive. That's a large part of the point of this post. No, 'popular' doesn't factor into it. In fact, just reading through my post should show you that some maps and play styles can be popular yet not competitive at all. This issue shows up in almost every RTS game I've ever seen. TS is doing it (unlimited Tib), RA1 does it (unlimited Tib AND faster harvesting trucks... less time to fill the truck), SC1 does it with mod maps, SCII does it with "big game hunters"... yet all of these games also have higher competitive play in which people don't use said maps. Which is my point. If people want to play the maps that they like, instead of a competitive game, they can go ahead and do that. But be separating the two, we can cultivate a better understanding of competitive RTS. It showed up on your 'alarm bell', because you chose to 'follow me'. I'm just pointing out that everything you just did was entirely a result of your own decisions (as you seemed to be trying to pass it off as someone or something else prompting you).

Every time I log in to find people playing with 999999 credits and 40 units, I'm a little dumb fucked. Not because people CAN do this. It's not that people can use wacky settings and enjoy themselves. I like that people have options... It's that they have no idea that they're not playing via the spirit that the designers intended. It also seems to me that those that play with way ONLY play this way, and will basically never learn about the ins and outs of the game in full. They'll never see the really quite wonderful balance that WW managed to get into the game (whether by accident or not). I'd like to see some pathing for the next generation of players to learn the game. A lot of what makes RTS interesting is not what a team/race/side can do, but more what their limitation(s) is/are. And I'd also say that's true for the way that resources restrict what you can build. Even spread out tiberium fields so that you have to be aggressive on the map and play strategically as the game moves on, is incredibly important. In fact, starting with unlimited resources, too many units, not allowing any early attacks etc, actually means that there are less options available... once you figure out the best way to open, you'd just do the exact same thing each time. It hurts the strategy element of the game. Where as, if you can be attacked, you have to adapt depending on your opponent, and then they do the same; giving the game almost endless possibility. I've talked before about making a competitive mode, so that people KNOW that there's a difference; but it gets derailed by (well let's be honest) one person saying that I'm trying to control everyone... mhm. Anyway. We've spoken about the spirit of design within mapping as well... that cutting off the map with tiberium is against the design, as it completely restricts the type of units that you can use (and it's worth noting that grenadiers are a substantial part of the meta game in GDIvX match ups). I'd love to see a list of competitive maps (no, not all my own maps, heck, I don't even think ALL of mine should be in such a list. And I'd be happy to discuss which should and shouldn't be), but just a list of maps that are known to be pretty damn well balanced and make for a games with a variety of strategies. To cultivate the possibility for new players to learn the game, and create a standard to competitive play. Playing in the competitive mode would also auto-setup the other options; 10,000 credits, 1 unit, bases on, crates off etc etc. Even if no laddered mode, I don't really care; but I'd like to see a clear game mode that captures the spirit of design set out by West Wood. I'd like to hear from someone like funky, on this, if there would ever be the chance for us to have a mode like this; to help new people to learn the ropes of the game. I added your name to the title to get your attention, to hopefully get an answer, even if just a "maybe IDK" from Funky.

Yeah, and like, don't attack for for 5mins and stuff. But no one ever timed it... so you just made stuff for a while and then said "go". People can play as they like. But yeah, over time I just found it silly.

Keep safe man. Hope that's the last we hear of such issues. Good to know you guys are OK.

Just came here to check up on, man. Hope everything's going well. Hadn't seen you in for a while. If you're not back for some time yet, have a Merry Christmas and enjoy the time off.

I made a thread on map archetypes to start to understand different styles. You completely went out of your way to fill it with garbage. I'm note writing that up again. You want to shit on your own carpet, you're going to learn to doesn't just wipe up.

I try to make my maps responsibly fair, but they're designed to maximise different strategies, more than anything else. That's why we'd need a way to select a group of maps for ladder, or a filtering system; basically, a standard on how maps are made for competitive play. Which we tried to talk about before, until you completely derailed ALL the threads associated with such ideas and discussion.

It doesn't show structures. It's caught me out before... and I literally just looked at it now. I'm sorry that you don't understand that 2 people agreeing to a map doesn't make it a 'fair map', because it's completely open to human error. If we wanted to make a fair ladder, we'd want to limit human error as much as we could. That's the POINT of a ladder. To have an official register of who's 'better' than who. If it's not a fair ladder, then it's pointless.

I've just explained, twice, that the map preview DOESN'T show everything. And if you had con yards hidden, and took them and sold them, your opponent would never know, would they?

No. You don't understand... Say I asked to play you on Blistering Sands... you know the map, know it's pretty well balanced and accept... But, unknown to you, I placed 2 con yards in the top right corner... it's an edited version with the same name! So I walk 2 engies up and and BINGO I'm 4000 richer! (structures don't show on the minimap) OR Say you're new to the game and don't know what's fair... and I just pick a totally open map with no terrain. Poor bugger is trying to play GDI vs Nod on a massive map. I just make buggies and insta GG him. He didn't know better. And now, because he didn't know the map, he loses his ladder points. How can a game be fair if it's only the newest of players to be involved with the design of fair maps (as they'd be picking them).