AchromicWhite

Yeah, but fortunately cncnet is, and so is the cncnet team.

One last thing on this... The most balanced asymmetric map that I THINK was ever made was this: https://forums.cncnet.org/topic/6382-mn-blistering-sands-2/ Ferret's Blistering Sands. This is the revised version of it that he made lately. You might also want to look up the original to see what he changed and have a little think about WHY such changes were made. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

Really? What did you write up in the .ini to get that functioning? I never got it working, from memory.

Yeah, while I have me ideas on improving parts of the game, I'd only like to see such changes as a mod/unofficial expansion. Even the faster cargo plane makes me feel a little uneasy. Heck, even the higher resolution somewhat does, too. I still like both changes, it's just something with changing the game.

Everything Goat Messiah said, and... -Some terrain to help hold rushes (else every game is just cheese, and then you just win/lose strait away... boring). -Multiple entrances to bases, (this is NEEDED) makes the game interesting, because there are multiple entrances to attack/defend at. If not, then you already know you cannot attack, and so everyone sits around. -No tiberium blocking the attack paths (can use infantry when moving across the map to attack etc). -Tiberium in smaller fields. (Means you don't have to push infantry deep into tib to defend harvs, and harvs don't go wandering while harvesting... if tiberium is everywhere, the harvesters go for long walks). -Tiberium fields to contest, as the game carries on (tib nearer the middle of the map, to fight over. Whoever holds it, gets the tib, gets more money, and wins the game. Gives more reason to NOT sit in your base, but instead to go out and fight. Blossom trees nearer the middle help this too).

Yeah, I think I looked at a lot of this type of thing. I kinda agree with your direction, but there is stuff to mention which is important. For example; you looked at speeding up the light tank to make it more 'on par' with the medium tank (cost efficiency wise), by making it quicker. Yet, we could make the same argument for the humvee vs buggy. Understand perfect imbalance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w&t=1s The individual units are not meant to be balanced, this is obvious in the case of humvee vs buggy. But I do agree that the light tank might be TOO weak. Buggies certainly make up for the lack of strength of their own team's tanks, but a large amount of what makes buggies strong is also related to the WF having not enough HP. And we can argue that the HP of the factory is also TOO weak (even if it is meant to be somewhat weak). I'd also argue to keep the light tank's role AS a tank, and not try to move it into a role which is already filled out well by things like bikes/buggies. (else what happens is the meta game just becomes weaker. Maybe fun at first, as you see many more tanks, but then it becomes boring as you find that every game is tank, tank, tank). So long as each unit has a purpose, but can also be countered, it doesn't matter if the unit is "strong". Because if someone spams it, it can be countered BY the counter units. As the video explaining perfect imbalance explains regarding LoL Champions. Here's what I'd suggest for changes: GDI changes WF: -HP 300-400 (To give an idea. Currently the WF 200, a Con Yard is 400). I'd say make it so that 4 orca can still kill it while it repairs. But it just gives it a bit more ability to not die strait away. MRLS: -Cost 600 -HP 120-125 -Requires Comm Centre (or AGT) instead of Adv Comm. (Just gives it little more ability to stay alive. It's pretty weak as is). I'd say keep it light armour, though. It is an artillery unit. Nod changes Flamer: Cost=180 Speed=9; (is currently 10, minigunner is 8. This is to not over nerf him, but to give more room for the chem warrior to have value) HitPoints=50 (This makes it the same as minigunner/gren. Is currently 70). E5 (ChemWarrior) Speed=10; (used to be 8 (same as minigunner) now 10 (same as old flamer/gren)). Cost=220; (Maybe 220-250) HitPoints=80; (A commando is 80, so maybe 70?) Prerequisites=Hand of Nod, Comm Centre? Artillery: Turn rate 5 (up from 2) Increase it's turn rate to be the same as tanks. It currently has an 'extra slow' turn speed, which makes it hard for the unit to lock-on to a target, and then as a result, the arty doesn't fire. Light tank: Currently, it's cannon has less range, less direct damage AND less rate of fire, than a medium. Just up some of that value. Probably keep the lower range, would be my advice. First part of the test, I'd say up the RoF. Stealth tank HitPoints=190; This is aprx a 75% increase in HP, as the stealth capability is largely effectively nullified (due to the smoke animation) once they're at 50% hp anyway and completely broken once they're in the red. HasTurret=Yes (if you can). This would help it to hit and run better. Which is obviously important. Apache: Ammo: 6 (same as orca) Maybe 7 (which would be 50% of it's current value). SSM: Maybe less HP or a slightly higher cost of like 900. It's a very powerful unit. Some have speculated about putting it at Temple Tech. That's not actually as crazy as it sounds, either. Just because it IS so damn strong. Though, some of it's strength comes from killing infantry (important to GDI), but with the MLRS active, the troops would become less important as the game gets into later phases. So it'd have to be check on. I'd say, make the GDI changes and test from there. Keep the speed low; it IS an artillery unit. Not every unit has to be fast in order to have Nod with a 'fast' flavour. Diversity in units is key to a compelling game. I agree with just kulling the APC and MLRS from the Nod army. It's simply not needed, and it would actually make the game MORE engaging through asymmetric balance. Here's where you expect to see bikes/buggies, but I think they're fine. Note that the MRLS will help to deal with them later in the game. The MLRS is less tech AND cheaper, which means there's MORE of them, which in turn means that they can dish out MORE fire power, the kind needed to counter mass light vehicles. (even if the efficiency of the light vehicles is strong, that just keeps them relevant, but as long as their's a counter, it'll play out fine). Turret: No change needed until the other changes are tested. A lot of what makes the turrets strong is that it's too easy to stick bikes all around them, too. Meaning you then HAVE to use troops to push, but static splash units from Nod are too easy to hold with. So long as the MLRS can deal with a lot of the bikes/flame/chem troops, the tanks should be able to push OK. This again keeps turret very relevant, but still counter-able

Ayyyyhhhh! He's back!

Yes, even with my own symmetrical maps, I try to make the cliffs have natural flows to them. I don't much like the big square ledges etc. Well, on roaming maps, especially aggressive roaming maps, I find that it's light vehicles that are insane; as they're not restricted in any way. On more constricted maps, yes, you'll still open light vehicles and they certainly have their use through the game, but you'll transition into tank/artillery as the match goes on, to lock off chokes etc. Which creates more variety. For making ti for 'all players', that's where it gets hard. Many people just want different things from that game, and I get that.

Well, that'd be pretty cool if you could crack it. You know we all want to hear Japanese voices as we order men around xD

Yes, you cannot make structures at the same time. But hopefully by the time they've done a flyers transition, you have other production to keep spending. And then just push at the same time; check out how good their multi-tasking is, haha.

hahaha Too true... though selling in dire situations (which is far more common when choosing to sell) makes life a little harder... Still, if they try to burst it with flyers, you can pack it up, and because it's a new unit, the flyers leave. Now sure, they can click it again, but if you then deploy it, the flyers leave once again... and then you can just keep doing that. So, with micro, flyers cannot attack the con yard xD AND, I'll have you know I've used such a trick in an online game against someone doing exactly that.

That would actually be amazing, haha xD I think it's hard to do in a C&C95 mod, though. (unless EVERYONE goes jap, then it's easy, haha... even I can do that xD)

I know that there was research done into it, but I'm not sure if it was every totally cracked. I wont say any more because I don't really know, but I suspect Nyer might be able to answer that question much better.

You went into a lobby with the name "ONLY^WHITES"? How are you not permanently banned from this community already? I'm just going to ignore you Chem, please don't spam here, I'm trying to expand ideas regarding map making. Continuing on; I've been thinking about this more today, and I think it's worth noting that there is almost a 3rd category. In SCII, base locations each have the same amount of resources at them. That is; there is a standard to how resources are placed. IF this was in C&C (which it's not), then it'd be like saying: "Each tiberium field should have 35 cells of tiberium on them", or something like that. We also have to take into account masses of tiberium on maps, not only in cases where it covers almost the entire map, but also for streams of tiberium (like on cn2mc's Twin Peaks). So the actual amount of tiberium around the map plays a large part in this, also. This trend, though it means the game CAN carry on a long time, on an open map, it'd still mean that you'd be prone to early aggression; thereby making it hard to stabilise for longer games (so a map can have a lot of tiberium, but not be "economic"). On complete opposite, we could speak of a closed map, which would allow for early stabilisation, but if there isn't a lot of tiberium, you might not have a longer game. So, you can have an "economic map", which doesn't often play out into a long game, either. So, should what we would call an 'economic' map, be called 'economic'? etc So let's try this: Safety vs Aggression (How open/closed your start positions are) Roaming vs Constricting (How open/closed the parts between bases are) Macro (More about how MUCH you are going to produce) vs Efficiency (More about WHAT you choose to produce).

Sorry about him. He's just pissy because I don't like him. I'm just helping people to understand how different maps make for different games; and how archetypes predict that. If you're new to this forum and reading this, just ignore chem, he's always like this. There's nothing in here about forcing anyone to play in any way, nor about forcing people to make maps in any way. That's not the purpose of this. But just to Chem: if you could stop trying to derail threads and actually be productive in some way, that'd be great. I lose to all sort of people. I don't care about that; though I don't recall the game you speak of. But this isn't the topic to bring this up on. If you have an issue with my behaviour, I suggest you take it up with another mod like Nyer, Funky etc.

I think I've talked a bit about this before, in regards to multiplayer map making, but I wanted to show it again, if not. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/44lcxh/the_latest_weekly_update_asked_us_how_sc2_should/ This is an excellent way of thinking when creating your maps. It'll help to give a feel to a game as it takes place. Most of our mass player maps are simply roaming economy; and the reason I think that this happens is more due to people not understanding that they can make their maps in other ways. But while you might think that the emphasis on mass tib maps is "economy", you might find it more emphasises the roaming part, as rushes are plenty strong; though obviously for GDI, it's just not on the cards, as you cannot back your push with infantry. It'd be nice to see some more maps that bring out different play styles, and I might try to have a crack at making some maps that have more than 2 players. I did start on a 3 player map, but the design work to get it even is DAMN hard. But I'm just busy at the moment. Anyway. Have a look at those archetypes, maybe you can find some popular community maps that fit different archetypes. Can you find all 9? It's funny seeing maps categorised differently for different games, as well. For example, Quarry is based off of "Terraform", which you can see in the image as being labelled "Constricting Neutral", but "Quarry" is less constricting than some other maps, and is easy to open 3 refs due to the choke points. In C&C I'd probably label is Constricting Economy. Though, it is less constricting than one of my other maps "Canyon Pursuit", I still would not call it Neutral Economy. So it should be noted that even though a map can have emphasis certain aspects (or tactics), there can be maps which emphasise those even more. There are other thoughts we can add to this for C&C, as well. Infantry friendly: If we want to have infantry in play, then less tiberium favours that, but also WHERE the tiberium is plays a massive role. If the tiberium is through the middle of the field, then infantry must walk about, while mechanised units can move directly through. This often advantages Nod, as their units are mostly already quicker, but in this scenario, they also get a shorter attack path. Flyer friendly: If there are many walls through the middle, then this makes flyers more powerful, as they can pass over the walls. There have even been builds for such maps where people open with flyers, but not as a cheese... instead to harass to get ahead economicaly! On some maps there isn't even a ground path TO your opponent! On maps like this you HAVE to use flyers! Tank/splash friendly: Choke points favour more tanky units, as units are more likely to be forced into engagement, but also they favour splash units, as enemy units are more likely to clump up at those areas. This means that even in a match up such as Nod v Nod, which is usually favouring many light vehicles, we see many more light tanks and artillery... even flame tanks! Macro friendly: If the starting bases are in open areas, then to open with more refineries before getting into mechanised tech is more difficult, where a closed start position means you can access economic build more safely. Harassment/multi-prong attack friendly: If there are many resources around the start position, then there may not be a reason for someone to stretch their base. This means that all of their units can just be left at their base to defend while they build. If someone wants to attack the other person, they may not be able to do so without throwing in their entire army. This means that the game will just be about sitting in your base and seeing who can amass the most units. This usually favours GDI, unless there's so much tiberium that they cannot use infantry. If, on the other hand, you make more limited tiberium near the start positions, and then place more tiberium in increasingly larger patches, the further away each patch is from the start position, then players will try to expand their base to capture more and more resources. This often makes for more exciting matches, as you're constantly trying to expand, attack and defend... all at once! Imagine a match between evenly skilled players, where each person is trying to keep their base under control while sowing chaos on the other! If you have questions about map types and trying to emphasis certain play styles, maybe you can post below. I'd be happy to look at map designs people are working on.

Well hey, if you find way to replace briefing text with an image, of sorts, then it might make it easier to write longer briefings for missions, too. So, this may have other application, too.

Yeah, Turrets are great for helping shut down raids, particularly vs buggies; as they can't burst the turrets down. And yea, grens are like one of the best units in the game. They're not only fantastic defence, as they can be scattered around your base and produced quickly at multiple areas (if you build barracks around your base), but they're really good support for your tanks, to help keep bikes off of them. Really high DPS on grens, and if you scatter them, then they're quite hard to kill.

Why don't you just use it as inspiration instead? Also, it's polite to ask, rather than try to undermined the person you're talking to in some effort to make yourself appear of feel strong. It's simply 4 paths that pass across the map, but they're bent.

Thanks for the voice of reason there Chimas. Yeah, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to edit maps. Anyway, maps have to be downloaded to the computer of all players for them to play on it anyway. Obviously, policing this would be a nightmare. I don't think that people should HAVE to play the game in ANY way. Do what they like, mod it, hack it, have fun with it. But the maps I'm making I'm trying to show people something; so when someone takes that and breaks it because they don't understand, it's frustrating. What I'm talking about is having a place where people can store official version of the maps they made and be able to delete and update the list. This can be used for people to store their own creations, or just a list for certain types. We've always had posts up in forum where we did stuff like that: Have a list of maps that we made, and then update them as we go. However, this has drawbacks... -People have to come BACK to the post to check if there are updates to the maps -Old maps are not deleted once they're used on CnCnet (Say you download the map, play someone else with it. Now they get the map too. Then you notice an update and replace those maps with the new version. You go and join your friend's game; but they didn't update... well now the old version gets redownloaded onto your PC. So now BOTH versions are circulating). -People can download, and edit a map, but it still has the old author's name on it, so now there's multiple versions not even by the original creator. Having a place where people can have official version of their maps means that everyone can still edit maps and stuff, but that everyone also knows where to find the official and up to date versions of maps. It pays tribute to those who make such content, which encourages more people to do so. It also means that a good mapper gets more attention to their work, as more maps can be added to their map list. I don't know where you're reading that I don't think that people should be allowed to edit stuff, Chem. That cannot be policed anyway. I also don't recall Jacko asking me to make maps. I do what I like. That's basically how art works.

There's a difference between being inspired and blatantly editing someone else's work. I can be inspired to write a book about a boy wizard without just editing Harry Potter books. If you want to edit maps, it's simple, you ask permission. Imagine you wrote a book, released it for free... Took you a good year to design and write. Now. Imagine someone else came along and changed stuff in the story; and when you said "Hey, I wrote that", they say "Yeah, but people like my version better. What's wrong with that?" And maybe people even do, but... What's wrong is that it's plagiarisation. It's considered so bad among modding communities that people are strait banned for doing it. If you take someone else's work and just make it into your own mod and release it, without asking; you pretty make have to get rid of it and apologise, else you're kicked from the community. We don't police like that over here, but if you head over to PPM and do it, you'll find out what I mean. Now I'm not asking people to be policed, nor even to remove edited maps. People can have fun as they choose. But having space to properly publish your work is great for any mappers. It means that they can have official versions of their maps and even edit them. Sub Communities/Clans can have their own official maps, too. I think it'd be healthy for mappers and the community. Sorry, I pushed this button and can't get rid of this silly quote thing.

Correct ore_truck. Which is why I think that it's important to let new players understand that there are settings that can break the game, and that they very well maybe using them.

Correct. All modding of games is technically illegal. Of course it is, it's copy righted material. However, it's known that mods often make the original games MORE popular, and so companies choose to not care (because companies like money).

I'm not talking about EA at all.

The issue is; someone puts in years of work to create a full story, game play, feel etc, someone else comes along, takes that stuff, makes something new that took an afternoon and is like "Oh, see this, it's cool aye? Yeah, I did all that!" When it's your own stuff, you'll get it. To be honest, until I started modding and mapping and had people take my stuff without asking, I didn't get it either. I was like "get over it, they just want to have fun making something". But I get it now.