AchromicWhite

I like the gems treatment on teardrop

That's why I did all this work.... I know people want to map, this thread helps them to know how to do it. SC E-sports was made possible because of Korean maps. Without them, that competitive scene and in turn all of E-sports, would not be possible. (or, it would not have grown from SC, at least). Powerful indeed.

Well, he used a lot of buggies, but most Nod players do. As I said, he used them because they were good. But he also used right about everything else.

In smaller numbers, even tanks don't trade super well vs buggies. They're OP AF, that's why he used them. A few bikes and flamer men to go with... turrets on the front line? What's GDI even meant to do?

They still have their places. Arty is pretty dang useful vs light vehicles... but you need a good wall of units before they becomes useful. Yeah, most structures are light/wood, and die super fast to HE/Flame.

Yeah, artillery units in TD are mostly not that good. Either because they're just kinda buggy (arty) or too higher tech (MLRS). The SSM is the one that stands out, for sure. But tanks are so damn good that you need some serious anti armour to be able to really make use of SSM. Rocket infantry, though they have the right weapon and right armour type to defeat tanks, mostly don't REALLY do it, and are more of a support unit.

"Especially if you stay true to how the original game played in 1997 ie low tiberium, small narrow pathways, high map familiarity needed and so on" I have no idea what you're thinking of, most people like playing on maps that are completely infested with tiberium. I leaned from playing people like Ferret and LoveHandles, true, but we were also all crap back then. But we played on reasonable maps more often. We really didn't touch HJK6. You can't learn if the option to learn isn't there... even if someone was playing myself/ferret, whatever, they're not going to learn off of us if they're playing on mass tib. The early game is simply not there... and you can't even scout to see what they're doing and learn by seeing how your opponent plays... multi-con just makes it even harder. "Whats your opinion on making a map that appeals to popularity vs making a map that would score high marks if it was being rated by a game developer? " I like to make competitive maps. They give a better experience the more you play, have better replay value and create diversity in each game. Most people who play games don't understand games. Design is not everyone's cup of tea, but humans are competitive in nature and, almost all, enjoy competition.

Yes, it's a shame. As I say, it is what it is, or; it was what it was. Good to know. Hope you're enjoying the map.

Nope, never said I hated you both. He just asked why I didn't play you, and I told him a little of the history of harassment. It is what it is. I don't hate you, nor Pence; but I never enjoyed being harassed, nor did I think it was alright, and still don't. It's not worth the stress to play either of you, due to the potential of community lash outs, just like this thread. I play the game to enjoy it and improve at it.

People can get pissed off when they lose, because they've put a lot of effort into the game. It's the same with any set of work, or transaction or anything. If someone feels that something is unfair, they may well lash out. They've put a lot of work in, and feel that they didn't get a chance to even use their skill. It's primal and while it can be avoided, it often isn't. I've done it myself, I'm not proud of it, but I move on. I've seen it from others, I doubt they are proud of it, but once again, I move on. People are people, humans are humans. THERE ARE NO PROS. There's no professional scene to C&C. The fact that you keep harping on, saying that certain people are elite and who's better than who is the bigger issue; you build it all up so it can come tumbling down. You make them into something MORE than human, in your mind. Then, when they cannot meet that expectation, you attack them for it. But here's the thing; no one else cares. Just go and enjoy the game.

I think it was Chem. He spoke about coming online during peak Euro time... But his and Pence's posts were all deleted. Pence was perma banned, other than giving post reacts (which is why he's always O.O emoting my stuff) and Chem was allowed back on. But his old stuff is still removed. There's now loads of posts that cannot be re-seen and followed. It is what it is.

IDK... I keep playing them and they're mostly 1-2 trick ponies. Especially in GDI v GDI. No one even seems to know that you can open orca, and NOT be an all-in.

I do think that trying to make FFA maps work strategically is really hard... as much of the strategy happens politically (who chooses to attack who). Have a look at what I talk about regarding a design phase for mapping (a phase where you're not using the editor). It's really really important. I never start work on a map in the editor. It's important because it gives you the opportunity to move cliffs etc around without having to start over or delete large parts of your work. It is WAY quicker all in all, to use something like MSpaint. Have a look at both Iron Valley and Twin Peaks, and look at how both players start somewhat walled off, but as they expand, they expand into more and more open areas, until finally, they're out in the wide open. Twin Peaks has the added advantage of having multiple places you can expand, but even making a basic map with a single expansion path can help you to wrap your head around these basic ideas. Without them, it's like trying to add sprinkles to an unbaked cake.

Indeed... I've played good money map players on some of my own maps... they can't even play the early game. They can play C&C, but there's a list of things they've never had to deal with on money maps. They seem to have little awareness of positioning, too. Especially regarding terrain.

It's a very different game, buggies and bikes are much weaker, while light tanks and stealth tanks are much stronger. etc AGT fires anti armour missiles. Stuff like that.

Iron Valley never actually was designed to have 2 true expansion routes. I explained this in the map design thread. Iron Valley is actually very very simple in what I was trying to designed, and really it was the first map I made where I started to actually count the cells to make sure that opening builds reached the first fields, but only just. The first map where I made a true double expand route was Frosted Hostilities. Iron Valley is more just a good example of a defensive map that's still increasingly open as you expand towards the middle. And basic cliffs to get some back and forth micro between armies. A good map to learn to play GDI on, IMO. (Learning when/how you deffend and when/how to build economy).

If people are legitimately trolling, for prolonged periods of time, harassing etc, they should be reported.

Blistering Sands is still probably the best I've seen for a mass player, non-symmetrical. It's been a favourite from a lot time back for a good reason. And Ferret also updated it to a 2.0 version, fixing some more minor balance issues. As people are pointing out with map size being an issue, they're right... but by blocking areas off, you can create more room to have to move along to reach your destination. This is one more reason that I don't really like the big circle maps, with open space everywhere... they're actually small, in the way in that they play out. By putting walls between players, you can make a map play as a larger map; see Quarry.

I'd have to fiddle with it a bit, but that's not a bad idea. I might have a go at making a 2v2 version of it.

I do have to agree with Cn2 that these maps seem to be a lot more about adding some objects, not really focused around strategy etc. Though, I also haven't ever had that much of a go, nor written about, big FFA maps. Not sure how we'd ever get rid of maps that way. They're saved on people's computers and such... deleting them would mean that we'd be flat out taking them off of people, too. I don't really want to do that. People still should be able to play how they choose to play. I've obviously talked a bit about this before, but I think the better way would be to have a sandbox mode and a competitive mode; you could put the well crafted maps into competitive and let people still have free reign with sandbox. It'd also mean that if the maker updated their competitive maps, we could get rid of other copies that are floating around.

Cheers, hope you're enjoying it. I know I've had some wicked games on this, myself. One of my favs, for sure.

The tanks become a lot worse once the infantry is dealt with. A single apache can stop reinforcements, if you have really good APM. Light tanks don't beat grens so much as grens don't kill light tanks, and grens are likely to be moving with a GDI army, simply because tank production is slow, and money still needs to be spend on the push... GDI can choose rocket men, but they're much slower and don't keep up with the tanks. If your bikes are rushing ahead of your army, when a main engagement is happening, I'd say that's not a unit issue, that's a control issue. Use separate groups. I'm confused as to why people are confuzzled about rocket soldiers being good vs tanks. They're used all the time in GDI v GDI to supplement tanks... it's just a matter of getting a good position with them, in relation to your own grens and enemy grens so that they don't all die to 2 grenades before the battle happens. I don't usually find artillery great vs infantry, I think SSM is much better (but not always available), and that artillery is much better vs light vehicles. The timing of the attack has a lot to do with it, too. Just as GDI deals with bike buggy differently in the earlier parts of the game, than the later parts; what technology is available and what production you have play a big part in it all. I think bikes are a hot unit, but just need to be kept away from grens. I think grens are not respected enough for what they can do. People don't like to spend up on anti-infantry... a single flamer man has won many matches.

It's map dependant, for both placement and rush distance.

I still don't even know what they're actually making. They've been too vague.

With a 3 ref build you can still follow up with base defences to hold... that's the thing about con yard selling. You're ACTUALLY 100% all-in. If you keep the con, then even if the rush fails, you can have made more refs behind it. So if you know they sold con, you can spam defences and change the whole situation. I think rushes are easier to hold with GDI, because of grens, but it might just be that I don't know Nod that well.