Map standards

[Myg]

I have seen too many maps which block infantry play intentionally.

 

Should maps be designed that way?

 

What kind of standards do people use when making maps?

 

I think it is destructive to the game to intentionally push situations unless it is a particular game mode concerned, even then, the map should be designed to take it into account (like the original ones).

 

The spirit of the game design is what is at stake and I think its worth mentioning.

[Nyerguds]

Dune 200 is interesting in that way, with its specific infantry-only passages...

[Jacko]

I think the standard of map has dropped lately, we don't see as many cool maps with decent money and balanced infantry/vehicle paths etc (maps like bushlands, blistering sands and the such - theres a reason these maps are my favourites).

The current most popular type of map is the "stupidly extreme amounts of tiberium" type maps, which I don't find so fun really. Especially maps like Injustice for all or the HJK v2 which are just a big blob of tiberium and nothing else.

[ore_truck]

I think the standard of map has dropped lately, we don't see as many cool maps with decent money and balanced infantry/vehicle paths etc (maps like bushlands, blistering sands and the such - theres a reason these maps are my favourites).

The current most popular type of map is the "stupidly extreme amounts of tiberium" type maps, which I don't find so fun really. Especially maps like Injustice for all or the HJK v2 which are just a big blob of tiberium and nothing else.

 

Same here, competing for resources was a huge element in a C&C game. Now, it's been forgotten because of the money maps. Played red alert the other day, made someone rage quit by just destroying his ore trucks(he didnt bother to defend them). Then he joined my game again and asked for rasta map (a map with infinite money).

[AchromicWhite]

I take a lot of time balancing my maps to try and make it capable of pretty much doing any type of play.

I still have differences in them where certain plays may be stronger on certain maps, but not so much that it's the obvious choice, nor that it's the only way to play.

All of my newer maps ARE symmetrical, however, which some people don't like. Personally, I think, in the spirit of fair competition, it's a must; and while WW did NOT make multiplayer maps like that, this has become the new norm for other RTS tournament style maps.

[cn2mc]

Some amount of symmetry is always needed and even WW maps had that. The most important aspects of this symmetry, as I've said before, are expansion vectors, amount of resources and harv paths. About infantry, I too hate those Tib-infested maps. It's a very cheap way to skew the balance in favour of Nod, even though GDI does have some feasible tactics on some of them (HJK, f.ex. is not that imba, still fugly though).

On that note, White, I played a few games on Pinwheel and it seems to me the central field's shape and small/blocked entrances make it easier to control with Nod and also a true bitch for harvs.

[AchromicWhite]

Oh yeah, I totally agree. Pinwheel is a map where I was still surely discovering exactly how to balance that sort of stuff. You can lock down quite a bit of it with AGTs if you can expand into the middle, though.

 

Maybe I should make another 4-way map, in the same sort of style.

 

I'd started a new 3-way map, based loosely off of SCII's Catalina.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/4/43/Catallena_SC2_Map1.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140711060217

The start positions are top right, bottom right and left centre. It'd have to be heavily modified, but you get the idea. It's just damn hard to get 3-way circular symmetry going on. I have some ideas on how to do it, though.

 

  -Liam

 

[MattAttack]

I have seen too many maps which block infantry play intentionally.

Should maps be designed that way?

What kind of standards do people use when making maps?

I think it is destructive to the game to intentionally push situations unless it is a particular game mode concerned, even then, the map should be designed to take it into account (like the original ones).

The spirit of the game design is what is at stake and I think its worth mentioning.

 

Well, different strokes ya know..... I'm not a big fan of all those tiberium soaked maps either, but they are pretty popular..... for now.  Although whether I like them or not, I do appreciate the variety available-- and if they get people playing the game, awesome!!  I'm definitely more from the perspective of White or cn2mc who obviously have a tremendous understanding of the game mechanics and take them into account when designing a map.  Nothing irritates me more than where someone designed a map where my harvester will potentially go in a straight line right into the enemy's base because of the stupid NW logic not being considered. 

 

But, I wouldn't consider them catastrophic to the game design or anything. 

 

heh heh it's almost like an evolutionary tree.  Since I've been here there was N3t's maps first, then Ferret/Cheese/Dakota's maps and now it has branched off into either Manu style (tiberium) maps or White/cn2mc/me style (technical) maps.  The good ones will last the test of time.

 

hmmm... kind of gives me the idea of making a map where infantry would almost have the advantage.  narrow winding passages, clear paths with no tiberium.... too bad I don't have any time these days

 

[AchromicWhite]

Maps where infantry have the advantage... hm.

Issue with passages is that it creates chokes that just shut them down with units like the artillery.

Does make you think, though

[MattAttack]

Issue with passages is that it creates chokes that just shut them down with units like the artillery.

Yeah, duh... guess my mind was in singleplayer map design mode.. heh heh.  I bet Lovehandles could find a way, though!!  But, maybe lots of islands arranged in an archipelago would force it with Chinooks and all, but it's easy to get a map with lots of stalemates that way.

[AchromicWhite]

Yeah, indeed. Not a big fan of islands, as even though you can ferry troops... it takes so much micro that proper battles are hard to have.

Yeah, IDK... I guess I've never seen a map that is so infantry friendly that it's the obvious way to go... maybe it's not possible.

[Pat_Pas]

As I am one of the current map designers here I can tell you, I think there is no perfect map everyone is looking for.

 

The main reasons I had starting the map design was the lack of 5 player maps. The time I have installed cncnet and began to play TD online was when the limit of players was already maxed out at 5, but most maps were designed for the previous cncnet version with the 6 player maximum.

 

That time no really good 5 player games came out, most of the time players went for 4 player matches. My first intentions were:

 

Space is limited to 62x62 which is small with the wrong map design, so I'd try to squeeze the most space out of it. The space of the 6th player is lost space which imbalances the whole map in a 5 player game (2 players will always have more room where no attacks may come from).

If you have the space to build big bases with 5 players you will need lots of resources if you like the longer battles (I personally like them more than the ultra short rush battles), otherwise the tiberium is gone after 3 minutes if every player has more than 4 refineries.

 

These ways of building maps granted longer fun for 5 players and everyone could build a big base, not limited by narrow passages that only allow like 2 refs, 1 airstrip and 1 radar.

The "turtle" players also went good with that kind of map design, since I think the campaign intends the player to rather turtle (why else do so many maps have pre built bases for player and computer that are surrounded with walls and turrets at the entrance in a rectangle shape).

I think that is why many beginners favor that style, they don't really know a different way to build and many players want to have their beautiful looking base (just like the computer's bases in the campaign).

 

 

The next steps in my map designing were to try to solve problems that came out of the last created maps such as: paths for infantry, pathwidth change for having a balance between open space and narrow passages (GDI VS NOD favor), harvester logic, balanced amount of tiberium, balanced space, balanced safety by environment, balanced starting points and so on....

 

So during the map creation it was rather a path of evolution and learning how the game works to finally find out that you can't favor each tactic, both sides, maybe just because of the game's logics (harvester NW logic, south advantage, west NOD disadvantage...).

 

In my last maps I tried to get as much knowledge into them, while at the same time making it natural, even, all-tactic-friendly and balanced as much as possible.

 

My conclusion after over 20 maps: you can't have it all, there is always one or more aspects your map will lack. Don't consider only the pro players, beginners also have their right for their view of the game.

 

Old style maps with less tiberium are good for 1 vs 1 games, in 5 player ffa games you wont have the same fun, the games will be over much faster, mainly because the tiberium grows too slow to let the game continue in action.

But my latest intention was not to build the perfect map (as some here tried to archieve just like the exact pentagon maps), it was to have a wider range of maps for every player's demands.

[Myg]

Based on all the experience we have had so far making maps, I don't think there is any excuse for some of the maps we have in the list. I can honestly say that I can't find a continous stream of maps that are worth playing (the same goes for GC maps). Even the best maps we have on offer arn't perfect and really should be worked on more before having them in the list.

 

[AchromicWhite]

Part of the issue is that, as Manu has said here, he's learning as he makes maps. My experience was the same.

 

I've learned a LOT from the maps I've made, leanrning from my own mistakes.

 

I think this might help a lot:

 

-Having multiple entrances to base areas (while still having a defensible base)

-Terrain out on the field to have skirmishes around (not all down to who owns what units and how much, a player can take advantage using terrain and make a comback on the field by using their smarts)

-Even if you have a lot of tiberium, don't force people to move units through it. (for infantry reasons). But you CAN use it in some situations if you wanted an interesting area where infantry can't be used, for some reason. (Mapping is less about dos and don'ts and more about creating a particular experience for people).

-Putting tiberium (even if a LOT of it) in smaller fields (to stop the harvesters going on such long walks). It also makes areas for people to extend their base out to (things to capture). So someone might not be great with micro, but can do well with good macro.

-Making sure each player is the same distance from starting resources and doesn't feel ripped off in any way with what they have to begin with. This one's a no brainer; make it fair! Count the cells ect . It feel good to pump out a few more maps for people to play, but once they're out there, that's it. Take the extra time to make it as perfect as you can, you'll be happy you did.

 

I'm personally happy with all the maps that have the (wht) tag... except maybe rattlesnake. But it's not super terrible.

I should maybe look into making some 5p maps, but making them fair is kinda hard... and the games are just about massing units by the end anyway... so it's hard to make interesting features for people to have on them.

[AchromicWhite]

I found this and thought it could be useful to us.

 

Very recently, someone in the SCII community came up with a way of classifying map types.

You can see it explained here, in the picture below.

 

While SCII obviously plays differently to C&C95, there are lots of cross overs in the genre of RTS and thinking about these types of things in your map when making them, will help you to make a map which is about certain tactics, etc.

 

If nothing else, it's interesting.