Jump to content

CnCNet Forums

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
AchromicWhite

Understanding Map Design

Recommended Posts

So, this is a thread I've wanted to write for a while. And with what feels like a bit of a surge of new maps coming in, what better time to write this up. Hopefully it'll spark some interest and get the thinking caps on for some amazing maps to be turned out.

I want to be clear, that while I'll talk about how design can favour different teams, this doesn't mean that any map completely favours one side. Obviously an open area can favour Nod early on etc, but one can argue that it's still balanced in that situation... this thread isn't about that. This thread is about how to design a map to play in a certain way, that is, to make your map emphasise certain strategies, rather than a list of "do's" and "Don'ts".
If your focus is simply: "Make it balanced" I can't help you.

This is also not a thread about how to use the editor.

I will be using my own maps for reference, this isn't because my maps are better, but because I understand the purpose in their design and have played them frequently enough to understand them. 
And I'll be talking about my own design techniques in mapping. If you don't like it, don't do it. No one's forcing you.

This is simply a thread about designing/developing your own maps. This largely works through 3 steps.
I aim to include:

Step 1.
Pre-editor design:
-How to actually go through a design process before opening the map maker/editor.
-Looking at the tiles available; especially cliff tiles, and how they fit together. (We will assume you want to make your map tiles fit graphically).
-Why bridges/rivers are "harder" to use.

Step 2.
Paths/Areas:

-How to utilise different sized paths/areas to create different types of engagements (micro).
-How distance can affect strategies , and how larger maps don't always mean longer distances.

Step 3.
Tiberium and bases:
-The importance of resources and other factors of RTS.
-How to create a flow for builds... base expansion vs turtle maps (macro).
-How Tiberium influences the economy (harvester pathing) and field size.
-How Tiberium can make defensive or aggressive strategies more popular.
-How Tiberium can influence units compositions.




Step 1: Pre-editor design
    Now, I know you're all rubbing your hands together in excitement with your editors open... so go ahead and close the map editor.
This is where most people slip up a bit. They open the editor and just start slapping down tiles. This isn't "wrong", but it may leave you with a product that's less than what you wanted, as you've largely skipped the design phase. So, before opening the editor, go ahead and open MSpaint. Yep, you heard that right.
You'll want a really crappy version of it, too, like the '98 version. You want one where you can draw pixel by pixel, rather than one where using the 'pencil' tool will instead create a softening effect as you draw. We want pixels!

    The max size for a TD map is 64x64, yet, with the border cells dropped off, so in truth, it's 62x62. Open paint, and drag the canvas to be 64x64, and place a 1 cell border around it. Zoom to either the 6x or 8x so that you can see those pixels really easy. What you're going to be doing is drawing your whole map pixel by pixel, and then transferring it over, into the editor.
This is because it's much easier to move large amounts of tiles around and see the map as a whole (see if you like it) without having to constantly start over. It's easier than it sounds, too.

    IF you want to have rivers in your map, it's often important to start with them, as their shapes are not simple/logical. If cliffs move through them, you're going to have to make sure that the cliffs line up with the special waterfall piece. Remember that rivers always flow south and west, yet never east and north. If you're new to mapping my advice is to just stay away from them. This is because rivers that move along the whole map can only be crossed by fords and bridges, and BOTH of these are essentially 1 cell wide. Design wise, that's the same as placing cliffs so close that they only leave 1 cell gaps (something that most people don't want on their maps). Note that you also cannot just turn it into a pool/dead end, the river tiles, if placed correctly, must keep placing more and more river tiles, essentially splitting the entire map where the river runs. Bridges in particular also face N/S, which in stalemate situations will advantage the southern player. This can be both frustrating and make for long drawn out games with not much happening (while one person has a small advantage and grinds the other person down).

   So, let's keep it simple and start with our cliffs or ridges, however you want to say. These are mostly 2x2 in size, and even more commonly, they are all 4 cells big. They are either running N/S or E/W. There is no true 45 Degree cliff, and this also sometimes catches people out. Cliffs can fall in all 4 directions N,E,S,W, yet N/S are basically the same in game, as is E/W. The only big difference is the cliff ends, some which are 2 or 3 cells in size.

Let's look at the basic shapes here:
posted image

The small arrows show where other cliff tiles can be placed next to. Fitting together like building blocks.
The Blue tiles are the strait cliff pieces each strait cliff has 3 graphical types so that your cliff is not looking like the same tile over and over (This is the only piece that has multiple forms), the green ones are similar to the blues in that they will continue to build more cliff yet they will offset the cliff by 1 cell, the purple ones bring the cliff to an end and the red ones turn your cliff, so that you can start building in a totally new direction.
There are some tiles which allow cliffs from different directions to be placed, but they are mostly not needed. We'll be skipping them here, but if you'd like to use them, they are in the editor.

Here's an example of the pieces fitting together:
posted image

Now, it's worth noting that some of the purple tiles are different shapes, some are just 2 cells on top of one another, and some are 3 cells. For simplicity's sake, we're just going to keep them 2x2 in the design phase, note that you can just add some extra terran/bits'n'bobs to fill gaps if it's part of a choke that you want to be a specific number of cells.
Note also that this shape could be showing a high ground, or a crater, both with an access point. In game, it will play out the same, but aesthetically you may want it to feel a certain way.

Using this system, we can pixel paint entire maps in MSpaint. Moving bits around, rotating/flipping parts with ease, as well as changing the whole size of the map, as we go. You can literally design half of your map, and then by copying the entire canvas, flipping or rotating 180,  then pasting the original over the top (with transparent background so that your new flipped/rotated image is also showing), you can preview your full map... don't like it? hit ctrl Z two times to go back to your half design to keep fiddling.

Here's an example of this. Note that we're now working pixel by pixel:
(I've kept the colours for now)
posted image

This is what your picture might look like when zoomed in about 6x or so.
Now, let's say you wanted to have this map top left v bottom right, using circular symmetry.
Select all, Copy, Flip 180, Paste, and make sure the paste transparency tool it turned on (that's the little picture of cylinder, sphere and cube).
And then we'd have this:
posted image

Now, from here maybe you want the map to be more direct combat, and want the spawns closer. You can go ahead and simply drag the entire new area closer to your start position... Note that in this case, we're also reducing the map size, as we're wanting a more 'close quarters' feel.

posted image

Now we have that feel, yet, this change has made it into a N v S battle. We might want to avoid that, as units firing into the north get +1 range. So let's go ahead and turn the entire map 90 degrees. And then move everything to the north east most area within the black square.

posted image

From here, we'd just add some tiberium and start locations. We can use the same rotational trick to get the symmetry just right, but make sure that when you're doing this, that you resize the canvas, as MSpaint will rotate the ENTIRE picture.

posted image

From here you would finally open XCCeditor and begin building your map. Keep your little blueprint of your map open to guide you as you make a pixel perfect map.
By hovering over the pixels in MSpaint, you get a read out of the X/Y axis of each pixel. You can use this to see directly where all the tiles are fitting in your map, as there is also a read out of X/Y in XCCeditor.

I also suggest you keep your little picture of your maps. Not only do they look cool, but you can later move things around to give you ideas for later maps and look at things you could have done better in design.



Step 2: Paths/Areas
This step is all about understanding how units move against one another, and how to create a map with engaging micro. To understand this, we're going to look at some of my own maps; what their initial design was, and how it actually ended up playing out (they can often end up playing different to how they were intended, for better or worse).

Firstly, we're going to deal with the philosophy of starting in a closed area and slowly opening up. We're going to look at (Wht)Iron Valley.

(Wht)Iron Valley:
The original idea of Iron valley was to have 2 consecutive circles around each base, and each of these circles would have 2 entrances, and within each circle there would be a patch of tiberium. Outside the second circle there would be a 3rd tiberium patch that would stretch away from the safety of the circle, and off in the distance, a forth one, which would be more accessible for enemy units, than your own. (Ultimately creating 2 battles over resources... this area later become the popular 4th location for the opponent, and of course, your opponent's 4th, as your own. Finally, in the middle of the map, there would be a tiberium free zone, where larger skirmishes could take place, and a bit of terrain to dart around and try to use to your advantage.

posted image

Fig. A
We can see the original concept of 2 rings with 2 openings in them, marked in green, however, the match doesn't really play out like that, and marked in blue, is more how it actually feels. This is because expanding into the second area happens almost instantly (before units can even get across the map), so SOME of the second area is instantly claimed, and the 4th tiberium patch is locked right off, and can also be used as part of the wall.
In the Red and Gold we can see the idea of how units were meant to path and behave. On the right we can see how there were meant to be two layers of defence. How it actually turned out is a bit more boring, but at least offensive and defensive micro were in the game... and how well you used it did actually change the outcome of the game. On extremely open maps, I find that you can often have very good micro, and yet it simply doesn't matter.

Fig. B
We can see the original idea for the expansion, which, in hind sight seems like insanity to take. Taking the 4th that's closer to your own starting position is far more fluent, as you're already patrolling the path up and down between the inner and outer circles, and it's much safer with the cliff protecting from opposing attacks once you do take it, not to mention that it's NO WHERE NEAR your opponent's base, if they also take their safe 4th.
I think the way that this snuck in was that I expected to expand along that long stretch of tiberium that the 3rd is... and from there it would be obvious to take the other 4th. It's also worth noting that the map was designed as a 1/2 and then copy/pasted using the rotation tool.

Fig. C we can see the 'no tiberium area' for skirmishes, and this worked out just great. The best battles do indeed take place in the middle and darting around the bits and bobs in that area is loads of fun.

Despite things turning out differently to how I imagined them, I still like the map and recommend it, especially to newer GDI players who are trying to learn to put up an economy while holding 1 ref rushes. The safer expands mean that so long as you focus on production (unit and structure) you can reap a lot of benefits, but perhaps it's biggest downfall is that with it being so defensive, it often mines out... and with this knowledge, I started on my next map, Frosted Hostilities.

(Wht)Frosted Hostilities:
Frosted Hostilities is a map that I tried to utilise what I'd learned from Iron Valley, and expand on it. So I'd learned how to keep the main area quite safe, and while I was happy with that, I wanted to create more conflict over fields, and one simple feature of an SCII map caught my attention.
Blistering Sands, not to be confused with the C&C map of the same name, has a shorter distance of harassment between the starting position and the 2nd resource spot than it does a defending path.
posted image

This is a really simple concept that I wanted to play with to bring more aggression to the map, while still leaving defendable areas, that open up more and more as you expand, finally expanding right out into the open. It's also worth noting that in this particular map, there are rocks that block the path into the starting area, that need to be destroyed first. This helps to buy time for someone that's being assaulted early.

I also wanted to play more with the idea of alternate expansion paths, so that you could decide more for yourself where you wanted to expand, rather than having it all written out for you. And I wanted that choice to make a difference. One would be more defensive, yet slower to capture the field (slow and steady), while the other would take a more risky approach of rushing to capture the map, while being more wide open to have your economy raided.

Finally, I wanted to make sure that the final tiberium fields were well out in the open, so that in the end, there would be true contention points to squabble over the last of the resources. 

posted image

Fig. A
Because of the way that expanding works in C&C, the original idea of the shorter aggression path is hard to get to work properly... but it is there, and trying to defend both rings is actually really hard. One of the issues is that the expansion path between the start and defensive expansion is so tight that once you build in it, it's hard to squeeze through units (there's only 3 cells, so 1 cell once you place a power plant/barracks etc into it). I wonder if I'd cut the cliff along the pink line, if it'd helped to fix that.
Regardless, it's certainly far more aggressive, to the point that I'd say, despite the available space to defend a factory easily, this is a map that's easy to take advantage of a slower opponent, IF you know what you're doing.
I've also laid out the 2 expanding circles which was a staple of design in Iron Valley.

Fig. B
You can see the two expansion paths here. You can see how expanding out into the open feels more dangerous to raids, yet also gives you the opportunity to steal an opponent's field off of them in the later parts of the game, giving you an economic advantage.

Fig. C
Once again there's a tiberium free zone, this time taking up almost the whole map (Red). Units are much freer to run around and 4 of the tiberium fields back strait onto it. No one's safe, and yet, all of the blossom trees (3 to a field) are out on these fields (Blue). The map often feels like it's split into 2 lanes that run horizontally across the top and bottom, as both players try to take control of more fields. The paths for aggression make it less likely to mine out on, though it's not unheard of.

When I started making both of these maps, I had in mind the idea of making balanced maps. The idea that a map could be almost 100% fair. While I do think that map design obviously plays a massive role in balance, the idea of making a map 'fair' is a delusion.
This is because while a map might become fair under a certain meta, it's likely for a meta to change if certain strategies don't work, and therefor become once again unfair, under a new meta game. In other words, if you change the rules, people will play differently.

Largely giving up on the ideas of balance, I decided to explore another avenue; features!
Finding interesting features on maps and implementing them into C&C95. I'd found an SCII map with a cool spiral theme and imagined all my favourite units circling around it.

(Wht)Quarry:
Quarry was a breath of fresh air to make. I was no longer worried about balance, but instead just wanted to focus on making something new. It's a map that hadn't really been seen in C&C before, and translating it from an SCII map wasn't too difficult, either. But there were three unforeseen things with this map that I didn't intend when making it. Both of them, I consider good, or at the very lest, not bad.

Firstly, the map is MASSIVE. It feels like it goes on and on forever, even though it is, of course, no bigger than other C&C95 maps. The Second thing is that 2 of the fields had the feeling of being contended in a way that really feels like the whole game is going to come down to this struggle. And the third thing was the use of artillery units to fire into other lanes... a concept that I've been looking to recreate in future maps (so stay tuned for that one).
There was also a return of the familiar mirror micro that iron valley so well captures, yet this time, parallel to a cliff, but darting back and forth around the cliff ends.

posted image

Fig. A
In the SCII version you could actually move through the middle... and when I made this I took a LONG time considering if I wanted the middle locked off, or not. From the games I played on it's SCII version well over 50% of them were just battles strait through the middle. I wanted this version to really get people moving the units around the map and using all the pathways. It's arguable that the map would be "better" with it open, but I'm happy with it as it is.
This created an unforeseen event of the map becoming HUGE! Because all the other paths are so far to get to your opponent, the distance travelled, is so long, the feel of the map is that it's much larger. This is a decent (thought there could be better) example of using paths to create the feeling of a larger map. Interestingly, though, while larger maps often favour light vehicles, in this case, due to the claustrophobia of the map, they have a more limited role (thought certainly not unusable). Imagine a map with even more of the centre paths locked off, it could be made to feel even bigger.
Worth also noting that the green circles that show the initial expansion are pretty much, in truth, just one large circle. This map gave up on the idea of even bothering to have the back and forth micro within the main base. It's fine. Further more, they're quite pushed back. People have often thought that Iron Valley was not full length, that the map is very small. It's actually as wide as it can be made, yet the initial defensive locations stretch quite far out, giving it a smaller feel. You can reach your opponent in a more direct path than on a map like Quarry.
It's also worth noting that flyers are very potent on maps that utilise this sort of terrain. This is because they're still moving on the same sized map (because they move OVER the walls)... and of course are already very fast moving units.

Fig. B
This one shows the natural expansion path. This time we've gone further back to the Iron Valley version where you're pretty much forced to go one way. the 3rd and 4th patches can be taken differently, and you could maybe even go for the 5th before the 4th, but it's the 6th area where this gets interesting.
Remember in iron Valley where I talked about the idea of your final tiberium patch being close to your opponent's base and therefor being a big fight... and with the idea that your opponent would be doing the same, that there would be a split fight over 2 patches... yep. And I didn't even plan it here.
It happens, because it's too far to get to with your start up structures. It'd greatly hurt your economy in the mid game, so you leave it alone... later on, your opponent is, or what feels like, picking money out of your pocket. So some silo's later, you're over there trying to stop them... and you're opponent is doing the same on their side. It's great, too, because the battle happens E/W so that there's no southern advantage.

Fig. C
This shows two things:
Firstly, the Blue dots show how artillery units can be placed in safe locations to fire out into lanes. The one right in the middle is a particularly powerful spot, as it's so hard to reach to be able to shut it down.
The other arrows show the back and forth micro around the cliff edges, creating constant tension as players look for openings, and those mirroring, to defend important areas of the map.



After fiddling with the size things in Quarry, I decided to go the opposite direction. I wanted to make a small map, but not one that would necessarily end in an instant. I wanted people to be able to rush down their opponent who maybe playing greedy, yet I didn't want it to be the only tactic.

 (Wht)Rush Down Rampage:
Rush Down Rampage has 3 main features.
1. It's small (duh). This means you can get across the field FAST and start putting on the pressure IMMEDIATELY. So much so that even 1 ref strip builds can feel greedy and can get punished by infantry pushes. This is accentuated by the fact that there's a direct path from both bases, strait to their opponent's.
2. There's paths that cross the middle, and the further down the map you move, the more the map opens up.
3. There's these long paths that lead from the main bases of both opponents right down to the bottom.

posted image

Fig. A
This is a map where being aggressive at the start is kinda the point. This path makes the map feel small near the start of the game, especially, because not only is the map smaller than the biggest size, but this path leads directly between two quite close start positions, yet as we move over to Fig. B, we find that this map has some surprises up it's sleeve.

Fig. B
There's no second expansion path in this one. It's worth noting that you expand TOWARDS your opponent at the the beginning. Making this map that much more potent. The further you move down the map, the more it opens up, and once again we see that familiar micro pattern that we saw in Quarry around the cliff ends.
The interesting part about this, is that at the point where the initial rushes are held, the pathways get blocked, and this creates stability in the game, where, on a totally open map, it's just never ending. It rewards well placed units/defences.

Fig. C
As both opponents expand down the map, the paths in the middle get more and more heated... eventually someone's gonna push through. As soon as this happens, they're underneath their opponent and gain southern advantage. This map utilises what's considered a bug in order to create potency for those who can push through the E/W struggle.
The little side path's are also highlighted here... The paths can be used at almost any point in the game, either by catching your opponent off guard at the beginning, or by moving through while your opponent is trying to hold the middle paths safe later on. It also utilises southern advantage to give the aggressor that extra boost.


While this might feel like an abrupt end to part two, it gives ideas on how maps create contention points in different ways. From dependable paths to important resource areas. Opening maps up gives space for aggression, yet if paths are made correctly, they too can be used for aggression (just because a map has more chokes, doesn't mean you can't think about HOW an aggressor with operate and how the two play styles will mingle during a match.




Step 3: Tiberium and bases

Understanding how resources influence your map is important, and there are many ways in which they do. This third part will cover the different aspects of how tiberium can change your map in a multitude of ways. It will also cover how base layout and adding structures can help or hinder your design.
Resources are an integral part of not only C&C, but all RTS games. Many designers overpopulate their maps with extra tiberium and structures. This is due to them looking at their map through the eyes of a player, rather than the eyes of a designer. These things added to maps are valuable assets to players, yet, the more a player has access to them, the less valuable they become. By adding more of something, you can therefor reduce it's value by removing it as a factor from your map (if everyone has something, nobody notices it's affect).

"In a typical RTS, it is possible to create additional units and structures during the course of a game. This is generally limited by a requirement to expend accumulated resources. These resources are in turn garnered by controlling special points on the map and/or possessing certain types of units and structures devoted to this purpose. More specifically, the typical game of the RTS genre features resource gathering, base building, in-game technological development and indirect control of units."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_strategy

Summing up; the major factors that will bring intrigue in a C&C match are:
-Resources (gathering and spending).
-Base building (choices between Economy/Production/Tech) ...(note that tech is built into structures in C&C).
-Army composition and micromanagement of units (what units to make, and how to use them).

By handing any of these to players by placing liberal amounts of them onto a map means that each factor is no longer included in your map. On the other hand, by placing such assets more conservatively, you can make a map far more compelling to play on. And even create features around them.
Points on the map which contain such assets will also be points of contention, so you can use this to help players to want to move into areas of the map, which are other wise considered pointless areas. However, as is particularly the case with tiberium, if it's simply too far away, players will just not use it. So to better understand this, we're now going to look at the flow of how structures will lay on a map.

Now, remember that if we're following the design ideas listed in part 1, we'll have a nice little picture of our map, made out of pixels. We can go ahead and literally draw structures in, to get an idea of where players are likely to build, and how far their base can possibly reach.
First, let's recap the shape of basic structures that we'd expect to see near the start of a match. Here they are, left to right;

Con. Yard, Power Plant, Barrack/Hand, Refinery, Weapons Factory, Airstrip 
posted image


We're going to firstly look how they place down in Iron Valley, as it was the first map where I used this technique in design.
posted image

This shows how far a player can stretch their base using basic structures in the earlier parts of a match. I've used the factory over the strip for this example, and I suggest that for the most part, you do the same, as the airstrip being bigger is almost always an advantage (bigger structures stretch a base further). The only time this isn't true is where a space is simply too small for an airstrip to fit... but there should be space allocated around production structures for units to deploy, anyway. Several notes here:

   -The refineries are NOT a part of the ability to stretch a base. So someone playing a less greedy build, yet still choose to mine from a farther field first, and conserving their 'safe' tiberium, for later. (Note, greed is not a 'dirty' word. It's just the common word used in RTS to describe the ratio of where a player chooses to allocate their resources, between economy and production vs units and defences).

  -If the starting locations were a single cell south (in the west) or north (in the east) of where they lay, then the factory/strip would not be able to reach around the corner, in turn the second barracks would not be able to be placed around the next corner cliff, and players would be two more structures away from being able to reach the third tiberium patch. This is a good example of how counting cells will let you design your map play in all the ways you intend it to be played in. The Con. Yard is also placed as far back as it can be (within the 'safe' starting area) without stopping the build flow.

   -Even though this map allows greed by being able to place refineries close to tiberium patches, it also punishes it by making each field more and more open as the base extends. It gives the choice of greed, and extenuates the greed vs aggression factor through this design.

Understandably, many people can look at the fact that a map can be designed with builds in mind as controlling the way that players play the game. But, in response, there are several things to note about this design philosophy:
-There will still be optimal builds on each map, regardless of if the designer understood that or not.
-Even though a designer can make a map with build flow in mind, the players can still choose to play as they want to, and often come up with their own ways to play each map (which may even be better than the designer had intended). Using Iron Valley as an example; the factory is often quite exposed by being placed further from the con. yard, so players may opt to place it in the starting area and just take the slight economic hit. A player may also choose to not extend to the third tiberium field so quickly, placing their fourth refinery at the second patch until they're ready to capture the more exposed third.
-Players choosing completely sub optimal builds will be at a disadvantage no matter what map they play on.

The difference in all cases is if the designer made the ability to do different builds interesting, or if they left it up to chance.


Next we're going to look at Frosted Hostilities, because it's a good example of having more than one expansion path:
posted image

So as described in part two, Frosted Hostilities features two ways to expand; one is aggressive, while the other is defensive. Note that once again, the factory/strip is placed quite far from the con. yard, in a more vulnerable location. Many players that I've seen have opted to place it in the main area for protection, or outside their start location at the aggressive expansion field so that they can deploy their units easier/quicker, onto the main skirmishing area. This is another good example of how players ill evolve strategies as they begin to understand a map and will ultimately play how they like, regardless of what you've designed... while the main flow of the map remains intact. 
I also specifically designed this one to have hand/barracks stand within the choke points, making the start location particularly defensive. This was important because of how the map becomes more aggressive as a match carries out... remember part two's break down of the defensive/offensive distances between the start location and the defensive expansion area.



Let's now look at how the shapes and sizes of tiberium fields, and the three reasons you should highly consider limiting the size of tiberium fields.
-The way it affects the harvester pathing
-How it creates contention points around your map (and how much tiberium to how many expected refineries)
-How defendable/harassable a tiberium field is.

Firstly, let's look at harvester pathing.
This picture is taken from Milo234's Red Alert 1 strategy guide. We're going to use it because harvesters in RA1 path the same as they do in C&C95. 
posted image

You can clearly see the patterns of the harvester, and how this will massively affect the distance a harvester travels between trips, depending on the relationship between where the refinery is placed in comparison to a tiberium field. Trying to make all of your tiberium fields be harvested from the same direction for two, or more, players is difficult, if not near impossible. But by making field sizes smaller, we can mitigate the difference.
Even if you're making larger fields, try to split them into several smaller fields to let harvesters take similar distances between trips.

When looking your your more harassable tiberium fields (a point I'll cover in full in just a moment), keep in mind that the harvesters drift to the NW of fields, which can make them easier/harder to pick off. This can make two fields placed symmetrically on a map end up being different in their ability to be harassed, as wandering harvesters may wander away from safety and towards closer to opposing units, yet in other cases harvesters will wander closer to safe areas, making them less vulnerable.


Secondly, let's talk about contention points. 
The size of your fields, and where you place them, can completely change the aggression vs economic archetype of your map. Let's say that you let both players start with a VERY large field (or fields) right by their starting location, which is safe from harassment; even if the rest of your map has tiberium spread throughout your map, at well thought out locations with an expansion flow design in mind... Why would players bother to expand to those locations, when they already have everything they need in their base?
(In other words; what is considered valuable is not only how useful it is, but by how scarce it is.)
This is another reason to limit field sizes AND to spread fields across locations. It gives players an important reason to make use of all the area of your map. 
The amount of tiberium at a location, as well as how easy it is to defend and how easy it is to expand to the location; will dictate how valuable the location is. But players will also have to decide how many refineries to place at leach location. Keeping in mind that you might want to have an idea as to how many refineries should be placed at each location, a decent rule of thumb is to expect 1 refinery to about 35 cells of tiberium.
That doesn't mean that players cannot build more or less, because there are other reasons to build refineries at each location (like how easy it is to defend, and how much money a player wants to collect as quickly and safely as they can), but that there is an optimal number in a standard situation.
Once again, regardless of if you count the cells or not, there will still be an optimal number, you just might not leave space for refineries etc. (you leave the outcome of the design of your map to chance).



Thirdly, let's cover how the shapes of fields, especially in relation to nearby cliffs, will affect how defendable vs harassable a tiberium field is.
This is REALLY important, as harassment units are extremely powerful in C&C95. Often making the bulk of a pushing force, as well.

When thinking of harassment, don't just think about how hard it is for units to get access to an area, just as important is if they can escape after. To calculate the overall damage of a harassment move, you have to not only look at how much damage was dealt, but also subtract damage taken to the harassing units. This can be complected if the value of the harassing units drops off over time (such as from humvees in GDI vGDI) and if the damage dealt was to a unit/structure with gains value over time, (such as production, refineries/harvesters, super weapons). But the important part here is understand that the ability to cut off escape routes for harassing units significantly lowers the amount of harassment which can be dealt.

posted image
Here are 4 examples of tiberium fields placed next to cliffs.
The red arrow shows an entry point to a harassment move, the pink arrow shows the exit, while the blue X shows the optimal placement of defending units (in a situation where you would not know where the next attack would come from).
Note that the blue X is just on the edge of the field. This is because infantry (due to their slow movement and high damage output) are often used to defend locations. Infantry, of course, take damage while moving in tiberium fields, so making fields thinner of thicker can heavily change how easy it is to defend.
(That is, in a situation where light vehicles can move deep into a tiberium field to snipe harvesters, the ability for infantry to be used to defend is diminished greatly, along with the ability to defend the field in general).

Field 1. This has cliffs that hug the sides of almost all of the tiberium field. The only opening is in the north, when defending units are in place, the entry point is small enough that harassing units will take significant damage going in and out of the field. This is a very defendable field type.

Field 2. This field has two of the sides opened up. Entry and exit points can now be found further from the optimal defending location, making it harder to defend than in the case of field 1.

Field 3. This is an accentuated version of field 2, and serves to show how reducing how much cliffs hug the tiberium field increases harassment potential by moving the entry and exit possibilities further and further away from the optimal defending location.

Field 4. This is of course is a naked field. Extremely difficult to defend, as a harassment force can choose to enter and exit as far away from any defending units, no matter where a defender places their units. However, a defender can at least still move around the field to defend the most obvious point of attack, depending on the rest of the map, and positioning of enemy and friendly units.

There's one last field type, which needs to be addressed by itself. This is a field that is wedged between two cliffs.
The issue is an inability to move around the field to re-position units to defend it as needed, instead forcing units to move through it they want to reach the other side.
posted image

1. This field is so small that harassment is difficult anyway. Any location where an attacked comes on can be met with defending units, so long as any units are delegated to the field for defensive purpose.

2. This is harder to defend than field 4 (from the last set of fields). This is because defending infantry units cannot cross the field to defend the other side if needed... and harassing units can cross in from one side and out the other.

3. This is an accentuate version of field 2. There are quite a few maps floating around where pathways have been doubled as tiberium fields. When you design a map with this field design in it, you cut off the ability for infantry to be used. This is different from making a map more aggressive by making it smaller, or making it more defensive by closing off areas, as you don't just accentuate a certain element, but instead completely cut off the ability for people to use an entire unit category.

Pathing for infantry;
It's crucial to allow good pathing for infantry units. Limiting units like this not only means that those units don't show up in the game, but it also means that units used to counter them, also don't show up. What is otherwise range of different units being produced and controlled to try and counter an opponent doing the same thing, turns into 2-3 units types being spammed over and over. Making a map where players are free to make the different units that they choose is allowing people to play their own style and then bend it in one direction or another to suit your map archetype. It'll also give your map far more replay-ability, as players evolve their strategies to try and gain more value out of their units while working out how your map plays.
This can be seen clearly on my own maps in part 2, as I showed the delegation of skirmishing areas, where little to no tiberium was placed at all. That's a bit more extreme, as you could place a field in the middle etc, so long as pathing around the map excised for infantry units to move along. 

 

Edited by AchromicWhite
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well FML...

I actually just completed this but I hit some shortcut key on my computer when I was about 2 paragraphs from finishing, and lost all the progress (all of part 3). my computer just opened what seemed to be a random bookmarked page. I kick myself for not hitting the 'done editing' button to save as I went.
I'll have to rewrite it. I do at least have all the pictures and such that I used for it, and have a good idea what to write. But it's late at night and I really don't have time to rewrite it now, like I'd like to. It is coming, though.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AchromicWhite said:

Well FML...

I actually just completed this but I hit some shortcut key on my computer when I was about 2 paragraphs from finishing, and lost all the progress (all of part 3). my computer just opened what seemed to be a random bookmarked page. I kick myself for not hitting the 'done editing' button to save as I went.
I'll have to rewrite it. I do at least have all the pictures and such that I used for it, and have a good idea what to write. But it's late at night and I really don't have time to rewrite it now, like I'd like to. It is coming, though.

Damn that sucks.

Just wanted to say I really appreciate the time and thought you put into this thread, with all the diagrams and such. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. That's all for now.
I might come back to do a final part on beautifying your map. But that's the big bulk of design regarding mapping.

If there's any further questions, or even criticisms about other design features that needs to be talked about, please place them below, and I'll do my best to answer them.
I may even edit the topic to contain more info on subjects already covered if it's important enough...

Now go get mapping!
(I do actually hope this thread helps to get some awesome maps out there)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, look, you can do it either way, but two points I'm making on this are:

-Splitting a big field into several helps the auto pathing over longer periods of time; and note that 2-3-4 fields could still all be right next to each other.
-If you have large fields on both sides and one person gets to harvest from a NW position in comparison to their field, they just don't have to micro. So, that's kinda unfair when one person is microing 3+ harvs and the other person just leaves them and it's fine.

Smaller fields not only fixes this, but if you spread them out, you get all the other bits that help to make a map more compelling as well.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One option I never see used for c&c is a neutral building that can be captured for a tech advantage. A neutral communications center that gets captured could allow a player to go for a early tech center/temple and be creative with his build order. Would be a cool twist to add to some mp maps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that is used on quite a few maps. Most notably, ones that have expansions only accessible by air or augmented builds with extra 'special' construction yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comsat close to the base is fine. Everyone understands that you can take these over and have a little spurt in technology.
I even would cheer on some advanced power plants, right next to the base. Having them cost "500".


Trickery long distance, multipurpose advantages. Sounds like trolling and cheating on new players to me. Those maps are for lamers who can't win in general. That's my opinion.

There are also maps where you get entire huge bases to start with and a MCV in the middle to move. I don't mind them, but don't like these either. Perhaps if the base is a nice sim base, that is decent and small and still complete.

Is there anything more to add to this topic though?

How about comparing other games maps to C&C?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've talked a bit about adding extra structures like that before.

The other thing about, say, an extra adv PP etc, is that it not only skips price, but also means that you can build it by only taking up production time in your barracks/hand... that is, you can make an engineer and capture it while you're making another structure in the con yard.

It's not BAD to have them, but remember that it means you've taken away the option of choosing one tech or another, because you've told players to get an early, and cheap, extra structure. Now, maybe you WANT to hurt diversity, maybe the point is to have early tech, but it's important to note that you actually have put that in.

It can be a bit like over doing tiberium, in that way. By giving it freely, you remove it as a factor of the game. In this way, adding extra things that a player has, can often remove features of the game.
Makes sense if you think about it... if you both start with 5 factories, then no one's making factories. If you start with 999999 credits, no one's making refineries. If you mod the game to make power plants have more power, then no one's making power plants. etc

Edited by AchromicWhite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I request for this post to be pinned?
Is that a thing I can do?
I just think it's not only a comprehensive post, but a good place to discuss design of maps. This area was of course, meant to be a place to upload maps to, but I thought that this was the best place to put this post. I think it can be helpful to new and old mappers alike.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first read this thread it was only 1 part and I dismissed the thread as a long read that didn't help my maps much but now ive seen the updates its really useful

Edited by chem
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chem said:

When I first read this thread it was only 1 part and I dismissed the thread as a long read that didn't help my maps much but now ive seen the updates its really useful

Despite its long read, I'd encourage you to read the whole entire thing. It really helps put a different perspective on map making, and how much of a powerful tool that it can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ferret said:

Despite its long read, I'd encourage you to read the whole entire thing. It really helps put a different perspective on map making, and how much of a powerful tool that it can be.

Agreed bro, it saves me asking 1000 question too cheers to White

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...