More FFA maps!

[Johannes]

I like it, would suit 8 or 4 players best probably, with start points on the edges. Maybe include points for 16 just for the option but that'll be really aggressive at start, half the players would die fast very often.

1 idea for resource layout in the middle, would be to leave the high ground & the centermost circle somewhat desolate of mexes. But put mexes on the ground right below the ramps, so they are vulnerable to attack from the highground. So the middle will be often more of just a field to maneuver units in, instead of a resource field to rush into and turtle up.


And overall what makes a good ffa map? I think Behes formula on his ffamaps is very good, for new maps just make slight variations to keep it fresh. For example 1 good idea I think would be worth doing is not have all expansions contested with someone - but some place that anybody but you has a really hard time taking but that are in a location vulnerable to attack still. Like on Throne for example if there was 2 or 3 mexes rougly where the geos are now (they could be smaller than other mexes) - then there'd be choice of taking the safer or contested mexes first, but if you go for the safer ones, the contested ones might be already behind turrets when you'd want to go for them...
Also seeing how smaller mex size and lack of speedroads would affect would be interesting. And if you use speedroads - better make them quite wide, so units path nicer on it.

[Cheesecan]

As the layout is right now, I think 8 start spots is the most I could cram in there without compromising gameplay. Kind of low for an FFA map, so I'm thinking if I should change the layout to make room for more? Not much point in releasing a map that can't accommodate enough players.

Making the center flat is one solution, it would open up new routes of expansion so I could put more players in there. But I feel it would deduct from the character of the map, the center sort of defines the map. The center was flat in my original concept, that's why the arrangement is like it is. Maybe I'll just rework the whole layout. :)

Behes maps are the best, and his formula is good. I like to experiment a bit though, find my own style. :)

[Gota]

As the layout is right now, I think 8 start spots is the most I could cram in there without compromising gameplay. Kind of low for an FFA map, so I'm thinking if I should change the layout to make room for more? Not much point in releasing a map that can't accommodate enough players.

Making the center flat is one solution, it would open up new routes of expansion so I could put more players in there. But I feel it would deduct from the character of the map, the center sort of defines the map. The center was flat in my original concept, that's why the arrangement is like it is. Maybe I'll just rework the whole layout. :)

But don't you find it problematic balance wise to have only 4 exists into the center if you have more than 4 teams?
It means only 4 teams or players will have access to it out of the total amount of players..
If you make the outer lower hills unpassable than I think you can fit 16 players in without much problem and without fearing half of the players will die quickly...I mean its a 30x30 map,even those relatively small spaces of land are still more than enough to make a base...

On the case you do want to go hardcore on the balance issue Perhaps u can leave the center empty of metal extractors,widen the entrances, join the 8 high steep hills with the center circle an just leave the center zone for unit movement and an area of passage to attack other players unexpectedly.

In any case, even as it is, the map is already great so whatever you decide to do man..

[Cheesecan]

Well if you think about it, on Throne, don't only 4 teams really have access to the middle there too? The middle is supposed to be holdable by one player, not be a huge trench battleground. I tend to feel that FFA maps need these kind of choke points.

Apart from the middle, players also have to worry about attacks from two other sides plus from the water. That makes the middle into a kind of dreamland, where one team can hold out while the rest get chopped up. Well that was the idea at least.

[Johannes]

As the layout is right now, I think 8 start spots is the most I could cram in there without compromising gameplay. Kind of low for an FFA map, so I'm thinking if I should change the layout to make room for more? Not much point in releasing a map that can't accommodate enough players.

How is 8 players low? Yes it's less than 16 but is it less fun, I don't think so.

[Cheesecan]

As the layout is right now, I think 8 start spots is the most I could cram in there without compromising gameplay. Kind of low for an FFA map, so I'm thinking if I should change the layout to make room for more? Not much point in releasing a map that can't accommodate enough players.

How is 8 players low? Yes it's less than 16 but is it less fun, I don't think so.

Well most ffa games are played with more than 8 players. I don't think more starting positions makes the map more fun at all, but probably does make it more likely to be played. Seeing as how it's already hard to make maps which are played, I'd rather tweak my chances a bit.

[smoth]

so cheese can:

how is this not good for ffa?

[Cheesecan]

Could you post a picture that has some perspective? It is hard to tell the features of the map just from a top view.

I can say though smoth it's easy to tell you don't actually play BA. An open map like that has no build-up, players will die too fast. You have to give players something solid in the geometry which they can rely on to act as a barrier between themselves and other players.

Really I think the better question to ask is why should it be a good map for ffa?

[FireStorm_]

I'd like to say something about mapping too (and thus i'm just jumping in.)

I think springmaps often lack a story, a gimmick or an eye catcher.
(I assume and keep in mind that most maps are wanted for *A mods)

The ta-universe has little background story. To me ta units don't seem to have a scale of size i can relate to. Some people are probably fine with this. As a mapper i would try to deviate from that.

I think balancing maps is overrated, if you aim for high popularity. A natural looking landscape in a symmetrical composition; that conflicts in my view. And there are a lot of that kind of maps.

I think the easiest way for maps to create their own calling cart, and become more noticeable, is using original feature-models.

Where are the ancient alien ruins?
Where is are the fossilised carcass of extinkt spiecies?
Where are the geysers expelling weird coloured gas?
Where is the crater with a glowing meteor at its centre?
Where is that small plateau with some sort of artillery wreckage?
where are the high tech hatches, probably of some underground installation?
etc.

I advise: Don't mis-use your community by asking where to put some trees and rocks. I've seen a lot of rocks and trees on maps, and so i also assume those represent Earth. But i think at least the ta-universe is bigger. Alien planets/locations might have trees too, but Original stuff might give your map a more distinct look and reputation; i don't know...)

Use your community. If you openly request help, i suspect there are people who would happily make some concept drawings, or use those to make a requested/desired feature-model.

To simplify and summarise my view:
Why not put an alien looking plant or wreckage on your map?

[smoth]

people like it more if the map clearly defines how it should be played - where it's passable, where the expansions are, etc.

This is an open map, that is the concept. I could make some sub hills but I wanted it to feel more natural. If you do symmetrical fractal looking maps you sacrifice natural looking environments, something I am trying to develop with this tileset. However, if you look at the height map(also remember that the middle players have acess to the hills) you will see it is not THAT open. I put rough terrain all over creating pathways that the spring pathfinder doesn't like over the more direct routes. It is not as blatant as speed maps but it is more subtle. Which was the idea, to not fuck with gameplay values and use the native pathing engine of spring.


Now I could build some more "natural expansions" spots ala starcrarft but I didn't because that wasn't part of this concept. I am trying to do something different while still making it interesting for the players.

Really I think the better question to ask is why should it be a good map for ffa?

because you are the one saying more ffa maps so to me it says you feel ffa maps have been somewhat lacking or not satisfactory.

[knorke]

FireStorm_ has some good ideas :)
also I think ffa maps should have allow many different playstyles. If players can say "hm, this game i will just try to porc in the center" or "this time i want to get all the islands" etc.
As FFA is not played that seriously as other games, it does not matter if the map is not symmetric/perfectly balanced, "interessting" is more important.
If all you can do is just expand outwards, its boring.

[Cheesecan]

Really I think the better question to ask is why should it be a good map for ffa?

because you are the one saying more ffa maps so to me it says you feel ffa maps have been somewhat lacking or not satisfactory.

I never said that. What I said was:

I play FFA quite frequently, and the current map cycle is starting to feel a bit dull to me. Although the maps we already have are awesome, it wouldn't hurt to have a few more for the sake of variation.

After a while content starts to get old when you have played it a gazillion times. No matter how good it is.

[smoth]

I did gunmetal. so far it is the ONLY map of it's kind, and I have to keep reminding people that it even exists.

Kaiser did new_llamas which was by all accounts beautiful and different...

forgotten...

arturri's latest folsom dam, brilliant, unique looking... ignored..

LLTA complex, awesome... forgoten..






I see a trend here

Ok cheesecan but why are the other options that are new/rarely played unacceptable? There are many good maps, I pick on my own because they are recent and already fading into obscurity.

[luckywaldo7]

Yes there are sooo many excellent maps which don't get played. Probably part of the problem is that it can be very hard to find a good quality maps just by browsing on springfiles. If you sort by "most downloads" you will get all the old maps.

Especially if you are anxious to get a game going, you tend to stick with the "tried and true" maps that everyone already has.

[smoth]

funny how that works... we are tired of the old maps but we don't want to get new ones.

and every time there is a map pack suggestion, people try to fill it with the same shit everyone always has.

[Cheesecan]

I did gunmetal. so far it is the ONLY map of it's kind, and I have to keep reminding people that it even exists.

Kaiser did new_llamas which was by all accounts beautiful and different...

forgotten...

arturri's latest folsom dam, brilliant, unique looking... ignored..

LLTA complex, awesome... forgoten..
.....

Umm.. FolsomDamDeluxe is the 5th most played map of all time, and LLTAComplex the 12th. I would say they had good runs, better than most, and they are still fairly popular.

I had never even heard of New Lammas until you mentioned it now and I had to search KaiserJ's old forum posts to find it because spring files has awful string matching and couldn't find anything when I typed in 'new_llama'. I have no idea why it is so crap, I could write a better algorithm for searching maps in their database in one hour. Small details like this makes it no wonder that people hate downloading new maps.
Anyway, it does look awesome. Problem is that it is not in any map cycles. How are we, the players, supposed to play maps that we aren't exposed to?

When SirArturri released FolsomDamDeluxe, he actually hosted a game with it for a whole day. The result was that everyone online that day got to know about it. It immediately got put on most bots since lots of players requested it.

Here's an idea. How about we have an autohost that hosts only the latest released map. This way everyone can benefit from the type of exposure that SirArturri proved was useful in getting his map 'out there'. I would do it myself, but I don't have stable internet connection anymore nor a desktop to host it on.

[smoth]

well, I really do look at most of the maps. At one point I went and did thumbnails for oh, something like 1/2 of the existing maps on cuppehs site but that shit got lost when his site died.

I am not doing that again for spring files.

anyway, yeah it would be nice to do a best of maps section. I could do that if needed, it would eat up an assload of time but I could do it.

[luckywaldo7]

When SirArturri released FolsomDamDeluxe, he actually hosted a game with it for a whole day. The result was that everyone online that day got to know about it. It immediately got put on most bots since lots of players requested it.

That has varying success. He does that for all his maps, but have you heard of Deadlock?

[Cheesecan]

Nope but it looks very nice with the rain and all. I'd play it.

You're right, hosting your new maps does have very varying degrees of success. I did that for my latest map which I released in January. But nobody played it after I stopped hosting it. I didn't think it was a great map myself, but not bad either. I think it takes a really great map to even have a chance of becoming popular.

[smoth]

That is so dismissive. "really great" is not useful, if it is a certain style that players like then that style has specific components. Figuring that out is important