Spring RTS Engine

hunterw wrote:no one plays it but its definitely a playable ta map with plenty of height variance

You should start hosting it again :D

So far I'm only talking about slope tolerance and general terrain stuff, but yes metal, geothermal, and tidal output and distribution are other equally important things I'd like to discuss in a later thread.

Lots of people like to say things like, "metal placement is a mapper's decision", or "more metal just means a faster game". It's true that metal placement is up to the mapper, but if the mapper wants his map to be enjoyed to its fullest, and obviously he does, there are certain common-sense rules that need to be followed. And, more metal does NOT mean a faster game.

Consider DSD. It's got shittons of metal. All this results in is a division of the gameplay into two major player segments: the simbase people who have a fusion up in 10 minutes and then whoever gets the most nukes/krogs wins, and the rusher people, who are actually sort-of playing the game. However uber-rush also defeats the purpose of building defense, since there is so much metal to go around that losing units hardly means anything. It becomes a game about getting lucky and sneaking one unit into your enemy's energy centers and taking him out of the game.

High metal is not necessarily a bad thing at times, but it completely eliminates the usefulness of about 2/3 of the units and structures. Granted, I am not an expert on BA in its current state so I can't say yes definitely all those units/structures are viable anyway, but that's beside the point.

TA balancing, which AA was based upon and which BA probably still resembles at least somewhat, relied on each player having an average of 2-5 metal at each start location and perhaps one geothermal per team. Each map had only a tiny number of +2 metal spots, and they were the center of every conflict.

Not every game/mod needs to follow these rules, but they've proven conducive to fun gameplay for 12 years. It would be beneficial not just for current mods but ones developed in the future if they could be played enjoyably on the same maps, although certainly with different "energy" and "metal" economic dynamics. GEM and AWS, even in their half-unfinished, unenjoyable states, are intended to be fully playable on existing maps and require no special design. Were I ever to get off my ass and make a public release it would only be ~20 mb, so players would immediately have everything they need to enjoy them, because they already have a huge collection of compatible maps and widgets. This would be crucial to getting a typical player to give them a fair chance.

EE and gundam both assumed 3 metal spots at start point.

I think the excess metal spots come from maps being designated as team maps but being played with lower player counts. probably would be good if maps came with metal layouts outside of starting areas and then via lua setting 3 metal spots near each start point.

However because players can do startboxes and set startpoints wherever the fuck they want and the moder/mapper cannot control this we end up with people being able to "get the most metal" instead of what the mapper intended.

Caydr you really dont know what youre talking about.

When faced with such limiting gameplay caydr, there is a huge selective pressure on players to figure out how to exploit it with new tactics, which then gives those players huge advantages.

For example in the days of AA, nanotowers where used mainly aound factories and simbase people, or in the usual swarms of 300 or so around a krog factory, yet these days theyre in the middle of maps at frontlines repairing defences and units. Rez bots too, theyre being used very differently.

All after people complained they were in a rut.

wtf happened to my post!??!

reposting:

EE and gundam both assumed 3 metal spots at start point.

I think the excess metal spots come from maps being designated as team maps but being played with lower player counts. probably would be good if maps came with metal layouts outside of starting areas and then via lua setting 3 metal spots near each start point.

However because players can do startboxes and set startpoints wherever the fuck they want and the moder/mapper cannot control this we end up with people being able to "get the most metal" instead of what the mapper intended.

The 3 metal spots are because that is generally what is needed to have the beginnings of a base and offense/defense. It also helps out so that expanding right from the start of the game isn't as essential.

Immediate required expansion ultimately hurts gameplay instead of helping it. The long and short of it is that you get the bare essentials needed to get you going and allow you to defend yourself.

Caydr wrote:metal, geothermal, and tidal output

Meaningless to the mapper. Modder has full control.

Caydr wrote:metal, geothermal, and tidal ... distribution

Important to the mapper.

Caydr wrote:but if the mapper wants his map to be enjoyed to its fullest, and obviously he does

That's not the case. Some here have argued tooth and nail against increased modder control over aspects of maps (typemaps, water levels, metal and wind output which is moot because these are already implemented yet the arguments continue) and that they would rather their map is not played at all in some mods. Neddie and Beherith are two examples.

DSD has a shit-ton of metal? Seriously? At the normal player-counts (5ish per-side), DSD is starvation. With no wind, almost-no geotherms, and about 3 expansion metal-spots per-player, DSD is all about just blowing up your comm so you can get to T2 and get fusions and mohomakers up.

Caydr, I can see where you're coming from - you see the endless fields of nanotowers and megafus and mohomakers, and it looks grotesque.

But it has nothing to do with the maps having too much metal, and everything to do with the game you made. Geometric growth makes that stuff inevitable.

Pxtl wrote:Caydr, I can see where you're coming from - you see the endless fields of nanotowers

That was caydr's balance paradigm and part of why I find all of the AA children slow playing.

smoth wrote:

Pxtl wrote:Caydr, I can see where you're coming from - you see the endless fields of nanotowers

That was caydr's balance paradigm and part of why I find all of the AA children slow playing.

I don't know when, but I specifically remember reading him bemoaning the spamming of nanotowers in AA.

I don't think Caydr *likes* the AA/BA late-game, but kept it included because it was the only way to get fun superscalar mech stuff in there without completely restructuring the economy.

pretty much why he had the ridiculous buildtime/resource ratio was designed around nanotowers.

i don't think any universally agreed upon slope tolerances are necessary. if mod makers want their mod to be compatible with most *A maps, they will use the same or similar values. alternatively, it would also be possible to stretch these maps to conform to steeper values by changing the min and max heights of maps. this is easy to do!

for BA, metal isn't the main determinant of what units are viable in a map, unless the metal balance is extreme one way or another. much more important is the terrain layout, as this determines porciness. porciness is what leads to 10 minute fusions, not metal. DSD is very porcy due to its narrow, long shape (20x10), as well as the cliffs, chokes, and highground bases.

porciness is the main determinant of what units are viable in BA. raid units such as wezels, flash, and stumpy are of much less utility when a front is just a chokepoint. in unporcy maps, units such as the wezel and flea never lose their ability to slip behind the front and raid stuff. conversely, you're never going to see a tremor, or even t2 on wide open unporcy maps.

of course there's every shade of grey inbetween. personally i like maps with tons of options - the more units that are viable, the more strategies exist. i like to see at least one player go t2 in most games, and i also terrain that spreads utility among vehicles, kbots, and amphib/hovers. i strive to achieve this balance on my maps but i've only really been happy twice (tabula and talus). tundra, for instance, has mountains for kbot assault as well as an ocean surrounding for amphibs, but the map is so unporcy that anything besides t1 vechs is a waste.

in the end, though, its really up to the general player's preference what is fun. generally, newer players tend to like porcy maps. 1v1ers like unporcy maps. nobody tends to like ocean unless its 1v1 sands of war.

JohannesH wrote:You should start hosting it again :D

i miss hunters 4v4 game.

I would rather my maps be played in the games I directly support or the games I've authorized to modify them as needed for support, and not be played at all in a manner which is inconsistent with my vision. I didn't make each component bitmap manually and distribute different elements for something entirely different to result from my creation. I wouldn't make a Kernel Panic map to be played in Balanced Annihilation, I haven't made a 1944 map intended for play in Kernel Panic - these games have different stylistic and design demands and as a map maker I'm well aware of them.

I do think that individual game developers should publicize some "specific standards" to ease the production of new maps for their games. I do not believe game developers or map developers are well served by the introduction of cross-game standards.

hunterw wrote:no one plays it but its definitely a playable ta map with plenty of height variance

Start hosting it again for the americans.

While, I assume, that you guys agree with me about the slope tolerances being too strict, why are you still bragging with your maps like you'd want to turn over my argument? There's a lot of practical problems with maps with high height variences, like in this case Talus.

hunterw wrote:no one plays it but its definitely a playable ta map with plenty of height variance

To be honest, while I like the feel and look of your map Hunter, I dont like how it plays. Heights are too high to play with *A mods. It feels just too heavy. As also, out from the issue, Talus is "too big" and separates the gameplay being areal 1v1. Now, the winner of this 1v1 can easily rape the rest of the team. Ok, now prove me I'm wrong and argue that I really haven't played this map etc...

Of course you can play around with max and min heights, that still doesn't dissolve that more your map has height, the more the slopes becomes steeper, and more your units having hard time to move, and the more static the gameplay comes.

Just with slight slope tolerance adjustments, I think, the outcome will be more detailed, realistic looking maps, when the mapper doesnt need to bargain between heights and pathing.

PWNED

/me yawns...



stretches.....


oh yeah gundam plays it fien.