Spring RTS Engine

@langtengerfi:
Check out SME_656. Should fix the wrong tile issue.

Hell├â┬│, sz├â┬®p a t├â┬®rk├â┬®p!

I especially like the texture, i havent playtested yet so no opinion on the heightmap but the tex is sweetlookin.

Plans for future developement:

I'll make a 6v6 version from the map, probably with the same textures, but roads added to it. (without any speedboost)
I'm developing it under the codename Frontline_v1, it's going to be 15x19, the startpositions will have 2 close metal spots and you'll have to travel a lot to get more. I'm planning about 5-9 spots/player each having 1.7-2.5 metal/s. It'll have no connection to DesertSiege at all. The idea came from an epic battle that I played on Comet Catcher Redux. I'll try to add a frame to it, so you wont have to build your base near the edge of the map. - which I think is very bad looking, I think TASpring should've deal with this problem somehow.

Have fun! :)

you cant have odd numbered dimensions iirc, make it 16x20

hunterw wrote:you cant have odd numbered dimensions iirc, make it 16x20

waaaaa, that's a big problem, I'we been working on the hmap all day :D
I don't know if I'll make it bigger or smaller... anyway thx for reminding me 'Probotector' XD

Hm... I always end up putting in more player positions, now it seems it'll be a 7v7 map (about 3 kbot 4 tank position on both sides).

But the layout will be much like in Folsdam, except the lanes'll have more connectivity like in Tau10.

I've been experimenting with automated metaltexture creation and also tried to improve the textures I used before.
Hopefully the new version of the map'll come up with enough new features to be unique :)

langtengerfi wrote:I've been experimenting with automated metaltexture creation and also tried to improve the textures I used before.
Hopefully the new version of the map'll come up with enough new features to be unique :)

Looks cool to me.

or to put that a way, they dont want to be responsible for any macro gameplay, just their own tight, porcable strip in a larger game where even total failure will not result in instant death

You can check the new version in jobjol:
http://spring.jobjol.nl/show_file.php?id=1816

it is usually prefered to start players 1 and 2 on opposite corners... like:

13
42

smoth wrote:it is usually prefered to start players 1 and 2 on opposite corners... like:

13
42

I think that convention originated in FFA maps and team-maps where each start-point is roughly equivalent. In this case, a 1v1 would be have no symmetry if they started in opposite corners.

however the map is then essentially a 8X8 or whatever distance is between them. just kinda odd to me esp in the name of symmetry

Pxtl wrote:

smoth wrote:it is usually prefered to start players 1 and 2 on opposite corners... like:

13
42

I think that convention originated in FFA maps and team-maps where each start-point is roughly equivalent. In this case, a 1v1 would be have no symmetry if they started in opposite corners.

Personally I'd prefer
11-12
7 - 8
3 - 4
1 - 2
5 - 6
9 -10
13-14

More viable for 1v1, more viable for FFA.