Spring RTS Engine

Forboding Angel wrote:but what it looks like to me, is that you took portions of the dsd heightmap (not literally) and stuck them on okiriver, and that I do not care for at all.

Reading, ftw. I'll make a screenshot in a sec highlighting what on the heightmap that I do not like.


As previously stated, to me, it seems like all the effort was put into the south, with the north being little more than an afterthought.

I also stated what I would do with it. THat's not to say that that is what YOU should do, it's jsut an example of another take on it.

I think I can see what you mean. viewed isometrically,




mine looks a little like DSD after significant erosion.

on the other hand, they have totally different blocking maps, meaning they play 0% alike.

JAZCASH wrote:In all honesty, I like bland maps because it allows for more concentration on the units and gives the units more of a boldness.

Noisy maps with lots of different textures and small details make a map look very pretty, however, in terms of gameplay, it can get a bit cluttered and just give a player a sense of a lack of space, even if there isn't.

The trick is to find a balance between the two where there are no large detail-less areas, but highly contrasting splattered textures don't camouflage units. I was only ever satisfied with Talus for this.

This map reminds me of one I made called Tau10 which sadly wasn't a very good map in any aspect.

Your map looks and probably plays much better with more flanks, less porc, and more sea power.

Thanks for using good waterabsorb value! If you make another version you should lift the water values out of either Tau10 or Tundra. Both have greenish colored water.

Fu Hunter. Tau was awesome I don't about the look, the gameplay was nice on it.

I see nothing DSDness here but more over, the hills you pointed out, it's like Tabulaness, which is all good!

Tau is actually very similiar to this map, and imo has the same 'problem' having too separated battlefields. I always liked the look of it in all simpliness and brownish colors. but never got enthusiased by the gameplay. So It's quite like opposite of jaz statement...

SirArtturi wrote:I see nothing DSDness here but more over, the hills you pointed out, it's like Tabulaness, which is all good!

Tau is actually very similiar to this map, and imo has the same 'problem' having too separated battlefields. I always liked the look of it in all simpliness and brownish colors. but never got enthusiased by the gameplay. So It's quite like opposite of jaz statement...

The reason I found its gameplay good is because it usually allowed each player to hold their own front whilst being a big map and not encouraging meat shields.

JAZCASH wrote: The reason I found its gameplay good is because it usually allowed each player to hold their own front whilst being a big map and not encouraging meat shields.

This is going badly offtopic, but as you know, meatshield effect of DSD for example, aswell as tabula and the rest is because the maps are played wrong, overcrowded. Any map can fall into that phenomenan.

SirArtturi wrote:

JAZCASH wrote: The reason I found its gameplay good is because it usually allowed each player to hold their own front whilst being a big map and not encouraging meat shields.

This is going badly offtopic, but as you know, meatshield effect of DSD for example, aswell as tabula and the rest is because the maps are played wrong, overcrowded. Any map can fall into that phenomenan.

Not if it has 8 player start spots per side. It's rare you see a game with more than 16 players.

And imo, Tau can be played how it's not supposed to be played and still work alright.

the long thin shape of DSD, which is then chokepointed, plays a large part in the meatshield effect. dosnt happen so much on a square map

what features where? My own experiments with features always look really contrived and poor, advice would be mega welcome

i think the plant things on centerrock work quite good with the map and then there is this map: http://www.springfiles.com/show_file.php?id=47
has some nice looking areas imo. (features + textures in the middle that add live without being too noisy)

Jazcash wrote:Not if it has 8 player start spots per side. It's rare you see a game with more than 16 players.

Dsd doesnt have 8 player start spots per side, it has 4+1. The rest is misuse.

BaNa wrote:

Jazcash wrote:Not if it has 8 player start spots per side. It's rare you see a game with more than 16 players.

Dsd doesnt have 8 player start spots per side, it has 4+1. The rest is misuse.

I never said it did and I didn't imply that it did either.