Spring RTS Engine

I vote for: all grey area are metal. No really, if you look at it, the area textured grey are always placed in the most interesting places, and are evenly spaced.

Just experiment with the mexx radius until they're just a bit wider than those grey areas width, so that each grey area support 2-4 mexx. Spring supports other metal distribution that concentrated patches, and I really like when the metal density is somehow reflected on the regular texture.

Only thing is, you'll have to add some random grey area underwater.

Zsinj, Your metal map would harld supprt 1 player :O

zwzsg wrote:I vote for: all grey area are metal. No really, if you look at it, the area textured grey are always placed in the most interesting places, and are evenly spaced.

Just experiment with the mexx radius until they're just a bit wider than those grey areas width, so that each grey area support 2-4 mexx. Spring supports other metal distribution that concentrated patches, and I really like when the metal density is somehow reflected on the regular texture.

Only thing is, you'll have to add some random grey area underwater.

Word!

Totally agreed! This way of "natural metal patches" should be used alot more. By adjusting max metal and extractor radius you can still regulate the metal output. I think that people are too lazy to work a bit on the metal map when they get the map othervise done. but do this placement, and i don't think you will regret it.

okay that are already quite some interesting metal layouts. As i am quite ill now, haven't been 100% for more than a week, but now it really gets to me, i will remain in bed for the rest of the day, and tomorrow probably also.

One or two thing i can say that tell more about the map:

- its 20x10 atm, and i like that, cause i believe BB's can't shoot from beach to beach (not entirely sure)

- i was thinking of a balance between water and earth. Metal on earth area aswell as metal in 'ocean'.

- the ideas of smaller islands might be nice, because i do believe that once the sea-part is owned by one side, it is hard to reclaim it.

- the map should be able to hold a 4vs4 game. (though i do like Zsjins metallayout, it won't do for a 4vs4 i think.

- i'll post a heightmap and a personal design for the metal layout as soon as i get better.

Thx for the replies again, and i'll try to watch this thread a bit more, but don't expect much input from me the upcoming 24 hrs..

krogothe wrote:... if youre gonna cluster spots together, make them a single super-spot, plus high metal on a map with obstructions invariably turns into a diarrhoea coloured shitty porcmatch.
...

A single super metal spot is diferent because of metal extractors that spend much energy, like the MohoMex in XTA. It is diferent having to need 3 mohoMexes each draining 400(?) E than only one sucking up all the metal.

Also, just because it has many metal spots, doesn't means that they would give much metal in total. Each metal spot can give little metal.

IceXuick wrote:...
One or two thing i can say that tell more about the map:
...

Ok, off to do my own metal map.

Forboding Angel wrote:Imo, a better way of doing it would be a release, and then asking if the layout and content was good and what could be better.

Lord no! Many with a normal connection speed would quickly stop bothering with your maps because of the asburd amount of revisions that would result.

neddiedrow wrote:

Forboding Angel wrote:Imo, a better way of doing it would be a release, and then asking if the layout and content was good and what could be better.

Lord no! Many with a normal connection speed would quickly stop bothering with your maps because of the asburd amount of revisions that would result.

Neddie, personally my maps are generally only 6 or 7 megs.

If you are speaking generally I can understand that.

There is it.

The size kind of got me scared. 20x10 is quite big. XTA's BBs won't reach from one shore to the other, by a long far.

And since it needs to be able to fit 4, i was afraid i was putting too much metal for the standard 2v2, which is the most common. Not sure until i see it working but i am hoping it still fits nicely a 2v2.

You can see the 4 starting positions somewhat clearly defined.
There is also the amount of metal that i think each should provide (mostly, spots of 1.2, 1.8, 2, 2.5 and two of 3).
The 3 green dots are geothermal spots.

You may notice that the amount of metal downs a little reaching the center. That is so so that if one side is controlling a little more land, doesn't gives them a sure win (many maps just cram up all the metal to the middle to «encourage expansion» King of the Hill style. That leads to a kind of game of «whoever gets to control middle wins no matter what»).

I propose standard solar energy as well as tidal strength, 0~20 of wind and 140 of gravity.

Nothing else i can think of right now.

2 metal per green spot.
Red spots are geos.
Blue ones are starting positions.

The circled layout in the water makes sure that players get close to eachother, but prevents the rush to the middle and subsequent porcing.

If you want more than 50% of the map´s metal, you will have to take it from your enemy, instead of just rushing the middle first.

Lower half of the map has slightly more spots, to reflect the greater ressource need of ships comapred to bots.

Wind set low 0-20 is good, tidal set to 25, to encourage water, gravity doesnt matter.

i think that zwzsg's idea of metal on the grey areas only is awsome, keep the metal off the landing beaches as they would only clutter things up, and of course a nice amount in the water (mabye in the water around the cliffs?).

its seems to me that the grey areas on your map would have just about the perfect balance of metal for it, and as to the flow of the map, i think that you should really emphasize naval/amphibous combat by making the land passage quite narrow and easily defended, keep islands out of it though imo, the ships have enough trouble pathfinding as it is.

As I said in my post, you can expand my metal layout by making it that the yellow dots are "clusters" rather than individual metal patches. The yellow dots refer more to important strategic areas that players should be drawn too defend (against their defensive tendencies) then actual locations for metal patches.

Also, I think it is important that Berthas can reach atleast the majority of the opposite base. I say this because it is important that Berthas retain their point within the game design - as a game breaker.

The Big Bertha is effectively a way of saying to your opponent "ok, I've put all my money in this big F'ing cannon, and you better have something to beat it, or else you're in big trouble". It forces the opponent's hand. In a map like this, where porcing has the potential to be rife, I think you need to keep the Bertha as an important game-breaker.

I also think that, for similar reasons, guardians on the land bridge, and warlords/etc in the sea should be a big threat to enemy units attempting to use the opposite means of transportation to get across. That way, a player dominating the sea, but without control of the landbridge could find his sea assets being eaten up by land-based artillery, and vice-versa.

Andreask (but that apply to many proposed metal distribution as well, nothing personal), you put metal patches right in the middle of corridor, that's silly, because anyway people will have to travel through corridors. Also, where people put mexx, they are prone to build defense around, if not little base, and you don't want that to happen in narrow passes, as it would block the passage, and turn the game into boring porcfest or all-air battle.

Large flat area and beach also don't need to have metal patches, because they will be used to build industrial complex over, or to reach sea.

On the other hand, all those side area, all those plateau that lead to nothing, will be left unused unless you put some attractive ressource on it. And really, that would be a shame. Let's look for instance at the little plateau right in the center. If there's nothing worthy on it, no one will bother climb it up. And so it will be like a piece a scenery, pretty, but non-existant gameplaywise. People will just quickly walk throught the corridor below, and even forget there's a plateau just up there.

But it there's some metal on it, then people wil want to grab it, and so will build mexx on it. Because of the central position, they will need some defense turret to defend their metal production. And so you'll see little base popping up on that plateau. Suddenly the game becomes a lot more interesting, because you have a clear passage down there, and a defended base up there, so, when an opponent comes here, he got to decide whether to press on and walk past, in order to reach the core of the base sooner, leaving that pocket of resistance behind, or instead to meticulously clean the fortified plateau, and losing all his advance momentum.

Let's try to explain it with a picture:



The BLACK lines show the path where units have to travel to meet the enemy. This path DO NOT NEED RESSOURCES on them, because:
- Anyway, armies are forced to take them, without needing more incentive.
- Mexx are the germs from which bases grows, and we don't want any base inside passageways, because that would clog them up, and they're already narrow enough as they are.

The GREEN area show the area that are left aside, the area where no one will go unless forced to. These areas are WHERE RESSOURCES SHOULD BE, so as to encourage people to take them, and build bases on them.

As you can see, somehow the green area coincide nearly exactly with the grey textured areas. Hence the idea: makes the metal map follow the grey texture.

One might say:
"OMG stupid the grey cover too much that'd be too much metal!"
But that would be forgetting TWO important settings:
- The area covered by mexx can be changed to anything by the mapper.
- The metal each mexx yield can also be changed by the mapper, independantly from the rest.

So, we can make it so even a large grey area can support only one or two mexx, and that each mexx only gives, I dunno, +1.5 M.



Okay, now comes a finer point. If mexx have large radius, and if metal cover exactly the grey area, then cunning player would put mexx at the bottom of cliff, so the mexx radius reach the top of cliff. Obviously, we don't want that. So the mexx radius must be precisely tweaked, large enough so we can cover each metal area with 2-4 mexx, small enough so you can't cover metal by placing mexx the other side of the cliff.

To help preventing that, I also suggest that:
- The metal doesn't cover the whole grey areas, but only the center of grey areas. Ideally use a texture a little different, like a tad shiner, to differienate they grey from around metal to the grey that is metal.
- Some screes be added to the bottom of cliffs, in such a way that you can't build close to the bottom edge of cliffs.



Another fine point:
Some grey area will be large, other very small. Well, make sure that large grey area have a low metal density, and small grey spot have a very hight metal density, in such a way that each mexx gives more or less the same amount of M, no matter if it covers a big spot or a small spot.

zwzsg thats nice we need more maps like that kind of metal map..... then icexuicks maps are complete

Actually, that kind of analysis could do wonders for many a map. Combine it with Andreask's super-calculated approach and you'd have something that encourages certain types of gameplay along with use of the whole map area.

zws, you are absolutely right.

I totally agree.

Its just, that i took this idea, and then reversed it.

You know ?

You units travel through corridors, and discard the plateaus.
That is right.
You also say that open areas get visited anyway, no doubt.

Its just, i WANTED to put metal in the corridors, to FORCE people to guard their mexes, as it will be so much easier for units to reach the mexes.
If you put mexes mainly on plateaus, you can EASILY porc them, as all units will have a range advanteg up there !

Think of that.

It is way more suiting to a fast gameplay if ppl have to defend the corridors, perhaps by also using the ridges to get a crossfire, than having ppl only porc their metal on plateaus.

But i guess it is just a matter of the point of view.

Lets do two versions ! :D

Okay, those added metal layout also sound very well thought. I did like the approach of zwzsg quite alot, and thinking i'm gonna do that for a first release (not only because the idea, but also because i haven't done a map with this kind of metal layout)

Also zwzsg's route-design is very good. With only this minimap he's got it almost entirely right. Although i also think the idea of Andreask, with the metal in some passages, doesn't automatically clutters that passage up. And his idea of must-defend-mexxes is quite ok aswell...

PauloMorfeo's design also has a nice layout, which also supports good starting locations and metal distribution for them. I like the idea that the player on the beach is kinda forced to expand to the water asap, and i think if both 'sides' do this, no side directly will have supreme water dominance.

Well, it's kinda hard to decide what to do. I don't really like to release 3-4 version all with different map layouts. It hard for (new) players to choose what layout is best, or works best for the aimed game. But i must confess i like zwzsg's approach alot, and thinking to do that one to start with. And maybe a second release with Original metal patches, like Paulo's layout.

Who agrees with this idea?

I'll start a poll on this, later this day, got to go.

thx again for the work peepz!

I still think mine is the best, But zwsgzszgszgs's idea is good to. I can't spell for shit.

Well, I don't really like zwzsg's approach, personally. It isn't bad at all, I just think a normal metal layout is better.

While I think it is interesting and innovative to have metal laid out that way, I think the cliffs were given certain positions by Ice before he considered making them metal, which sort of gives them a role which I think they have already.

The cliffs, from my point of view, are already extremely important from a strategic point of view. If you look at the movement lines which zwzsg has drawn (and which most others implied), the cliffs overlook all of those major paths. If I was thinking strategically, I would look to capture each of those cliffs as waypoints in cutting my enemy off from using the path, because they are all easily defeinsible, and all overlook major pathways.

I think if those were the metal patches too, they would become too much the focus points of the game, with the paths in-between them being more infill then vital routes between bases.

If you have metal patches interspersed between both cliffs and low ground, then players can opt to go for cliffs should they wish the strategic advantage, or attempt to hold the lowground for the resource advantage (although you would find they are not mutually exclusive).

That being said, I'm sure if you used zwzsg's method, it wouldn't be bad at all, I'm just expressing my opinion in favour of the usual metal distrubition system.

I don't think you should release two versions of the same map with different metal distrubutions. I don't think it is good practice, because it can be confusing for everyone involved. The only way this would be justified is if you change another factor on the map to warrant a second release, such as changing the size, or changing the look/theme of the map (as in, keeping the same design/heightmap, but using a night theme, or a snow theme, etc).

zwzsg wrote:...
On the other hand, all those side area, all those plateau that lead to nothing, will be left unused unless you put some attractive ressource on it. And really, that would be a shame. Let's look for instance at the little plateau right in the center. If there's nothing worthy on it, no one will bother climb it up. ...

Ah, but they make perfect strongholds. If you can hold that middle one, you will cut off all the land trafic in half, limiting severely the mobility of the oponent. It will also make perfect position for artilery shelling the oponent and controling some of the sea (one of the reasons i decided for it to not have much metal since it is already so much important).

Anyway, your idea is good. And if you look at mine, you will notice that the metal spots tend to be around the same positions.
I guess that, between your metal map and mine, there is a bigger diference between more clearly defined spots (you would know roughly where the enemy would have mexxes) and metal spots not well defined (you wouldn't know well where the enemy would have it's mexxes placed). Your's has the advantage of we beeing able to easily destinguish metal spots by just looking at the texture of the map.

But, zwzsg, you forgot one very important thing. You need to add to your proposal ammounts of metal available. That may very well be more important than where the metal is.
Keep in mind that it is 20x10 (same size as 4B Facility but inverted) and that IceXuick wants it to be able to hold a 4v4. Do not forget the sea (especially since it doesn't has any «grey» area).

My metal map has 49.6 metal on left side (and 50, 49.6+0.4, on the right side because of distribution). That will give around 25 metal per player in a 2v2 where each has a perfect 25% of map (very unlikely). In a 4v4, it will 12,4 metal.
Each «starting position» has around 5 metal available except for the bottom ones that give 7.5 because, if someone starts on the beach, they will be left somewhat cramped with nowhere to go.

I am looking forward to see this map. It is the same style as Oki River, which is a map i like very much.

Okay, here is my layout, that is strongly based on Paulo's Design, but with the concept of zwzsg's kept in mind, regarding the paths. I have added a little more patches, so it might even be possible for a 5vs5 game. Let me know what you think of this layout.

Btw, i'm hoping not release more versions with different layouts. And that zwzsg's idea is new to me, and could prove not to work out well (the original metal placing works, the 'new' area metal placing maybe not)