Spring RTS Engine

There could be a ring of impassable mountains around the outside.
But we all know what Throne really needs is slowly raising lava
I am posting from my iPad, who made the map and can I fork?

Yes you may fork, but please use the GLSL lava shader. Also, please dont call it Throne v2, because an updated visual release is pending on it.

Want of ssmf maps? yes.

Want of regular smf maps? Not so much.

I think that things of great quality are always in need.

I think we need more porc maps not like DSD

dsd isn't porcy at all if you play it with the amount of players it was designed for.

No, compared to most maps it definitely is. But that's not a bad thing necessarily.

Term porcy, porcupine, meaning that you stay at base because find no need to expand doesn't really fit for dsd because to succeed you really need to contest the middle.

Even in 8v8 games the game is not actually porcy if people would just play as a team and stop repeating the same playing pattern: back players eco whore and front players work as a meatshield.

Castles is a porcy map because on that you really can turtle shell up yourself and leave other people to fight.

There was an article lonmg ago that defined the playstyles of total annihilation into several types, one was porcupine. Doyou remember the other ones? One was the hawk I think? Why does no-one complain that a map is hawky?

Iirc it was porcupine, eagle, octopus.

You missed swarmer:

http://www.tauniverse.com/cavedog-mirro ... tegy2.html

I'm a combo of octopi and swarmer, with emphasis on the swarmer.

FLOZi wrote:You missed swarmer:

http://www.tauniverse.com/cavedog-mirro ... tegy2.html

3/4 = 75% = passing. I'mfinewiththis:)

Unles you're in a school for the gifted, in which case 80% and lower = failing.

Not all gifted schools have the same measure forb.

The actual topic is a discussion of whether there is a want of maps- that is, a significant target audience currently seeking new maps. Answer: no. Most players must be forced to download a new map and will sooner change the map or not join servers playing a new/unknown map.

Should people stop making maps because of this? Answer: no. Progress should not be halted just because most people are conservative and lazy. The only way spring's graphics are going to _significantly_ improve is through pretty maps, so it is the duty of every mapper to try and force out the old guard in favour of attractive altenatives.

Personally I am waiting for high quality worldgen remakes of all the old but ugly classics by someone who knows their stuff. Hell, even a new DSD with lots of different texture settings (regular/plains/desert/snow) would be a huge improvement on the visual quality of 99% of games played.

well, at the moment sunspot is looking for a map for his "Capture the Objective" game.

What would you guys consider the "Best Maps Nobody Plays"?

I'm picking up my single-player campaign project again, and I would like to use some maps that aren't in the general mix. I was figuring on using multi-player maps and back-fitting my missions into those rather than building maps from scratch (I'd ask the map-builder for permission, especially since I might have to modify them slightly to meet the needs of a single-player narrative).

So if you had to pick three maps (not your own) that were both visually impressive and well-balanced for team play, what would you pick?

--Dave

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. These missions are to important to me, to allow you to jepardize them.

Why reuse Multiplayermaps for singleplayer experiences? A Singleplayer is a chain of events, therefore nearly all singleplayer levels wherever you go follow the diggestive system, one long tunnel of luv and hatred, and the player goes through it. Thats exactly the opposite of most multiplayermaps.. (Dont get me wrong, you can integrate battlefields into that diggestive system, but in the long run, its you who controlls the players expierience.

Let me explain this with a simple grafik

PicassoCT wrote:I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. These missions are to important to me, to allow you to jepardize them.

Why reuse Multiplayermaps for singleplayer experiences? A Singleplayer is a chain of events, therefore nearly all singleplayer levels wherever you go follow the diggestive system, one long tunnel of luv and hatred, and the player goes through it. Thats exactly the opposite of most multiplayermaps.. (Dont get me wrong, you can integrate battlefields into that diggestive system, but in the long run, its you who controlls the players expierience.

Let me explain this with a simple grafik

Yeah, I get that, I know it's normal to define the terrain around the plot. I'm not going to do it that way. The player knows he's got to win to get through, he's been trained to that by every RTS, FPS, and RPG he's ever played.

But in an RTS, where the default expectation is that the edges of the map are invisible and impenetrable walls, there's no need or point to drawing the obstacles into the terrain unless they have specific purpose for the tactics they require in response. The obstacle is that you don't get to the next map until you satisfy the victory conditions for this one, anything else is redundant and teaches you bad habits.

Since part of the purpose of the campaign is to train the player in the kinds of play strategies he'll need to use against humans in online play, using multi-player maps can't hurt.

--Dave