Metal Amount vs Player Count

[Johannes]

But um, already that pic tells there's a lot of holes for the bot to go that are not indicated in the texture? It's not about going here or there really, just about honesty.

Of course when designing a map for BA, veh passable slope should look different from a bot/amphib passable slope which looks different from an impassable one. For hovers too if it's relevant for the map. It's not always trivial to differentiate them so that they are all easily descernable and look good, but it's something you just kinda have to do if making something for BA...
Naturally when designing for Gundam you don't have to consider these, not BAs values at least.


And about metal layout 1 more thing - it's mainly not just about the amount of metal there is, but where. A good map will usually have more than one plausible location to send your first con into to expand, and does not have all of the contested metal in a single location so the game doesn't turn into a pitched battle over just that one spot. For example, if the players/teams start in opposing corners, don't place the majority of metal in the middle but nearer to the unoccupied corners.

[smoth]

give me a proper example johan. I don't know of a single map that has a different texture for each passable area. Give me an example map to look at.

[Google_Frog]

I see this as a bit of an issue. The texture gives the impression that bots can only walk on the green areas yet they are able to cut across the lower cliff.

[FLOZi]

Same issue applies with S44 infantry, fwiw.

[smoth]

then have the devs tweak what the pathing visual actually means.

because to me, red means red... so I tell you what, I will adjust the texture the better match the actual slope intolerance, when the devs do the same.

[zwzsg]

And in addition, with all the pushing and shoving 85.0 has, units can go deep into impassable territory.

So better makes your maps flat if you want them to be compatible!

[Saktoth]

--cars, animals, trains
--tech buildings you can capture (like a repair pad or missile silo or whatever)
--meteors
--be creative?

This is the best way to ensure a map doesn't get played, especially if you fill it with lua that breaks the next engine version. In Zero-K we tag these maps with this icon:


Heightfield + metal map has not near exhausted its possibilities, slopes, cliffs, shallows and seas interact really dynamically to create a unique experience in every map. And if you make them, Zero-K players will and do play them.

give me a proper example johan. I don't know of a single map that has a different texture for each passable area. Give me an example map to look at.

Tabula. Check the bot-passsable ramps, they are like a dark grey, rather than the layered sedimentary rock of cliffs. Having slightly lumpy cliffs that vary on the threshold between being bot passable and impassable is bad for Zero-K/BA, either they should be mostly passable hills, or passably only at designated ramps. This is only if you want to do the 'cliffs and ramps' thing. A more fluid, rolling landscape like Desert Valley is fine too.

[knorke]

, especially if you fill it with lua that breaks the next engine version.

maps without lua can be broken by new engine versions as well. In any case, just release a fixed version.
(did a map with lua ever break?)

In Zero-K we tag these maps with this icon: [special]

yea fail: this tag is applied very random. Many tagged maps are completly normal.
Sometimes it seems to be used to mark broken (as in crashing) maps.
Also I think CT or KP maps are not "special", a seperate tag "comptatible games" would be better. It would be nice if the "special" would really be only be used to mark "fun maps" such as speedball etc.
Atm it is useless.

[zwzsg]

did a map with lua ever break?

You try the Moor V3 under Spring 85.0 and tell me.

[Google_Frog]

then have the devs tweak what the pathing visual actually means.
because to me, red means red... so I tell you what, I will adjust the texture the better match the actual slope intolerance, when the devs do the same.

There is a significant difference between being barely able to move somewhere and completely impassable. As far as strategic unit maneuvers are concerned a cliff with small spotty areas of passability is a passable cliff. So the greater issue is the passable area in the middle of the lower cliff in the picture below.

Anyway the devs did tweak the pathmap when it was broken by 84.0. http://springrts.com/mantis/view.php?id=2760

[Cheesecan]

I recommend using lua metal spots to avoid locking yourself into a specific game.

We DO have that now?

Yes, works better now thanks to some lua hacks. See my latest map for v3.4. I'm not releasing any new one yet because the lua is not really good, haven't been able to make the spots rotate randomly for instance. I guess opengl pivot axis is somehow off but I cannot figure out why when every forum I've checked say rotations are done a certain way and that doesn't work in spring(unbelievable huh..).

[AF]

Maps that contain things like repair pads etc should be game specific else they can make things horribly unbalanced.

[Saktoth]

maps without lua can be broken by new engine versions as well. In any case, just release a fixed version..

Right, of course, who am I talking to, naturally it is our job fix whatever the engine devs break, regardless of whether the original map makers are even around anymore to maintain their maps.

(did a map with lua ever break?)

All behe's asteroid maps at one point, Xenolithic, Seths Ravine. Probably as much the map developers fault, though it seems whether a lot of the graphical effects will work with ATI cards is always a lottery (Seths Ravine, at least, used to work but now needs its lua disabled for some machines or it makes the game unplayable).

[1v0ry_k1ng]

--cars, animals, trains
--tech buildings you can capture (like a repair pad or missile silo or whatever)
--meteors
--be creative?

This is the best way to ensure a map doesn't get played, especially if you fill it with lua that breaks the next engine version. In Zero-K we tag these maps with this icon:


Heightfield + metal map has not near exhausted its possibilities, slopes, cliffs, shallows and seas interact really dynamically to create a unique experience in every map. And if you make them, Zero-K players will and do play them.

lmao

yes, all of this smoth. Beherith consistently makes maps that blow my mind without any gimmicks, just using textures and heighmaps.

[smoth]

@ivory, what does that have to do with me? My included lua hasn't broken

[knorke]

did a map with lua ever break?

You try the Moor V3 under Spring 85.0 and tell me.

crashes, but not sure if it ever worked for me.
(enough giga-ram for the mapsize/features, not sure)
But I was talking about

--cars, animals, trains
--tech buildings you can capture (like a repair pad or missile silo or whatever)
--meteors

not funky lol-ATI-sucks graphic widgets. iirc many players had problems to play Seths Ravine already in 0.82.7

naturally it is our job fix whatever the engine devs break, regardless of whether the original map makers are even around anymore to maintain their maps.

Well if you want, you can just mark the map "broken" and forgett about it. But not to make certain maps because they might break in a year seems silly. Imagine mods were made like that, we would all be playing badsd - oh.

@ivory, what does that have to do with me? My included lua hasn't broken

depends how you define "included Lua":
http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=27236

Beherith consistently makes maps that blow my mind without any gimmicks, just using textures and heighmaps.

This is funny because many of Beherith's maps include gimmics:
from moor v3:
Fog surrounding map edges - modified GLSL shader gadget.
Camera constrained to playable area (widget only)
No commands outside play area (except commands where the target isnt a position, but a feature outside playable, need help fixing that)
Gehenna Rising has a shader for the lava, lua to make lava sprays, some other map had music etc. His next appearently has wobbling trees and green sparkle magic.
If you mean for example Koom Valley v2 , that does not excactly blow my mind, neither the layout or graphics. It's not bad but a bit "more of the same."

[1v0ry_k1ng]

to clarify, I wasn't saying his maps don't have gimmicks.. many of them do. I'm saying my mind exited via the roof of my skull when beholding the texture and design of maps such as the asteroid map which have completely conventional resource layouts.

resource quantities and layouts aren't something that mappers need to mess around with so much, because as a player all I want is a standard layout that gives an appropriate amount of metal to each player and encourages expansion. textures and height maps and sky-boxes and lighting is where the art is

[Saktoth]

It isn't even this. Smoth certainly doesn't need lecturing in how to make a gorgeous map, his are the best. What I'm talking about is the varieties of PLAY you can get out of a map, some of the things that haven't nearly been done enough yet include using rolling hills instead of 'ramps-and-cliffs' (This isn't starcraft, we have heightfield terrain!). The cross-section of a hill, whether it peaks at the top or flattens into a plateau or round off- putting more interesting, small pieces of terrain- craters, pillars, mounds or crests for cover about the size of a unit or two. Then there are sea maps, which we barely have any of, and the use of shallows for combined ship + unit warfare, and ALL the things that can be done with sea maps (there are far too few sea maps). Obviously there is the overall design of the map as well, which is the most obvious area for variety- How all these elements are combined to change the flow of the game, where and how units and defences can be positioned. Then there are games types- there are not enough 5-10 way symetrical FFA maps.

This is what map design is about. Gameplay. Pretty is great, pretty is wonderful, but maps dictate gameplay as much as mods do. You don't need gimmicks for this.

[knorke]

ome of the things that haven't nearly been done enough yet include using rolling hills instead of 'ramps-and-cliffs' (This isn't starcraft, we have heightfield terrain!)

imo it is the other way around: many maps with "natural terrain" and few with clearly defined ramps in SC-style. (That is also why there are all the problems about where units can go etc)

putting more interesting, small pieces of terrain- craters, pillars, mounds or crests

Ironically comet catcher, red mars etc are devoid of any of that and still popular maps. (which i do not understand)
But I think like that too.
Many team maps (dsd, tabula, Falsom Dam, but also many newer ones) have these flat basins without any interessting heightmap. Similiar large bodies of waters are more interessting to play with some small islands inside.

the use of shallows for combined ship + unit warfare

would be nice but fails mostly fail because some units are unable to fire: the water depth is hard to get right etc, also very mod dependent.

Gameplay. Pretty is great, pretty is wonderful, but maps dictate gameplay as much as mods do. You don't need gimmicks for this.

so, why not have gameplay-gimmicks?

[Pxtl]

Really? Which maps have natural terrain? Because of the low slope limits of buildings, it seems like most maps are have clearly defined differences between hills and flat land.

The problem occurs when you talk about the slope of those hills - we have ambiguous texturing and ambiguous GUI for showing the player which units can cross which terrain.

where's a map that looks like this:

Of course, the pathfinder would probably crap its pants at the sight of truly "natural" terrain and you'd find units cramming together along narrow paths.