I see a angry Rohrschach from Watchmen swinging his fist back and fooo.KaiserJ wrote:
happy friday dudes
edit: don't make this map please. anything but this.
What new map do you want?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: What new map do you want?
- SirArtturi
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: 23 Jan 2008, 18:29
Re: What new map do you want?
It's a picture which KaiserJ used to tease us.IceXuick wrote:what pic is this (above)?
i want that map also!
But we never got relieved...
I'm just saying he should have better things to do than playing around with other peoples heightmap sketches

Re: What new map do you want?
SirArtturi wrote:It's a picture which KaiserJ used to tease us.IceXuick wrote:what pic is this (above)?
i want that map also!
But we never got relieved...
I'm just saying he should have better things to do than playing around with other peoples heightmap sketches
class mapMaker extends trolllin
{
boolean isItAnArt=true; //?
for (int sure=1;sure < totalAmountOfTrollsIntheHood;sure++)
{System.out.println("I can haz map?");
System.out.println("Forget about old wishes, what do you think of this? http://www.aWildEyeCandbar_appearsBetweenYourEars!.com");
Sleep(over9000)
if (isItAnArt== true)
{//Im doing nothing, problem nothingDoers onboard:P}
else
{Thread too=new Thread(release)}
}
}
- danil_kalina
- Posts: 505
- Joined: 08 Feb 2010, 22:21
Re: What new map do you want?
I have been seeing the battles of 2 teams playing many times and never never seen a battle of 3 teams fighting.
Players count is enough. We need a good map for it.
Players count is enough. We need a good map for it.
Re: What new map do you want?
3 way discussion I don't agree.
- 1v0ry_k1ng
- Posts: 4656
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 10:24
Re: What new map do you want?

omg, everything about that picture presses my buttons
Re: What new map do you want?
*knock knock*PicassoCT wrote: class mapMaker extends trolllin
{
boolean isItAnArt=true; //?
for (int sure=1;sure < totalAmountOfTrollsIntheHood;sure++)
{System.out.println("I can haz map?");
System.out.println("Forget about old wishes, what do you think of this? http://www.aWildEyeCandbar_appearsBetweenYourEars!.com");
Sleep(over9000)
if (isItAnArt== true)
{//Im doing nothing, problem nothingDoers onboard:P}
else
{Thread too=new Thread(release)}
}
}
"Who's there?"
Runtime!
*knock knock*
"Runtime who?"
RuntimeException!!
And ArrayIndexOutOfBounds too!!
"Three's a crowd!"
trololololol
Re: What new map do you want?
that map sucked the life out of me; ill connect my old pc and up the map for someone else to finish
only a few more hours of work i promise lol
@beh i do appreciate the offer but i've finally got your knowledge through my skull; that's an ingame shot

@beh i do appreciate the offer but i've finally got your knowledge through my skull; that's an ingame shot
Re: What new map do you want?
KaiserJ wrote:that map sucked the life out of me; ill connect my old pc and up the map for someone else to finishonly a few more hours of work i promise lol
I want that on my gravestone...Just one more hour, and then i quit..
Re: What new map do you want?
haha well i learned a lot doing it; 60+ hours certainly
- Attachments
-
- fmap1.7z
- beh
- (1010 Bytes) Downloaded 14 times
Re: What new map do you want?
Feedback pertains to BA/ZK
Map 1
Maps with hills in the centre are very dangerous. Often taking the middle will win you a game, even if you lose the flanks, because you can project power in all directions equally and if he flanks you on both sides, he splits his army. Equally, pushing downhill into an enemy can be very easy.
It is probably your intention to make the hills important, but the game will probably be decided really quickly by whoever rushes there most effectively.
Map 2
It is nice to integrate sea and land a bit more, rather than making just a 'lake' on one part of the map. A ship and land passable river running down the middle, or just outside each base, would allow ships to support land players and offer bombardment.
Map 3
Depending on size, these bases are either really close together, or the map is just enormous. It will probably create a game where losing your starting base is highly likely- meaning either fast-paced games and awesome nomadic comebacks (And FFA needs more of that) or games decided in really early compushes by who gets up a HLT/gets sandwiched between two pushes.
Map 4
There is enough metal in the sea that you need a player to start sea. Hoever, the mexes are far enough away from the sea that you cannot easily start ships. This is always an awful scenario. The sea will probably be decided by who is ballsy enough to start ships with 0 mexes and get a vette up before the enemy even has his shipyard down (Or then both players start doing this, which leaves the sea players gimped, mexless and unhappy)
IE, move the mexes closer to the sea (possibly even IN the sea, but that is a judgement call- coast is fine).
This wont be a good 1v1 map IMO. Mixed land-sea will make it too difficult to decide what are to contest for, and probably heavily favour rushing air as a second factory.
Map 1
Maps with hills in the centre are very dangerous. Often taking the middle will win you a game, even if you lose the flanks, because you can project power in all directions equally and if he flanks you on both sides, he splits his army. Equally, pushing downhill into an enemy can be very easy.
It is probably your intention to make the hills important, but the game will probably be decided really quickly by whoever rushes there most effectively.
Map 2
It is nice to integrate sea and land a bit more, rather than making just a 'lake' on one part of the map. A ship and land passable river running down the middle, or just outside each base, would allow ships to support land players and offer bombardment.
Map 3
Depending on size, these bases are either really close together, or the map is just enormous. It will probably create a game where losing your starting base is highly likely- meaning either fast-paced games and awesome nomadic comebacks (And FFA needs more of that) or games decided in really early compushes by who gets up a HLT/gets sandwiched between two pushes.
Map 4
There is enough metal in the sea that you need a player to start sea. Hoever, the mexes are far enough away from the sea that you cannot easily start ships. This is always an awful scenario. The sea will probably be decided by who is ballsy enough to start ships with 0 mexes and get a vette up before the enemy even has his shipyard down (Or then both players start doing this, which leaves the sea players gimped, mexless and unhappy)
IE, move the mexes closer to the sea (possibly even IN the sea, but that is a judgement call- coast is fine).
This wont be a good 1v1 map IMO. Mixed land-sea will make it too difficult to decide what are to contest for, and probably heavily favour rushing air as a second factory.
Re: What new map do you want?
I don't really agree with this, not for BA at least.Saktoth wrote:Map 4
There is enough metal in the sea that you need a player to start sea. Hoever, the mexes are far enough away from the sea that you cannot easily start ships. This is always an awful scenario. The sea will probably be decided by who is ballsy enough to start ships with 0 mexes and get a vette up before the enemy even has his shipyard down (Or then both players start doing this, which leaves the sea players gimped, mexless and unhappy)
IE, move the mexes closer to the sea (possibly even IN the sea, but that is a judgement call- coast is fine).
This wont be a good 1v1 map IMO. Mixed land-sea will make it too difficult to decide what are to contest for, and probably heavily favour rushing air as a second factory.
In a teamgame (let's say 3v3 which seems the max size it's well suited for), yes the player near the sea might not necessarily start ships, but that's ok. It just means you have more options. Vehicles for amphib cons, bots for the best economic start otherwise, air to disrupt the enemy starts, all of these can transition to hovers or just support the land battle too and disregard the sea. Or switch to ships as well, a single vette won't do shit other than make you build a bit of defense, and now you have 5 mexes when the opposing player is only starting to build his first. His allies building those 5 ground mexes will be significantly late too.
Or just straight to sea with/without mexes. Build a radar to see if the enemy will rush vette as you say, and then build defense on the land as needed.
I would almost never start with a vette without mexes actually, it's just too 1 trick pony, I don't see it having much advantage vs anything but fast sea con without mexes (which I could see myself doing).
And it's totally fine for 1v1. Sure you have a lot of stuff to consider, but to me that's just interesting instead of too difficult. Yes, air might be good (which is totally fine imo) but actually hovers seem like a still more consistent choice.