Spring RTS Engine

Oh yeah. More ballz.

Each ball has own geo spot in middle, so it fits with Kernel Panic mod.

Download:
http://spring.unknown-files.net/file/28 ... tar_6_Way/

Chinese checkers!

Erom wrote:Chinese checkers!

c'mon now, its not big enough for that... you need two more rows in the star pattern

smoth wrote:dear.. god.... why?

I dunno smoth, that map, might just actually be fun to play... I have an odd feelin bout it..

The corners still have room for more balls.

NOiZE wrote:The corners still have room for more balls.

Only, it doesn't make a bit of difference guys.

Should slope downwards to the black areas which should be water... would be neato.

I'm man enough I don't need more balls...

I think its very possible there is enough speedy balls released now trademark, maybe move unto a new theme, like triangles, hexagons or a non-grey texture

But then i cant call them speed balls.

Caydr wrote:Should slope downwards to the black areas which should be water... would be neato.

Agreed - I wouldn't mind these maps so much if at least the landscape was interesting. Personally, I'd make the bridges between the balls sloped and have the balls all at different heights.

Sorry, Trademark - normally I'm all for simple, clean, utilitarian maps... but this looks like you just added more balls stuff onto previous speedball maps, which in turn were just speedmetal with circles.

Pxtl wrote: Personally, I'd make the bridges between the balls sloped and have the balls all at different heights.

Do this please! Make them pillars instead of balls. I think that would be extremely awesome!

smoth wrote:dear.. god.... why?

Why indeed

Pxtl wrote:Personally, I'd make the bridges between the balls sloped and have the balls all at different heights.

But then its not fair.

TradeMark wrote:

Pxtl wrote:Personally, I'd make the bridges between the balls sloped and have the balls all at different heights.

But then its not fair.

You can still make the heights radially symmetrical. You just have to maintain trilateral symmetry with the heights (assuming 6 non-allied players) or hexelateral symmetry if you want it to be fair for 4 seperate(non-allied) teams as well as 6.

Do you follow?

For example, heres how I'd plot the highpoints of the map (for trilateral symmetry:
Obviously, my design could be bad gameplay - I have no idea... but it's fair. Note that each player has the same access to highpoints and lowpoints. The only time it would be unfair is a game where you have 4 independant teams. Oh, I should've rotated it 60 degrees, that way it would be left-right symmetrical instead of top-bottom symmetrical, but you get the idea.

The simplest case would just be to do a "bowl" shape, where the corners are highest and middle is lowest, but by using a trilateral approach you can get a little more variation.

The effect of the hills becomes obvious: downhill zones are easy to invade, but hard to hold if the enemy also has downhill access to them.

Where do we need heights anyways? Just for making it "different" ? ITs just annoying to climb hills IMO.

I dont understand how downhill differs from uphill. You walk that hill as fast to both directions. And its very slow walking. Which why it becames annoying.

How about this: Make a real map, with, you know, terrain.

Speed Ball is starting to be overdone don't you think?

I dont have enough skills for real maps TBH.

How do you know, when you never tried ?