Spring RTS Engine

This is not really a new map (already some month old). But i never put it on this forum.

Link: http://spring.jobjol.nl/show_file.php?id=1054

Description:

Size: 12 x 8
Players: 2 - 8

This map is mixed: sea on the south, river in the middle and hills on top. Its not completely symetrical, but quite balanced too. Crossing the river is possible north or in the south delta. It contains 4 geos and quite a few metal spots (average to low efficiency). There is also some trees (energy features) and obelisks (metal features). Wind is average.

The goal of this map was to allow a lot of different approaches: take sea and bombard, cross river fast and rush. Close one side and attack on the other. Use air transport to brind unit over the opponents head (north mountains). This map will not fit the rushers who like wide open plains, but will not be too porcy either since tactical mix (for example sea bombardment + land) can be used on many places to break defenses and fast expansion will be fruitful if you can cross the lockups of this quite small map before the ennemy could fortify it.

Feel free to add comments / suggestions.

I remember helping testing:)

Screens with shadows on, please. Would like to see it with a few units, make sure that the lighting's right. Neat map otherwise, could see it being fun for 1v1 or 2v2.

The obelisk features look smooth shaded on those screenshots. Also, link is missing.

it is a pretty map, I dislike the cutoff and abruptly ending terrain on the edges. It IS too small for gundam(which is where my interest is relevant) but it is very pretty.

I think it's pretty. but I find this map too small and unbalanced for left team...

SirArtturi wrote:I think it's pretty. but I find this map too small and unbalanced for left team...

Lol, so its imba for left team. Does that mean its balanced for the right team because they have an advantage?

Tribulex wrote:

SirArtturi wrote:I think it's pretty. but I find this map too small and unbalanced for left team...

Lol, so its imba for left team. Does that mean its balanced for the right team because they have an advantage?

its unbalanced for both temas i think he just meant that side has a disadvantage

hunterw wrote:
its unbalanced for both temas i think he just meant that side has a disadvantage

Yes thats what I meant...

For shadows: i tried to turn shadows on. Excepting the fact that it slowed the game down, only geo smoke cast shadows. Do you experienced the same? Is there an error in the map files?

NB: I added a link on the first post.

this looks extremely nice. I will give it a try

SirArtturi wrote:

hunterw wrote:
its unbalanced for both temas i think he just meant that side has a disadvantage

Yes thats what I meant...

how can a map be balanced for one team and unbalanced for another

that wat i wana know

This is almost certain that this map is unbalanced, so many ppl said that. The only question is "which side has the advantage?", and the answers to this were more or less half/half (less place left, but better lockup and closer to big obelisk, more space for right).

About map balanced for one team only: it is a constant in human psychology that balance is when the subject is advantaged a bit.

What ever peoples opinions about this map is, I must say the point I've said before; You can't please everyone...

The map is pretty and different, that's for sure. But will people find it suitable for their demands ? Can't say. However if we start to analyze the maps that have been popular and most played (Thinking of teamgame maps) You can find similarities that binds these maps together as being popular.

- Symmetrical landareas for each teams (At least basically)
- Sizes are big enough in terms to provide good starting areas to build up economy, as also to include areas for big battles...
- Metal layouts set so that it encourages expansion but also to give slight possibilty for porcing
- Heightmap designed so that pathing works properly

(Im not paying attention to visualization or the style about either its a flat or hilly map, because these aspects are not the point that im after)

As also, Im not saying that this is the right way to develop maps or stating that these are universal truths. These are just observation I've made.
The idea is that this map doesnt actually cover any of these points said above.

And now you must know that im not here to criticize. I just want to show that this kind of map may not be so popular because "general public" doesn't want this kind of gameplay. They are happy with their DSD, tabula, SSB, Altored Divide and so on...

Now you can have many opinions if this is a good thing or not. But I myself kinda support the idea to make maps that represents different gameplays than the regular middle concentrated, porcy, "balanced", stable maps that are starting to feel slow and boring.

Not that I've made maps to follow this idea Lol :D
But at least to give this idea a try and in future develop new maps in a way to make gameplay more variable and interesting...

I think it is a cool map.

SirArtturi wrote:The idea is that this map doesnt actually cover any of these points said above.

Have you found any pathing problems? Point two and three imply that the map is good for nvn, n>3, and that is why it doesnt satisfy those. (I realize that you were just observing what was popular.)

Weren't we supposed to be ditching those old palms?? Map does look extremely nice though.

aGorm

About porciness and unvariable gameplay:

I must admit that this map is quite porcy, but
- it is also quite small: if you manage to go past defense anywhere, you are quite close to ennemy base.
- you have a lot of different attack options:
* quick rush to get past porky lines before enemy could get it
* sea bombardment (if you can get through, you make huge damages)
* air drop, especially on the mountains
* go through the river vertically with amphibs
* jump over river (CA units)
* arti from above
* build behemoth to destroy ennemy pork
ennemy won't be able to deal with all these menaces easily (= no easy pork)

For the gameplay variations, i disagree with you about this map (at least from my experience). I have seen a plenty of different games: sea win, air drop win, fast win, 2h games... In addition to the different tactics described above, there is quite a few possibility to combine assault types (for example: sea bombardment to prepare land assault on the delta). So from my experience, this map is far less repetitive than DSD or even tabula.

This being said, you have the entire right to like it or not.

Marmoth wrote:
For the gameplay variations, i disagree with you about this map (at least from my experience). I have seen a plenty of different games: sea win, air drop win, fast win, 2h games... In addition to the different tactics described above, there is quite a few possibility to combine assault types (for example: sea bombardment to prepare land assault on the delta). So from my experience, this map is far less repetitive than DSD or even tabula.

But this is what I'm trying to say. Haven't said otherwise... Sometimes it may be hard to understand my complicated english interpretation but if you read carefully you can get the idea :>