Has anyone ever made a generally-accepted outline of what a "good" map should and should not contain?
For instance, it occurs to me that maps almost universally have about 300% too much metal for the gameplay that I intended when I made AA. I made Altored Divide at the very maximum upper limit for "good" gameplay, and people tell me there's not enough metal.
That's because map makers, by and large, just don't seem to understand how important of a role they play. A mod is only as good as the map it's played on. That is the absolute truth and it makes sense.
When I work on a mod, I have to have things in mind like, "is this unit going to be available in the early game?" The "early game" however, only lasts until 25% or so of the players involved have L2. After that, mohos and fusions change the dynamics of the game dramatically. So, what I'm really asking is, "will this unit be available at such a time as the player does not yet have enough metal income to make the jump to L2."
This is tremendously important. If I make a unit that is too expensive for general usage at L1, but then "too expensive" is made a moot point by a map that has an asston of metal, now it's just a unit that's overpowered. And all the other L1 units can be spammed with reckless abandon because they cost NOTHING.
In OTA, a metal spot gave you a maximum of 2 metal in almost all circumstances. When I say "almost all" I mean that - there was like one metal patch, once, on one single map, that would give you 2.3 metal or something. And those 2.0 patches were TREASURED. People would fight an entire battle over one 2.0 patch because the vast majority of the patches only gave you 0.8 or 1.2 at best.
And you know what "good" metal income was for the first 5-10 minutes? On most maps, there was only enough metal for each player to get 4 or so even if they spread out a bit. 4 metal income!
More metal does not equal more fun or better gameplay. EVER.
Does anyone feel similarly on this? I'm sure mod makers and OTA players in general probably feel this way. Please share your thoughts.
What do you think is a good amount of metal to be found at a start location? In my mind, +3 is the maximum. A short distance, say, within a radius of 3 normal commander LoS ranges, might yield you another +3 at best.
Wind should never output on average more than 2/3 of what solars do, ever, ever. Wind is supposed to be for the very beginning of the game and for emergencies. Altored Divide gives you 11.5 average, with a maximum of 19.
Geothermal spots should not be abundant. Except for rare cases or very large maps, there should be 4 per map at the most. A more reasonable number might be 1 or perhaps 2!
Land itself is a resource, and map makers often don't seem to realize this. OTA maps did not usually have tons of free unoccupied flat land. You had to expand into dangerous territory if you needed more space.
OTA maps also had many routes of attack. Too often I see maps with one or two chokepoints at best, and this simply isn't enough. There should be areas of land which are easily traversed by kbots, but which have too steep a grade for vehicles to climb quickly if at all. There should be water occasionally - not necessarily enough to build in, but water creates natural boundaries and is conducive to interesting strategy.
Map makers need to realize just how important their role really is. Maps should be designed for gameplay first before anyone even thinks about how to make it look good for screenshots. Make a drawing, figure out what terrain features you find interesting, imagine scenarios in your head and how they might play out if you make a map a certain way.
Does anyone have anything to add? I think this is something I've never seen properly addressed. I can hardly blame map makers when they release something that isn't ideal when there are no readily-available guidelines on what's good, what's bad, what's ugly.
Map guidelines
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Map guidelines
You are dead wrong on a number of points there C.
I'm only going to address one of them however, and namely that its the mappers fault that we have these problems. For a good long time people followed the old style of OTA map design, rare metal, few geos, multiple checkpoints, even the engine was tweaked to allow old-style metal extraction "spots"... and also made these maps look awesome at the same time.
Everyone played on metal-heck, then someone made speed-metal and everyone played on that.
Most players want lots of metal and lots of flat space to build on... its their fault that most maps suck.
I'm only going to address one of them however, and namely that its the mappers fault that we have these problems. For a good long time people followed the old style of OTA map design, rare metal, few geos, multiple checkpoints, even the engine was tweaked to allow old-style metal extraction "spots"... and also made these maps look awesome at the same time.
Everyone played on metal-heck, then someone made speed-metal and everyone played on that.
Most players want lots of metal and lots of flat space to build on... its their fault that most maps suck.
Re: Map guidelines
Make M income lower in AA(don't forget that this will mean you have to make metal makers harder to build though or you will screw your current balance and people will spam makers more than you wanted them to).
It will be easier for you to adjust your mod to the many maps out there than to expect mappers to change their habits.
Another thing is that you yourself object to the OTA "shooting through units" but on maps with many narrow pathways and hard pathing the "AA" style of no shooting through units and buildings makes construction and microing units into ranges of fire a nightmare.
Not only are you forced to make sure they all walk exactly on the path you want you also need to make sure they all stand in the correct position so they can fire.
These issues are easier to deal with if units can shoot one through the other.
In "AA" variants it's obviously a pain and i think that's one of the reasons people,intuitively,want more open spaced maps.
In OTA this was less of an issue.
It will be easier for you to adjust your mod to the many maps out there than to expect mappers to change their habits.
Another thing is that you yourself object to the OTA "shooting through units" but on maps with many narrow pathways and hard pathing the "AA" style of no shooting through units and buildings makes construction and microing units into ranges of fire a nightmare.
Not only are you forced to make sure they all walk exactly on the path you want you also need to make sure they all stand in the correct position so they can fire.
These issues are easier to deal with if units can shoot one through the other.
In "AA" variants it's obviously a pain and i think that's one of the reasons people,intuitively,want more open spaced maps.
In OTA this was less of an issue.
Last edited by Gota on 16 Aug 2009, 18:09, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Map guidelines
Or make a mod-side LUA gadget that replaces the built in metal map with your own, corrected one... this will take lot's of clever thinking and will probably be impossible... but whatever, your Caydr
Re: Map guidelines
Unfortunately Gota that's what it's come to. I sincerely hope this won't turn into an arms race between modders and mappers, each respectively reducing and increasing the metal available to players.
Sinbad, as a modder I must do things to my mod which players will not immediately recognize as being a good thing. I make units less powerful, I tweak things in various ways, I take away abilities, I give abilities, I remove units, I add units. I must do it to make the game fun in the long term, and not just cave in to shortsighted players. Mappers have the same responsibility.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying mappers are doing something wrong, I think that they are underestimating the amount of power they really have. I've never once heard someone say, "wow, I'm not finding this mod enjoyable, let's get the mapper to change the map." People on the whole don't seem to realize that mappers really have so much power over everyone, even if they themselves don't realize it.
Sinbad, as a modder I must do things to my mod which players will not immediately recognize as being a good thing. I make units less powerful, I tweak things in various ways, I take away abilities, I give abilities, I remove units, I add units. I must do it to make the game fun in the long term, and not just cave in to shortsighted players. Mappers have the same responsibility.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying mappers are doing something wrong, I think that they are underestimating the amount of power they really have. I've never once heard someone say, "wow, I'm not finding this mod enjoyable, let's get the mapper to change the map." People on the whole don't seem to realize that mappers really have so much power over everyone, even if they themselves don't realize it.
Re: Map guidelines
I certainly understand the position mappers are in too - they're afraid that if they don't make a map with a ton of metal, people won't play it. But look at the lobby right now: there are only FIVE speedmetal games. It's taken a long time, but people have begun to realize that it gets old.
Perhaps some collaboration with autohosters would be beneficial. If we compile a list of maps that are based on good design principles, and get autohosts to begin using those more regularly, people will be forced to change their way of thinking. They probably won't realize it immediately but it will do them a world of good.
Perhaps some collaboration with autohosters would be beneficial. If we compile a list of maps that are based on good design principles, and get autohosts to begin using those more regularly, people will be forced to change their way of thinking. They probably won't realize it immediately but it will do them a world of good.
Last edited by Caydr on 16 Aug 2009, 18:11, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Map guidelines
The problem is that any moron can make a bad map... its just like in the old days of OTA, you released a nicely balanced version of AA and the first thing people would do is drop a bunch of crazy over-powered units into the directory. The only real way to impose the kind of guidelines you are referring to would be to maintain an "approved map list" like Kernel Panic does.Caydr wrote:Unfortunately Gota that's what it's come to. I sincerely hope this won't turn into an arms race between modders and mappers, each respectively reducing and increasing the metal available to players.
Sinbad, as a modder I must do things to my mod which players will not immediately recognize as being a good thing. I make units less powerful, I tweak things in various ways, I take away abilities, I give abilities, I remove units, I add units. I must do it to make the game fun in the long term, and not just cave in to shortsighted players. Mappers have the same responsibility.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying mappers are doing something wrong, I think that they are underestimating the amount of power they really have. I've never once heard someone say, "wow, I'm not finding this mod enjoyable, let's get the mapper to change the map." People on the whole don't seem to realize that mappers really have so much power over everyone, even if they themselves don't realize it.
I suppose if there was a list of "good maps" maintained somewhere and as you say, you could get auto-hosts to agree to only host those "good maps" it would definitely improve the situation.Caydr wrote:I certainly understand the position mappers are in too - they're afraid that if they don't make a map with a ton of metal, people won't play it. But look at the lobby right now: there are only FIVE speedmetal games. It's taken a long time, but people have begun to realize that it gets old.
Perhaps some collaboration with autohosters would be beneficial. If we compile a list of maps that are based on good design principles, and get autohosts to begin using those more regularly, people will be forced to change their way of thinking. They probably won't realize it immediately but it will do them a world of good.
Re: Map guidelines
Then let's do it! I want to move things forward, that's why I made this post. I'm willing to do anything I can to help, and you can probably remember that when I'm not in a mood to just mess around I can be a good person to have on your side.
Do you think a good place to start would be start a thread where people can post their favorite maps, maybe ones that are underappreciated, etc?
Map makers have a lot of power but without support from everyone we can't change things. The people who run autohosts, the mod developers, everyone needs to work together and we can start to change things for the better where maps are concerned.
Without good maps, it doesn't matter how good a mod is, it won't be fun. If the mods aren't fun, our player retention will be harmed a lot more than by my colorful tendencies in boredom.
We have some incredibly talented mappers, I don't need to tell you that. But if people at large don't get to understand the difference between "good" maps and speedmetal, things will continue to go the direction they do now - more and more metal, more and more geos, etc.
Do you think a good place to start would be start a thread where people can post their favorite maps, maybe ones that are underappreciated, etc?
Map makers have a lot of power but without support from everyone we can't change things. The people who run autohosts, the mod developers, everyone needs to work together and we can start to change things for the better where maps are concerned.
Without good maps, it doesn't matter how good a mod is, it won't be fun. If the mods aren't fun, our player retention will be harmed a lot more than by my colorful tendencies in boredom.
We have some incredibly talented mappers, I don't need to tell you that. But if people at large don't get to understand the difference between "good" maps and speedmetal, things will continue to go the direction they do now - more and more metal, more and more geos, etc.
Re: Map guidelines
I'll not post much beyond this... map options can be added to a mod. As in you can effect map stats...
setopts.lua
setopts.lua
Code: Select all
maxmetal = {
'maxmetal', 'Max Metal', 'Maximum metal density',
NumberOption, mapInfo.maxmetal, defValues.maxMetal,
0.0, 10.0
},
Re: Map guidelines
I'd like to present a couple of case studies. Both of these maps are ones I'm very familiar with, mainly because I made them and because at least one of them (guess) became highly popular. I'm limited to 3 attachments per post, unfortunately...
Example 1, Altored Arctic:
The map features multiple attack routes. Kbots give you the advantage of being able to take high ground anywhere you go, and they can also fire while partly-submerged in water. Vehicles of course are all-round powerful, but they have difficulty firing at times when traversing the shallow water. Hovers are incredibly useful because they can zip across from any point A to any point B directly, bypassing conventional defenses. Ships as well are useful because they can pass through the shallow water, except for the largest ones. They bring lots of power to bear.
The shallow water creates tons of choke points and opportunities for ambush, because passing through water slows units down so much. There is a valid reason to build virtually any AA/BA unit on this map.
The metal distribution is equal to all players and very light. The map is intended for 2v2 or even 4v4. There's some metal underwater, but only enough to give you a small advantage if you can reach it. The main battle is supposed to take place on on land.
It would be fair to say that all things considered this is the best map I've made - and I'm including the couple dozen OTA ones in that too. This one just plays amazingly well, and there are a lot of things in it that you just don't see anywhere else.
Most importantly, it is extremely difficult to block off attack. Defenses function as I intended them to - as supplements, not replacements, for units. Coordinated team play is critical.
Example 1, Altored Arctic:
- a_arctic.jpg (150.29 KiB) Viewed 1922 times
The shallow water creates tons of choke points and opportunities for ambush, because passing through water slows units down so much. There is a valid reason to build virtually any AA/BA unit on this map.
- a_arctic_metal.jpg (115.44 KiB) Viewed 1921 times
It would be fair to say that all things considered this is the best map I've made - and I'm including the couple dozen OTA ones in that too. This one just plays amazingly well, and there are a lot of things in it that you just don't see anywhere else.
Most importantly, it is extremely difficult to block off attack. Defenses function as I intended them to - as supplements, not replacements, for units. Coordinated team play is critical.
Last edited by Caydr on 16 Aug 2009, 18:41, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Map guidelines
Thank you for the reply Smoth, that will help with some of the problem if I can find a fair way of implementing it. But what I'm talking about here goes far beyond just metal distribution.
The second example is the one everyone knows about: Altored Divide. But maybe people don't think too much about why it's popular. It's not really pretty. It's mostly flat. It doesn't stand out at all until you play on it.
Altored Divide (btw, a previous nick of mine was Altor) is fun to play on because there are SO many routes to attack through. Unless you have a very skilled team, you will find it virtually impossible to build effective defenses across the entire width of the middle.
However, it is easy to defend the 3 major choke points that lead into your base, creating objectives that your team can work together on. If you can break down one of the three major chokepoints, you have an opportunity to do serious damage. Again, team play is VITAL. Every player is important and they all realize it.
But if you attempt to defend the 3 major choke points too strongly you will lose control of the middle, along with the 4 geothermals and all the metal. You can't afford to take it easy, you must keep the pressure on at all times, like a tug of war.
Another important thing is this - the center is obviously contested, but compared to the rest of the map, it's not a very big area, only about 1/4 of the map's usable space is there. So if you're strong enough you can push right through in one attack without losing too much to attrition from nearby plasma, bombers, gunships, etc. It's like there's an inferno in the middle and if you dash through fast enough only your clothes will get singed.
If you have a bunch of choke points in a row, it feels like each time you break through one it's not very important. That's why I made the central area have such a wide open space with lots of obstacles. In any one route through it, you only have to actually pass through two or three good locations to build defenses.
As you can see from the metal map, there's a lot more resources to go around on this one. But it's intended to be played with at least 8 people, preferably 10 or more. Each start location starts out with only a modest +6 metal, with only a small amount more for each player nearby before you're forced to compete for the resources in the middle.
The second example is the one everyone knows about: Altored Divide. But maybe people don't think too much about why it's popular. It's not really pretty. It's mostly flat. It doesn't stand out at all until you play on it.
- a_divide.jpg (129.88 KiB) Viewed 1917 times
However, it is easy to defend the 3 major choke points that lead into your base, creating objectives that your team can work together on. If you can break down one of the three major chokepoints, you have an opportunity to do serious damage. Again, team play is VITAL. Every player is important and they all realize it.
But if you attempt to defend the 3 major choke points too strongly you will lose control of the middle, along with the 4 geothermals and all the metal. You can't afford to take it easy, you must keep the pressure on at all times, like a tug of war.
Another important thing is this - the center is obviously contested, but compared to the rest of the map, it's not a very big area, only about 1/4 of the map's usable space is there. So if you're strong enough you can push right through in one attack without losing too much to attrition from nearby plasma, bombers, gunships, etc. It's like there's an inferno in the middle and if you dash through fast enough only your clothes will get singed.
If you have a bunch of choke points in a row, it feels like each time you break through one it's not very important. That's why I made the central area have such a wide open space with lots of obstacles. In any one route through it, you only have to actually pass through two or three good locations to build defenses.
- a_divide_metal.jpg (89.37 KiB) Viewed 1917 times
Last edited by Caydr on 16 Aug 2009, 23:59, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Map guidelines
Also, I'm not trying to promote my maps, I'm trying to promote the principles they were designed with. Being in the rare combination of both modder and map maker, I have an excellent perspective on how TA-based mods should play, and therefore ways that maps can be made most enjoyable.
By highlighting the unique features of these two maps I hope I can help other map makers to appreciate how important they are.
Altored Divide didn't become popular because it's pretty, or because it's outstanding in some gimmicky way, it's popular because it's fun to play on with other people and it is a baseline for what a map *should* do to complement the mod being played on it.
By highlighting the unique features of these two maps I hope I can help other map makers to appreciate how important they are.
Altored Divide didn't become popular because it's pretty, or because it's outstanding in some gimmicky way, it's popular because it's fun to play on with other people and it is a baseline for what a map *should* do to complement the mod being played on it.
Re: Map guidelines
I think the conclusion of this thread will be:
If you want Caydr maps ask Caydr to make more of them XD.
If you want Caydr maps ask Caydr to make more of them XD.
Re: Map guidelines
Regardless of the type of player it is commonly associated with, Delta Siege Dry is also reasonably well-made. It incorporates multiple attack routes, varying types of terrain, and reasonably good metal distribution. The middle ground is extremely wide and therefore difficult to turn into a doom fortress:
Unfortunately it falls flat when you realize that there are literally only two ways to attack your enemy, and one of them can be made virtually impassible by building only light to medium defenses, since it is so narrow. It's a killing field, or rather, killing ramp.
So it turns into a fairly simple contest of brute force. Lots of units die on both sides and it basically turns into a staring match. The first person to look away at an inopportune time loses the middle for their whole team, and the game ends a few minutes later.
- dsd.jpg (111.51 KiB) Viewed 1899 times
So it turns into a fairly simple contest of brute force. Lots of units die on both sides and it basically turns into a staring match. The first person to look away at an inopportune time loses the middle for their whole team, and the game ends a few minutes later.
Re: Map guidelines
Different map requirements for different Mods and Games. I can't wait to see zwzsg's offering for KP map requirements.
Also, virtually none of the newer flesh has played on Altored Divide. I haven't seen any games on it beyond some 1v1 I played in about... oh, six months.
Also, virtually none of the newer flesh has played on Altored Divide. I haven't seen any games on it beyond some 1v1 I played in about... oh, six months.
Re: Map guidelines
i've made some mistakes in my resource distribution in my maps, and i sort of think that's why they never really achieved much popularity (chicken maps aside, but that is cheating, because i'm the only person to obsess over chicken map designs)
part of the problem with the resources... players seem to rarely look at the number of participants a map is designed for, and will just cram themselves in like sardines. my maps were sort of designed around this (wasn't wise of me) so that the last person to load out of a team of 8 would still have a reasonable amount of resources.
to me, its more of a problem to have too small an amount of resources than too much; like the scenario of people fighting over the 2 spot; i dont know, i guess i just don't find games like that as fun; i like a good chunk of macro thrown in with my micro; maybe im just not that great of a player, but i really hate losing that 2spot and realizing that i've pretty much just lost the game.
also, throwing a lot of metal down in the middle of the map reduced the amount of porc someone can pull off; if they stay at home, they will be soon be overwhelmed by a much stronger enemy force.
so really, i guess what im saying is that i can agree with all of the points you make; but at the same time it really is a preference thing... some people prefer one style of gameplay, others prefer a different style, some people just have no ambition to try new things and can't function outside of certain types of maps. im sure some people might feel that greenfields is the best map; others may feel that speedmetal is the best map. i may feel that they are stupid for having that opinion, but in the realm of opinion it stays because there will NEVER be a set formula for "this is how you make a perfect map that plays awesome and everyone will like it."
for me, as long as the map is balanced, im down to give it a try.
i've actually been working on a remake of altored divide; its a fun map and i've always looked at it and thought it could make some conceptual changes to open up the gameplay a bit (surrounding it with a sea may happen, a la tundra by hunterw)
part of the problem with the resources... players seem to rarely look at the number of participants a map is designed for, and will just cram themselves in like sardines. my maps were sort of designed around this (wasn't wise of me) so that the last person to load out of a team of 8 would still have a reasonable amount of resources.
to me, its more of a problem to have too small an amount of resources than too much; like the scenario of people fighting over the 2 spot; i dont know, i guess i just don't find games like that as fun; i like a good chunk of macro thrown in with my micro; maybe im just not that great of a player, but i really hate losing that 2spot and realizing that i've pretty much just lost the game.
also, throwing a lot of metal down in the middle of the map reduced the amount of porc someone can pull off; if they stay at home, they will be soon be overwhelmed by a much stronger enemy force.
so really, i guess what im saying is that i can agree with all of the points you make; but at the same time it really is a preference thing... some people prefer one style of gameplay, others prefer a different style, some people just have no ambition to try new things and can't function outside of certain types of maps. im sure some people might feel that greenfields is the best map; others may feel that speedmetal is the best map. i may feel that they are stupid for having that opinion, but in the realm of opinion it stays because there will NEVER be a set formula for "this is how you make a perfect map that plays awesome and everyone will like it."
for me, as long as the map is balanced, im down to give it a try.
i've actually been working on a remake of altored divide; its a fun map and i've always looked at it and thought it could make some conceptual changes to open up the gameplay a bit (surrounding it with a sea may happen, a la tundra by hunterw)
Re: Map guidelines
I am fairly positive that it is possible to find a "formula" for the making of fun maps for say,BA.
The point is to not take a map and tell us why it seems to be fun.
IMO the point is to give a general design and rules that if map creators stick to them they will produce maps that will be definitely fun to play on with BA.
Suck a codex will probably give rations of map sizes,abundance of resources,number of players and so forth.
Stuff like pathing difficulties can be integrated into it and texture quality and maybe even the color or colors of a map texture..
The point is to not take a map and tell us why it seems to be fun.
IMO the point is to give a general design and rules that if map creators stick to them they will produce maps that will be definitely fun to play on with BA.
Suck a codex will probably give rations of map sizes,abundance of resources,number of players and so forth.
Stuff like pathing difficulties can be integrated into it and texture quality and maybe even the color or colors of a map texture..
Re: Map guidelines
i disagree... there may be a formula to which maps can be checked against to ensure that the play will work, but there are far too many factors in a map to be able to say definitively if it will be good.Gota wrote:...a "formula" for the making of fun maps for BA...
the quality of a map is subjective; someone could really love a map, while others may not; it's a perception issue, perhaps they will play the map and enjoy it, perhaps they will not.
im not discounting your idea, certainly it would be possible to devise a formula to measure a maps flow and gameplay; but by trying to set a rigorous guidline in this manner, i feel you would remove creativity and interest from the map design process. the biggest problem i see here is deciding how do to account for peoples preferred styles of play... some people inherently prefer flat maps, some prefer hills, some prefer to have a sea while others do not.
dont get me wrong... i believe you could design such a formula for the maps that YOU like, but even if you make something that fits perfectly to your formula of what you feel to be a perfect map, undoubtedly it will not please everyone, as there is always a question of playing style and preference.
that been said, a basic guideline for creating a maps might be a good idea; but at the same time if maps get play-tested before they are released, then they technically shouldn't need a formula (unless the map is pathetic to begin with, in which case, the creator probably should play more and learn things before attempting again)
i feel that inspiration brings the best results... i truly believe an inspired mapmaker will do a better job than one working from a formula.
Re: Map guidelines
drawing 600 lines leading into 3 tiny chokepoints does not make 600 ways of attack, it makes three. This is why altored is/was popular.
Re: Map guidelines
I have to add that there is one thing you're not looking at as you jusdge these maps. One reason why I dislike playing games on Altored Divide is the massive slippery slope the map has. Not only does the failure of one ally lead to the team's demise, even a small intrusion can strike a mortal blow to the enemy team.
A situation that exemplifies this is playing a game against Regret on this map. He will, 4 times out of 5, transport his commander around your AA and annihilate your base from the inside out.
A situation that exemplifies this is playing a game against Regret on this map. He will, 4 times out of 5, transport his commander around your AA and annihilate your base from the inside out.