|
Post by Blother Had Me Like on Sept 8, 2013 19:57:51 GMT
I would like to start a thread strictly to handle ideas for new maps. Keep this thread serious please. I will a list a few things that I would like people to do when talking about maps.
-Pretty much all ideas are helpful as long as people are being serious about them
-Be descriptive of how you think a map should be/look like (function-wise)
-Post pictures/sketches of maps you think would be useful to have
-Don't post about how things look. This thread is solely focused on how maps function/gameplay design
-Be creative. Think of maps that change how we play the game a little bit, and would be fun (basically something we would actually play)
Some things I have noticed that people tend to like/ideas I think would be good to have:
-Team-oriented/TvB -Close-quarters/small maps (less about macro + level 5, more about micro/skill/quicker) -We do need some better water maps -A 2v1 map for people that may want to test their skills -A better 5 player map (starfish blows) -A 2v2v2 map (only one is ice swirl? and its pretty big)
I put the thread together real quick, so it probably sounds rambley/shitty, but you guys get the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Sept 8, 2013 20:05:56 GMT
How the map looks is important too. I don't really want to play on a map, no matter how well-made it is in terms of strategy, if it looks like bollocks.
|
|
Dom
Snowflake
Posts: 24
|
Post by Dom on Sept 8, 2013 21:07:43 GMT
How the map looks is important too. I don't really want to play on a map, no matter how well-made it is in terms of strategy, if it looks like bollocks. You can make any map look good but you can't make any map play good.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Sept 9, 2013 1:11:16 GMT
People shouldn't be releasing maps if they can't do both.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Sept 9, 2013 11:00:05 GMT
I agree.
...
Wait, damn.
|
|
|
Post by Blother Had Me Like on Sept 9, 2013 14:11:26 GMT
I don't want to play on a shit-looking map, but looks fall second to gameplay. People will probably play a map that plays well and looks shitty over a map that looks good and plays poorly. Of course this is all from a more competitive perspective. That is way, for the purpose of this thread, the looks are the maps are not important to discuss. Once we get an idea of what people are looking for in a map, the artistic portion can then take effect.
Don't worry I am not trying to make ugly maps, but we have too many maps that look good and no one plays, and that should be fixed. I am looking to establish a better map-making process, so people aren't wasting their time.
|
|
|
Post by BARRY MANILOW on Sept 9, 2013 16:46:25 GMT
I think every reply so far has been rendered moot by alansugar's comment. Additionally, I want to put some work into Cenote. Here are some things. - It was designed to show off Tellurizoom and has batshit elevation. However, not everyone uses those camera settings, so it needs to be flattened considerably to be playable for everyone.
- This also fixes dumb things like cliffs being too high for ranged units to be able to attack things on the top.
- I like the general layout, but I feel there is too much space wasted with cliffs and decorations.
- Faaaar too much coal. I made this before I ever played online and wow.
- I think there are a good amount of geysers.
- Widen the side chokepoints. At the moment they really just serve to funnel armies through the center.
- The ramp-accessible expansions are too easily defended. I'm fondling of removing some of the cliff and adding water access near them.
- Probably keep the clifftop expansion, because gyrocopters can be used to great effect here.
- Add a nice beach directly behind the labs instead of a cliff mass.
|
|
|
Post by Blother Had Me Like on Sept 9, 2013 22:36:33 GMT
Cenote is kind of weird with how the bases are pretty much wide open, while the rest of the map has fairly small choke points. Before you go and update Cenote to get more popularity it might be worth noting what makes a 1v1 map good.
Vacation has always been an extremely popular map, so we should get input on why people like it over other maps.
Also, I think harbour/smoke stack (same yes?) is a pretty great 1v1 map, even though most people haven't spent much time on it. I like that it incorporates water option and a land option. It also has good choke points and incorporates the use of the gyro. The only problem I have with it is that it seems to be pretty one-sided. One base is almost completely open, while the other is very easy to choke off with fences. I'm sure good players would try to counteract this by being aggressive, but with two players of equal skill it might sway the game in favor of the one with the top base. Maybe look into making this map a little more even before cenote? I still like the map regardless though.
|
|
|
Post by BARRY MANILOW on Sept 10, 2013 4:17:17 GMT
Smoke Stack (Harbour is Puglin's shameless copy) has a couple of things to work on as well, mostly on balance as you said. The base sizes are actually quite different, the coal is a couple of tiles closer to the lab in one and the cliff placement leaves one base more vulnerable.
I'm definitely going to work on Cenote, and actually have a plan for the changes to be made. I will have a look at other maps to get an idea of what kind of layouts work.
There will probably be some prototypes for playtesting in the admin section at some point, hopefully to get some perspectives other than mine.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Sept 10, 2013 10:15:37 GMT
Goddamn it I made harbour completely independent of smokestack and it was accidentally exactly the same xd. So embarrass.
I kind of want to make a 2v2v2 map that can double as a 1v1v1, but doing that would require odd team ordering-- normally with a 2v2v2 the first two people are on one team, the middle fellas are on another, and the third team is comprised of the last two. But if I want it to double as a 1v1v1, I'd have to make it so that players 1 &4, 2&5 and 3&6 are on a team, and that runs the risk of tripping people up.
Also:
Considered this, but eventually decided against it because I figured it just wouldn't get much play. 'Course, most of my maps don't get too much play-- at least, not by people who aren't me or Matt or Steve or Phil-- so I guess the point is moot.
I pick looks over gameplay (within limits), and new people in particular would agree with this. You need aesthetically good maps. Neeeeeeeeed.
Still, aesthetics is not the purpose of this thread, so go on.
What makes a good water map, seriously. Because there are heeeaaps. Keeping in mind that in the past I've gotten complaints for making bases water access only, because some older players seem to think it's a sin to have amphibious creatures below level 4.
...
I also don't understand why people hate large maps so much. I enjoy having room to manouvere, especially in a world full of bluemodo whales.
I mean, shit, Sniper was complaining that medium is too large for a 3v3 map.
|
|
|
Post by BARRY MANILOW on Sept 10, 2013 10:49:17 GMT
Then make him a small 3v3 map.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Sept 10, 2013 11:10:21 GMT
*Gestures helplessly at Mesa*.
|
|
|
Post by Blother Had Me Like on Sept 10, 2013 12:22:36 GMT
The thing with big maps is that it just takes too long for people to attack each other and what not. We definitely should have armies with amphibious creatures below level 4, and I know mut even has an army for that which he beats me with on crag all of the time.... I'll try to draw something up for what might be nice for a 3v3, but I have no problem with people not really agreeing with ideas because I am just looking for them to be discussed.
I don't think the visual aspect of a map is why people really play it. Just look at the most common maps and how visually lacking they are (especially eroded). That is why I like harbour/smoke stack (I need to check out the difference lol) because it is very functional and also great looking.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Sept 10, 2013 14:51:36 GMT
Honey eroded is gorgeous. It's just simple. It's not about a map necessarily standing out, it's about it looking good enough that I don't notice its looks.
For instance, almost every user-made map I've ever seen just doesn't feel like IC because it doesn't look right, y'see.
Anyway. Name some maps with features you don't like, I'll see what I can do. For example, people didn't like how choke-y nova was, and that's a pretty good call. Uuuuhhm. I've found that generally maps that are too complicated don't perform well...
|
|
|
Post by Blother Had Me Like on Sept 10, 2013 18:44:48 GMT
That's actually a good point.
I'll try to take a look at some of the maps that I think that could be mad better. The only problem is that most are not designed to be team-oriented, which is what I would like to see more.
Why aren't we playing on floe, crag and high tide anyways? Everyone is still sticking to eroded and ice and like tier (or something like it).
|
|