Warzone 2100 Forums

NoQ wrote:

montetank wrote:

excellent_coloring.jpg

Excellent coloring, actually. That's the right way of painting rocky mountains for the new terrain renderer. Minimize gray, contrast snow and grass.

montetank wrote:

cliff_brush.jpg

But ... why? Why do something like that? Why not just always use cliff brush, like you did on the earlier maps? Those square patterns are easily visible and don't make sense.

It was just a experiment with the generator-i dont like the generator. The cliffs are stupid-you are right and the highmaps has something very NAZI in the symmetrical rotation. My next map-unsymmatrical a 250-250 map for 10 players is cliff-brushed tile for tile. It takes time. Give me 3 days. I like to change the cliffs. Also the smooth of the grass hills. And no flatten terrains in the new map.
I am near the end. So i made a wonderful landscape-inspired by Rman virgil. But .....my problem is to place the bases. Wasting 3 days, to place them. I want a low-oil map. To place the oils more or less "fair" is very difficult. I saw the advantage of some bases in positions and want to place the oil less in the near. But thats not fair against the player near by him, who has to fight against another player.

So- when i finished my 250 map- i will send you the map and maybe you will have some ideas how to place the bases. Your 249 map http://addons.wz2100.net/14
shows a good example of nearby "fair" start. I think it is easyer to find a solution in rockies.
I am surprised, that somebody has watched my maps.

montetank wrote:

cliff_brush.jpg

[But ... why? Why do something like that? Why not just always use cliff brush, like you did on the earlier maps? Those square patterns are easily visible and don't make sense.

My fault- i smoothed and forgot to unbrush/brush. ( My angles was at 30 %) Where is it exactly? It really make no sense

My next map-unsymmatrical a 250-250 map for 10 players is cliff-brushed tile for tile.

I do hope that you know that if you use the brush option here, you can click radious of 512 and then entire map will be brushed within second? I am not sure if I understand correctly.

I will brush tile for tile-we have in rockie many solutions for cliff-brush-especially for the triangles, Merowingg. Thats a reason why i dont like the Arizona map-tiles.

Merowingg wrote:

My next map-unsymmatrical a 250-250 map for 10 players is cliff-brushed tile for tile.

I do hope that you know that if you use the brush option here, you can click radious of 512 and then entire map will be brushed within second? I am not sure if I understand correctly.

I know that.

Ok I understand. Thank you for explaining. I like that you focus so much on details. I like Iceage for a particular interesting idea, and Trefoil for that it suits of what is expected. Very nice, do not be afraid to experiment with what you feel.

Merowingg wrote:Ok I understand. Thank you for explaining. I like that you focus so much on details. I like Iceage for a particular interesting idea, and Trefoil for that it suits of what is expected. Very nice, do not be afraid to experiment with what you feel.

2 months ago i thought, that it is very difficult to make a map. Now i see, that the generator make the maps. The only things what we have to do, is to make the terrain and some features. It is ok-why not? I made very nice 4 players map- like
the 4c-rush. But i dont want to post them here. I want to be creative. I will finish my unsymmetrical 250-map. And then i will focuse my work on symmetrical maps. I want to have fun to create new symmetrical maps. I read the discussion between you and NoQ. viewtopic.php?f=49&t=6005&start=405#p121594
I am not sure, if NoQ is right. I have some objection here. NoQ?

And thank you for the compliments. Everybody starts as MG. And some nice words are better as a power-upgrade

I am not sure, if NoQ is right. I have some objection here. NoQ?

I'm listening.

I will brush tile for tile-we have in rockie many solutions for cliff-brush-especially for the triangles, Merowingg. Thats a reason why i dont like the Arizona map-tiles.

On 3.1 most of these disappear. On all tilesets but urban you get just three options: full orthogonal cliff, half diagonal cliff, full diagonal cliff. On urban the latter is missing. All the different rocky glacier tiles are boiling down to the texture below them, but snowcliff tiles do equally well. And if you mean triangles as in 'which diagonal the tile is split at', this info is discarded by 3.1 as well (always split in four triangles at both diagonals instead). So all you need, in both arizona and rockies, is to place a *few* diagonal tiles on three-way and four-way connections of cliffs. On urban, you avoid three-way and four-way connections when drawing the heightmap.

Well I despise and detest the map generator. I may be right, I might be wrong, but it is a fact. It is as you said, the generator make the map for you, to some extent, and it is something I cannot stand. There is no map of mine where the generator was used. Yes I know all the good and bad points of that, yet I will not change my mind in the nearest feature. Eventually as an experiment, but I do doubt. My works are as a result of particular "look"

What is more important I like your passion and ideas, what I wish you is to remain that way for a longer time, as numerous mapmakers apeared here and even quiker vanished. I counted 11 so far.

Best wishes, and do remember to experiment and find your own way.

Mero.

It is a map made by the generator in flame. I think-the 4 player maps are the most difficult to win against Nullbot. I like this one. I cant win.. At first. Try to make some defense structures-thats the only way. A rush is possible- when you can handle quick. No Scavengers- just a map for fun. Try to win under 20 minutes. it is possible. But How? Tommorow a map without the generator-but it makes fun to play against Nullbot in this simply 4-player symmetrical maps

I forgot to say: Its enough oil-4 at the base and 4-5 very quick to capture. The generator put the oil in other places. I think, i placed them very well- ich changed the oil-places and made some more passages to the base. Maybe two oils more in the middle with scavs would be fine. But i like this one without scavs. Try it out. I never had some problems to win against Nullbot-but this one is very strong. Have fun

montetank wrote:I forgot to say: Its enough oil-4 at the base and 4-5 very quick to capture. The generator put the oil in other places. I think, i placed them very well- ich changed the oil-places and made some more passages to the base. Maybe two oils more in the middle with scavs would be fine. But i like this one without scavs. Try it out. I never had some problems to win against Nullbot-but this one is very strong. Have fun

I actually find it easier to defeat nullbot in four and two player maps compared to the five plus player maps. I generally prefer to play without scavengers but you should add a scavenger mode.

A map for players, who are professionals in near battles and masters in unit-handling. Theres is no direct way to the enemies. You have to choose the way to the center of the map. Here are the fight for the oil. I like this map. Without scavs there is action against strong nullbots after 3 minutes. I needed 4 attempst to win. Very hard.
Find your strategy. It is not a map for the research and defense-players. Have fun

A typically arizona map. OKcorral. Who was the bad? Who was the good? And who was the ugly?- last question is easy answerd-the scavs. It is a small 4 player map (90-90) with 4 oils at the base and 20 at the terrain +1 by the scavs. It is a quick rush-map. You must be faster as the Earps or Doc Holliday. Have fun

Hello. It is an experiment. I made a 8-player map (size 183) where the distance between the bases is 61, so its symmetric. But the terrain and the oil isn`t. Have fun.