8c-BattleSkills

[WarTux]

Battle Skills! (8-player map designed for multiplayer) - Version 1.0

Licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0

A map designed for multiplayer games. It teams 4 noobs vs. 2 regulars vs. 2 pros. The noobs should be in the south (players 0, 1, 2, and 3), the pros should be in the middle (players 4 and 5) and the regulars should be in the north (players 6 and 7).

The noobs have 8 oil in their base and 2 nearby.
The regulars have 4 oil in their base and 2 nearby.
The pros have 2 oil in their base and 2 nearby.

Map features gateways, variable terrain, full advanced bases, and wide open plains for big multiplayer-style battles. Enjoy!

battleskills-preview.png

Noob bases


Open terrain between base areas


Pro bases


Regular bases

[WarTux]

Let me know if you want me to submit it into addons, although I doubt it will be sufficient since it is meant for unbalanced multiplayer games.

[Zarel]

As long as you state that prominently in the game description, it's fine.

[WarTux]

As long as you state that prominently in the game description, it's fine.

Okay, I'll submit it.

[Rman Virgil]

Let me know if you want me to submit it into addons, although I doubt it will be sufficient since it is meant for unbalanced multiplayer games.

IMHO, the shortfall needs to placed at the feet of the Add Ons judgment metrics and not in the concept or your execution, both of which have much merit.

Unfortunately, I am unable to truly evaluate the GP of this map because my MP pals are on hiatus till end of September - same reason I cannot finish balance testing my own AquaCoopAHMP and why I switched on the fly, by the seat of my pants, to developing SP 7 A.I. vs 1 Human ManGodAi4x, yet another design NOT accounted as legit & worthy by the current Add Ons judgment metrics (btw... AHMP = All Human MP.... Skirmish A.I. will not suffice for balance testing this type design or fulfill its intended game play context.)

There are other unconventional Map Type designs that also fall through the cracks of the current criteria set of acceptance with inherent consideration merit.

Another situation this exposes is the dearth of MP Map Testers ... basically 8 folks willing to robustly, & constructively, test New Maps & Map/Mods towards their optimization.

AND also - the complete lack of respect for the inherent value of those who would be willing to do this very valuable task.

Under those tandem pre-existing conditions what results are 1.) the perpetuation of 10+ year old conventions that serve a minority of players who derive self-esteem from their proficiency within conventional parameters , 2.) Creative Mediocrity, 3.) Fan base stagnation if not shrinkage 4.) Discouraging current, & future, active, vital, contributors.

- Regards, RV
.

[NoQ]

I think our famous Francesco/Platy team might like this map.

[Zarel]

IMHO, the shortfall needs to placed at the feet of the Add Ons judgment metrics and not in the concept or your execution, both of which have much merit.

I see nothing wrong with the addon judgment metrics, especially since you're responding to an assumption that has later been confirmed to be false.

There are other unconventional Map Type designs that also fall through the cracks of the current criteria set of acceptance with inherent consideration merit.

Name one.

These are the criteria for excluding a map:
- Map crashes Warzone
- Map doesn't match its description
- Map violates German law (usually copyright)

That people sometimes don't want to submit maps that pass these incredibly strict criteria is irrelevant.

[cybersphinx]

There are other unconventional Map Type designs that also fall through the cracks of the current criteria set of acceptance with inherent consideration merit.

Name one.

Two of the three River maps. And the reason for not approving is not among those you mentioned.

[Rman Virgil]

.

Also:

- "Insane" amounts of oil.

- Maps with no advanced bases

- What about maps that are integrated mods ? Where do they go ?

- Or maps with custom embedded A.I.

- Or what explicitly are the official baseline Review Criteria for submission acceptance ? Can a design that creates a Player Skill handicapping be fairly considered since it goes contrary to conventional balance precepts ? There's never been a public statement on that design, for example (or any innovative GP design) & thus it creates ambiguity which could lead to false assumptions. This is why codifying ALL baseline criteria is worthwhile - both on the initial submission side & later on the Official Review end.

This is a topic for a dedicated thread.

Let all Players & Mappers speak to it, not just a select coterie. That is how you go about achieving legitimacy & credibility. Defacto judgments can just as readily achieve neither & the whole edifice instead become an object of derision. At least that's how it works in RL contexts that are highly regarded.

- RV

.

[Zarel]

Name one.

Two of the three River maps. And the reason for not approving is not among those you mentioned.

Well, still, they're duplicate maps. A technical reason, not a quality reason. They've been accepted in lieu of a policy to the contrary.

- "Insane" amounts of oil.

We've never rejected a map from Addons for having large amounts of oil.

- Maps with no advanced bases

We've never rejected a map from Addons for having no advanced bases.

- What about maps that are integrated mods ? Where do they go ?

They crash Warzone, which is a valid reason for rejecting a map.

Why not just rename them from 4c-Whatever.wz to Whatever.mod.wz? Then it'll be a mod with an integrated map, which is perfectly acceptable.

In addition, I am working on a feature that will allow Warzone to support maps with integrated mods in a way that does not crash Warzone. When that happens, maps with integrated mods will be allowed into the addons section.

- Or maps with custom embedded A.I.

See above. Maps with embedded AIs are maps with embedded mods.

- Or what explicitly are the official baseline Review Criteria for submission acceptance ?

I've already reiterated the criteria. We accept all maps that don't match any of the rejection criteria:

- Map crashes Warzone
- Map doesn't match its description
- Map violates German law (usually copyright)

Can a design that creates a Player Skill handicapping be fairly considered since it goes contrary to conventional balance precepts ?

Yes, it will be accepted.

There's never been a public statement on that design, for example (or any innovative GP design) & thus it creates ambiguity which could lead to false assumptions.

It's true that I haven't given my acceptance criteria explicitly before, but I have now. See above.

Let all Players & Mappers speak to it, not just a select coterie. That is how you go about achieving legitimacy & credibility. Defacto judgments can just as readily achieve neither & the whole edifice instead become an object of derision. At least that's how it works in RL contexts that are highly regarded.

Sometimes, it seems that you do not realize that you are speaking on an open forum on which all players and mappers can speak.

We do not censor here, so if you have something to say, please say it instead of accusing us of preventing you from doing so.