Warzone 2100 Forums

Hello.
Just noticed some new maps was added into further 3.1.1 release.

I suggest add some high oil maps, because people like it
I know high-oil games considered as 'wrong game' here.. but high-oil maps are absolute popular in lobby (ever since i've started play in Multiplayer lobby 2-3 years ago).

There is plenty of high-oil maps.
My favorite is 'FireFight' map (not really high-oil)

List of maps which i suggesting to add into Warzone

DA-firefight4x4
viewtopic.php?f=49&t=9342&p=104406&hili ... ht#p104412

DA-firefight5x5
viewtopic.php?f=49&t=9342&hilit=FireFig ... 30#p104414

This maps are licensed by CC0-license do what you want (in first post in related thread)


I will make patch which adds these 2 maps.

hmmm-i like the Duda-maps
But i don`t want to see the high-oil multiplayer-maps pre-installed. The symmetric sk-maps are better to learn the game for newbies. If they solve the campaign and the installed skirmish maps, i am sure that the new players will visit this site and download the maps from the addon-section.

So, as i have to learn english, let the new members learn the basics of the game

Regards

montetank wrote:The symmetric sk-maps are better to learn the game for newbies.

I think high-oil maps is more easier for newbies, because they dont need to search oil, do not need to know efficient research paths etc.
"Lazy" users dont like "to learn" game. They like play game without any learning. Players learning games when they really like these games.

Searching for oil has nothing to do with tastelessly high amounts of oil. You can keep 8 oils in your base and 0 around, you don't have to make 40 oils in your base and 0 around.

Also, exploration of the map is not learning; it's actually much more enjoyable for a skirmish player than a dull map where you know everything by just looking. Only when it comes to competitive matches will you find it necessary to actually learn the map in advance.

I think the problem of preferred power levels should be solved in a different way. For example by allowing a 10x oil multiplier in GUI. It'd be much better than making users click oils 10x more times (cookie clicker 2100 here we go).

NoQ wrote:You can keep 8 oils in your base and 0 around,

Do we have pre-installed maps with 8 oil at base and 0 around?

NoQ wrote:Also, exploration of the map is not learning; it's actually much more enjoyable for a skirmish player

Skirmish mode is playable very good at low-oil.
But in MP good knowledge of oil is key to victory.
Strategy of grabbing oil is vital, and last tournament showed it clearly.

NoQ wrote:tastelessly high amounts of oil

NoQ wrote:than a dull map where you know everything by just looking

Well, 90% Lobby players are dullards. I belive better have 100 dumbass users than 10 clever players
That continues for years. Players play high-oil maps, project community just rejects it.

NoQ wrote:I think the problem of preferred power levels should be solved in a different way. For example by allowing a 10x oil multiplier in GUI. It'd be much better than making users click oils 10x more times (cookie clicker 2100 here we go).

I agree but 10x power on low-oil maps will be not good because high oil means large armies, defenses etc. no place for it on small maps.

NoQ do you agree to include FireFight map into list of maps? (~20 oil per base, as far i remember)

I think we expect included maps to be somewhat balanced. By including high-oil maps we sign up to making sure game balance makes sense on most of them. I think only maps that are targeted by game balance should be included with the game. In the sense that the notion of balanced stats is not well-defined unless we impose strict map making limitations. So it all still doesn't make much sense to me.

Well, 90% Lobby players are dullards.

I think you keep forgetting that 90% players never touched multiplayer at all.

Strategy of grabbing oil is vital, and last tournament showed it clearly.

As far as i remember, the map used on this tournament explicitly promoted this strategy by over-spreading the oil.

no place for it on small maps.

So we still don't need to include high-oil maps; we just need to include large maps (?)

NoQ wrote:I think only maps that are targeted by game balance should be included with the game.

agreed, but who decide what is target of game balance?

NoQ wrote:I think you keep forgetting that 90% players never touched multiplayer at all.

Ok. i'm care about 10% MP players.

NoQ wrote:So we still don't need to include high-oil maps; we just need to include large maps (?)

Yes, but first need x10 or x5 power income modifier in start game settings.
...we have several large maps already.

NoQ wrote:

crab_ wrote:Strategy of grabbing oil is vital, and last tournament showed it clearly.

As far as i remember, the map used on this tournament explicitly promoted this strategy by over-spreading the oil.

We have several maps with oil over-spreading in list of pre-installed maps (Roughness, Bananas).

One more argument for high-oil (med-oil)
Team games 4x4 and 5x5 are played more fun on med-oil or on high-oil than on low-oil. One cause is shape of research tree and shared research.

- do you agree to include FireFight map?
- can we have more maps with increased amount of oil? 10-20 per at players bases it is ok.


I'm agree high-oil games are dull, but people play it. Rejecting of high-oil games is just Wrong Way.

Really what is the problem with including a few NTW style maps with the game, is the world going to end or something???

Some people like Hi Oil some like Low oil. Which is better has been argued to death, so maybe it is good to move and on agree that Hi Oil maps are here to stay, that the players who enjoy these type of Hi Oil games deserve to be respected and listened to just as much as any other.

In regards to inclusion, maybe reward Rexy's contributions to the game by including a few of his maps? R_exysBorgTower is lovely map and I would love to see this included.

No, it wasn't discussed well enough yet. I've so far never seen a qualified player (knowing both game types well enough) agree that high oil produces more strategical and/or tactical variety, regardless of certain fixable balance issues in both game types. I see no reason to expect two sorts of games to work. Instead, it makes much more sense to fix whatever balance issues remain in one of them.

And i strongly believe that the main responsibility of any author or artist is to keep its tastes above tastes of his audience.

It was already pointed out that many commercial games (including starcraft) suffer from popularity of maps with unlimited resources. Yet i've never heard that any commercial game agreed to include such maps in their default setup (even though adding extra maps in after-release patches or official expansions is quite natural). I believe this is for a reason. And it would be a complete nonsense if they tried to fix balance to adjust to these maps, even despite your argument suggests it would mean more money for them.

who decide what is target of game balance?

This is based on propositions quite far from balance discussions. Consider realism argument, for example. Map landscape in a good game should be believable. This actually makes a good game. While map symmetry is a forced tradeoff for multiplayer balance (and even that can be effectively avoided), map landscapes should make sense for an observer. A single isolated oil resource does make sense; a 4x10 axis-aligned rectangle doesn't: it is obvious, simply by looking at it, that the landscape was never meant to look that way. From this it is obvious that it is the aesthetic argument that should define the overall target of balance development (even though balance development itself should completely disregard aesthetics in questions of its competence).

We have several maps with oil over-spreading in list of pre-installed maps (Roughness, Bananas).

And i agree it is a major flaw (at least on Roughness). Roughness, by the way, is also overoiled (16 oils per player). In fact many pre-installed maps should have never been included. They were included only because better maps were not made yet. We also have pre-installed maps with poor unrealistic landscapes, such as Ziggurat, and clearly unfair maps, such as Manhattan or Highground. If they were proposed for inclusion today, i think most of the default maps would have been instantly rejected.

do you agree to include FireFight map?

This map is not bad, by the way. It has 18+2/3 oils per player, and it's quite well-placed. So i actually don't have much objections apart from that it's landscape is not realistic.

reward

If anything, i'd rather encourage IJustDontCare to make more maps like 6c-NavalPort. I agree that duda makes nice maps, but this one is just a step ahead of anything made over the last few years (haven't seen anything close to that quality since probably Fingolfin's few maps; never managed to produce anything like that myself).

NoQ wrote:I've so far never seen a qualified player (knowing both game types well enough) agree that high oil produces more strategical and/or tactical variety

Team games 4x4 and 5x5 on high-oil are not worse than the same games on low-oil and that high-oil games are provide same 'strategical and/or tactical variety'.
Note: i compare team games 4x4 and 5x5.
High-oil games more balanced teams, more dynamic, more tech used, more tank designs used.
It is much easier to find even team on high oil than on low-oil.

Teamplay works better on flat maps.
If you see weak ally on low-oil games, this ally is just resource waster, and this very annoying. Also i remember when i was blamed as 'resource thief' in team low-oil game. I just got some oils around.
In low-oil game you have to kill weak enemies first because you getting 100% more power from each enemy base.
In low-oil team 4x4 5x5 games games happes mostly as 1vs1 + 1vs1 + 1vs1 + 1vs1 instead of 4vs4.

NoQ wrote:And i strongly believe that the main responsibility of any author or artist is to keep its tastes above tastes of his audience.

I can't accept this argument.
How you can decide your tastes are stay above than tastes of other people?
Some player can consider low-oil games are tasteless.

NoQ wrote:It was already pointed out that many commercial games (including starcraft) suffer from popularity of maps with unlimited resources.

How game can suffer from popularity of something?

NoQ wrote:Yet i've never heard that any commercial game agreed to include such maps in their default setup

I played online multiplayer in strategy game "Cossaks - Art of War". High-oil style was included as option in start game settings (and games played on random maps).

NoQ wrote:Map landscape in a good game should be believable.

High-oil maps designed for good teamplay.
It is just hard to keep both good teamplay and good realistic landscape.
Players who like realism are satisfied, they can use current maps.

NoQ wrote:We also have pre-installed maps with poor unrealistic landscapes, such as Ziggurat, a

We have to remove these bad maps.

NoQ wrote:If anything, i'd rather encourage IJustDontCare to make more maps like 6c-NavalPort. I agree that duda makes nice maps, but this one is just a step ahead of anything made over the last few years (haven't seen anything close to that quality since probably Fingolfin's few maps; never managed to produce anything like that myself).

Is this 6c-NavalPort well licensed? Why not include into pre-installed list of maps?

Well. For me is most strong argument against high-oil: Warzone is not designed for high-oil by many ways.
Units too large, too cheap, artillery too strong etc.
To make high-oil games better we have to make units smaller
I think Warzone is not team game. Many thing not designed to use in team game.

I just dont understand why need open flame discussion. Just agree with fact: high-oil is most popular in multiplayer and it should be normal to have 1-2 medium oil maps in list of pre-installed maps.

Really what is the problem with including a few NTW style maps with the game, is the world going to end or something???

Really, what is the problem with searching for, with catching up and with holding some oil derricks? Is the world going to end or players are too lazy or something if they have to do that?

It is much easier to find even team on high oil than on low-oil.

Teamplay works better on flat maps.
If you see weak ally on low-oil games, this ally is just resource waster, and this very annoying. Also i remember when i was blamed as 'resource thief' in team low-oil game. I just got some oils around.
In low-oil game you have to kill weak enemies first because you getting 100% more power from each enemy base.
In low-oil team 4x4 5x5 games games happes mostly as 1vs1 + 1vs1 + 1vs1 + 1vs1 instead of 4vs4.

All of this is "everybody is a noob because they are taught to play high oil" (see how games suffer from that?) problems or "there was something wrong with the map i played on" problems, they have nothing to do with tactical variety. Also, i fail to see why loosing when you play worse is a problem. Also, you can set power generator limit to make sure you cannot take 100% enemy or allied oils: it'd be the same as high oil (which has a limit too), just low. Also, on low you can take quitter's oil; on high you actually loose a player.

more dynamic, more tech used, more tank designs used.

What's a "dynamic"? What sort of techs and tank designs you see underused on low oil? Apart from a few balance problems that need to rather be fixed than believed in, including some attempts to "improve high oil balance" some time ago, i'm not seeing much of these. Even defenses, imho, are not too much underpowered; consider BeggarsKanyon top vs. bottom - a good map that has both wide areas for tactical combat and narrow chokepoints for good defenses. On the other hand, i point out that high oil games lack aspects such as research spending control and advanced combat tactics.

How you can decide your tastes are stay above than tastes of other people?

Well, seriously? You believe that, for example, classic music and pop music is "all the same, someone likes this, someone likes that", and musical tastes of people who can hardly repeat their favorite melody should be "targeted" by any respected musician, without turning away his current audience? Of course there are little formal criteria in art, but 99% of the time you can easily see what sort of taste is "above". And whenever i hear that "tastes cannot be discussed", i instantly understand person who says things like that is not worth talking to at all, he just instantly ignores any reasoning by saying that.

I played online multiplayer in strategy game "Cossaks - Art of War". High-oil style was included as option in start game settings (and games played on random maps).

That's what i'm for too: including as an UI option.

high-oil is most popular in multiplayer and it should be normal to have 1-2 medium oil maps in list of pre-installed maps.

Well, high oil is quite different from medium oil, isn't it?

It is just hard to keep both good teamplay and good realistic landscape.

I think when people speak about "high oil" they mainly mean "unlimited oil" and "instantly". In this case, "high oil" is the same like cheating. Today they like to get unlimited oil immediately, tomorrow they like to get units with unlimited ammo and power and so on. And this doesn´t make any sense in terms of "play"...

Anyway, the tl;dr, regardless of tastes, seems to be as follows:

• We're currently in a situation when "beautiful" and "popular" are mutually excluding.

• Including ugly stuff in the base game installation is clearly a wrong way of solving this issue.

• The solution preferred by me is to make beautiful stuff popular:
  • Fix balance issues.
  • Allow more game setup:
    • Flexible power levels.
    • Probably also flexible research:production price ratio.
• The alternative proposed here is to make popular stuff beautiful:
  • Create high-oil maps that look better.

get units with unlimited ammo and power

Well, i wouldn't mind having units with limited ammo and power (in some other game probably ...)