Prefered map type?

[kipman725]

hello everyone I'm getting into mapping again and am thinking of ideas for maps. Do most people prefer geomteric maps that are easy on path finding or the more realistic curvey maps which are more natural? Also do you prefer maps that have combat on multiple levels (IE units can be on a cliff above other units) or combat on a single level where the game can cope with it better?

More:
Do you prefer maps that have large or small base areas? Do you prefer maps with lots of res or little? Do you prefer maps with steep slopes or relative flatness? out of the defulat tile sets which is prefered?

lots of questions just tell me what you like

[elio]

yeah cool
i like small base areas, lots of res out there, i'm not a fan of steep slopes, but plateaus with different heights
ok, i would like a king of the hill or a team map where some player can specialise on defense and someone producing tanks or building vtols
natural maps are cool, but it's harder to be fair to everyone

[Buginator]

I don't really like flat maps. While it may be good for path finding, and really easy to make, it just is too bland.
I prefer maps that make players think a bit, so each side would have multiple offensive/defensive rally points.
(Yeah, easier said than done. )

To be fair, the map would have to be symmetric for the most part, unless you are into map themes, where one player (perhaps the weakest player) picks the 'best' spot, and then the others pick 'harder' spots.
Or have maps like king of the hill type... or.. or...

Too bad the editor isn't that easy to use, and you have to read that tutorial 100 times, and then, make lots of practice maps before you understand all positions (if not symmetric).

[Tiberian]

i personally prefer natural maps, not annoying tournament map builds (although thats much easier to make)

they add a much better tactical factor to the maps, and also need experience to be properly played.

[kipman725]

hmm well I don't consider my first map suitible for genral release as its fundimentaly not fun but I would have to disagree with edit world been a hard editor to use only to setup so that it works properly. Once you have made one map it gets easier; A linux version is kind of important for me though. One annoying missing feature is the ability to rotate selections they can only be flipped which greatly increases the amount of repeated texturing that has to be done manualy.

At the moment I am thinking in terms of elevation for maps. Warzone has a 3d engine but many maps don't exploite this and play like RA2 maps. My idea is to have a rift with two zigzaging paths down the oposing cliff faces so that combat will happen accross the gluf. I'm not sure how the game engine will cope with this! but outcome it should be interesting.

[lav_coyote25]

hmm well I don't consider my first map suitible for genral release as its fundimentaly not fun but I would have to disagree with edit world been a hard editor to use only to setup so that it works properly. Once you have made one map it gets easier; A linux version is kind of important for me though. One annoying missing feature is the ability to rotate selections they can only be flipped which greatly increases the amount of repeated texturing that has to be done manualy.

At the moment I am thinking in terms of elevation for maps. Warzone has a 3d engine but many maps don't exploite this and play like RA2 maps. My idea is to have a rift with two zigzaging paths down the oposing cliff faces so that combat will happen accross the gluf. I'm not sure how the game engine will cope with this! but outcome it should be interesting.

another one that has not read the docs. ya gotta luv it!! anyways....

ok ! here it is... when in the editor - look at the top bar. click on map - then map preferences... at the bottom of that dialog box you have misc. - height scale - input a number from 1 to 5... only numbers from 1 to 5 will be accepted. 1 is flat - 5 can be huge bump... depending on the heightmap - which is in grey scale. black is lowest point white is highest point.

and all of this is noted in the tutorials. which if your interested are on this site in 2 places. in the wikki ( partially completed - people finding out how massive a job doing them really is and not completing them... just noticing...after doing the originals which took 6+ years.)

and the original documents project - located here: http://docs.wz2100.net/map%20tutorials/ ... index.html

and also here: http://members.shaw.ca/kgmetcalfe3/


also make note that you can use photographs (greyscale) to make your maps with. keeping in mind the black and white heights...

[kage]

I agree with Buginator and Elio in large part, and especially with the sentiment of NewTiberian. I'd also like to add that I like water, and reasonable amounts of it -- 8p-Manhattan will always have a place in my heart for that, but also the final campaign mission against the new paradigm -- if you want to cross with tanks, you've only got a small area to do it in, and hover units could easily flank -- there's a lot of risk in that, and it's up to the player to decide if the extra hp is worth it, and also to manage that risk by maneuvering the units well.

[kipman725]

cyote I understand height maps perfectly I was refering to whether the game could cope with units firing accross a ravine in the map well.

[kage]

cyote I understand height maps perfectly I was refering to whether the game could cope with units firing accross a ravine in the map well.

I've never seen any issues with that whatsoever, even when the engine used hit/miss instead of collision detection (during hit/miss, i think it still validated that there was an unobstructed ray / arc between the attacker and the target). If you mean ravine's large enough to usefully travel through (3-4 tiles wide), as are commonly found on maps, then including the valley walls, units on opposite sides would need to fire ~8+ tiles, usually more on the order of ~10 tiles, which just happens to be a longer range then most direct fire units can handle. In which case, you'd have to increase the average weapon range to have a good deal of cross-valley warfare.

[Alpha93]

Natural map,calls up for some more strategy...

[Tokaga]

I personally like the advantage of takeing hire ground. especialy when setting up artillery. multiple levels like the multiplayer map "dessert Mazes" was pretty cool for me

[RBL-4NiK8r]

Well as for anything firing over a ravine it will do that with all weapons as long as it is in range and you have Sensor towers up to see enemy units. As for map type anything besides TeamWar you dont want me to get into the whole flat boring map speech, even tho I killed countless number of players on it. I still think BigArticMyst was one of my best maps and it had oil all over the place and even had places to build mini bases with lots of broken up terrain thru out the map, and many of places to hide. Oh and as I recall that was 250x250 not an easy task for first time map makers, your better off building a few 2-4 player maps and working up from there. Digging into the far reaches of my brain I think 150x150 was what I used for most 4 player maps and that seemed to work well back in the day. The only thing I would add is that having 4 oil wells in base and 2 others right outside is a must, after that its all about finding and keeping what you find.


4nE

[rcbecker1]

I just want more maps with more stuff no flat rush maps those stink.

[Kharos]

I tend to prefer fortress maps, like little egypt, easy to defend, but hard to attack. I tend to turtle to make a match last a long time and be more entertaining for me personally. Dunno if that's what anyone else thinks.