Warzone 2100 Forums

1.) humans vs. humans

2.) humans vs. bots

3.) humans vs. landscape?

To complete the analogy (:

1.) humans vs. humans

2.) humans vs. bots

NoQ wrote:
3.) humans vs. landscape?

To complete the analogy (:

I would suggest that be a common denominator, sub-catagory, evaluation criterea for each which would include BOT vs. Landscape.

.

This doesn't make sense, you can't force anyone to divulge the information that you are looking for.

I agree.

No more than you can force a simple acknowledgment of historical fact or MPers to beta test GPM Mods or Maps with designed handicapping for newbies.

.

I think as has been done in the old addons and in forum showcase the author describes his/her maps to interest whom every they are building the map to target.
As for forcing folks to state if a map is designed using a height map of marolin munrows face or not is not needed how they make their maps is not the issue, that can be left up to the voters if a map is crap the vote will reflect that if a map is good then the later will be!
Otherwise why have a vote or rate option in addons.
No one is a total expert in all matters and them thats claim passion about this or that part of map making should leave it to the masses to deside thats why the new addons section is having a public rating system not just a few reviewers rating maps ..this is a fairer more open method.
Asking for every detail about methods used to make a map or weither the map maker is a good multi-player are not wanted or needed as far as I can see.
I do suggest a blog for each map maybe a small section for each rater to add a comment ..eg: (this is a wicked free for all map) or (this is a good bot mashjing map) and so on

Berg wrote:I think as has been done in the old addons and in forum showcase the author describes his/her maps to interest whom every they are building the map to target.
As for forcing folks to state if a map is designed using a height map of marolin munrows face or not is not needed how they make their maps is not the issue, that can be left up to the voters if a map is crap the vote will reflect that if a map is good then the later will be!
Otherwise why have a vote or rate option in addons.
No one is a total expert in all matters and them thats claim passion about this or that part of map making should leave it to the masses to deside thats why the new addons section is having a public rating system not just a few reviewers rating maps ..this is a fairer more open method.
Asking for every detail about methods used to make a map or weither the map maker is a good multi-player are not wanted or needed as far as I can see.
I do suggest a blog for each map maybe a small section for each rater to add a comment ..eg: (this is a wicked free for all map) or (this is a good bot mashjing map) and so on

+ 1

Funny you should mention Marilyn Monroe because I was thinking of making the same analogy about 12 hours ago then got side-tracked. Spooky - as in Quantum Mechanics spooky.

.

Rman Virgil wrote:

Berg wrote:I think as has been done in the old addons and in forum showcase the author describes his/her maps to interest whom every they are building the map to target.
As for forcing folks to state if a map is designed using a height map of marolin munrows face or not is not needed how they make their maps is not the issue, that can be left up to the voters if a map is crap the vote will reflect that if a map is good then the later will be!
Otherwise why have a vote or rate option in addons.
No one is a total expert in all matters and them thats claim passion about this or that part of map making should leave it to the masses to deside thats why the new addons section is having a public rating system not just a few reviewers rating maps ..this is a fairer more open method.
Asking for every detail about methods used to make a map or weither the map maker is a good multi-player are not wanted or needed as far as I can see.
I do suggest a blog for each map maybe a small section for each rater to add a comment ..eg: (this is a wicked free for all map) or (this is a good bot mashjing map) and so on

+ 1

Funny you should mention Marilyn Monroe because I was thinking of making the same analogy about 12 hours ago then got side-tracked. Spooky - as in Quantum Mechanics spooky.

.

Actually made one some years ago, not MM but similar. Very tedious map, like how a hopless flea might feel on the real thing...

Look at car designs ! You cannot make a car or what ever that every one wants . The same with maps .

But , what i did wanna say is this . No matter what map it is or looks like .

Is it playable ?

The only thing that map makers need to do is making maps that are playable at the right way where its designed for .

Is it a high base oil map ? Is it with allot walls to close your defenses quick ? Are there water barriers ? Are there hills that only can be explored with transporters ? Fortifications ?

I made my last map ( Total_War_4pl ) at a way that you need to make hovertrucks and transports for max advantage but if you host the map without anny VTOL then its a diferent map .
At low oil power you gett in oil problem to keep your production/dev up .
Started with T1 it can be a quick game because its a open base but in T3 quick rush is suicide .

Since il play this game VTOL use is dissabled for use . With that, you eliminate 30% from this game . Dev´s needs to ballance the VTOL´s so its usefull and not over powered agean . Dropping your units behind heavy fortification defenses must be a option . Without VTOL factorys not allowed and there for liminate the game .

Limit VTOL factory with 1 and vtol pads with max 4 or even only 1 is usefull agean .

Who wants a battle that takes hrs and hrs and hrs till you have killed all those heavy fortications and defence lines ?

Berg wrote:No one is a total expert in all matters and them thats claim passion about this or that part of map making should leave it to the masses to deside thats why the new addons section is having a public rating system not just a few reviewers rating maps ..this is a fairer more open method.

On the matter of public voting, maybe it would be a good idea to require some text to justify a vote, to prevent/detect "drive-by votes" from people who haven't really played a map, or don't like the creator or something.

cybersphinx wrote:On the matter of public voting, maybe it would be a good idea to require some text to justify a vote, to prevent/detect "drive-by votes" from people who haven't really played a map, or don't like the creator or something.

I'm for separating public and reviewers voting into two different scores.

Berg wrote:As for forcing folks to state if a map is designed using a height map of marolin munrows face or not is not needed how they make their maps is not the issue, that can be left up to the voters if a map is crap the vote will reflect that if a map is good then the later will be!

May i repeat my agreement with that again? To have better maps, we must promote tools that allow making better maps, not discourage their use!

I still believe a textarea for any external sources would be a good idea, even if the source is under CC0 and technically do not require the "-BY" thing...

Rman Virgil wrote:

Berg wrote:I think as has been done in the old addons and in forum showcase the author describes his/her maps to interest whom every they are building the map to target.
As for forcing folks to state if a map is designed using a height map of marolin munrows face or not is not needed how they make their maps is not the issue, that can be left up to the voters if a map is crap the vote will reflect that if a map is good then the later will be! ...[snip]

+ 1

Funny you should mention Marilyn Monroe because I was thinking of making the same analogy about 12 hours ago then got side-tracked. Spooky - as in Quantum Mechanics spooky.

.

The bases appear to be in the wrong locations

aubergine wrote:The bases appear to be in the wrong locations

.

aubergine bad boy

Within second I imagined two perfect locations

Those would be.. it will be.. as a man I of course will say.. ah yes the rules

Both top corners

Guys, map balancing is stupid for quite a few reasons:

1. Less Difficulty (if you fight with someone with a same skills as you, well it would be never ending stand still and betwen you and your enemy a "No Mans Land")
2. Not quite real (cmon never in history there werent balanced battlefield, only in world war 1 and some battles in 18/19 century)
3. Predictability of the route (specialy in the maps where are cannons... Easily places defence and one wrong move and you are out of a game and its not DOTA or StarCraft)

Current map desing is StarCraft/Dota desing, everything neatly balanced and that... Nothing heavy duty... Piece Of Cake...
Duke would beat the dog sh*t out of you...