Team maps Mapmaking Workshop (2v2, 3v3)

Need for new good-quality, competitive maps

Information and discussion for custom maps and mods.
User avatar
Wippie
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 12:41 pm

Post by Wippie » Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:43 am

Hi Frenzy,

Cool initiative. Will try to support you as soon as I return from NYC.

Please check out #entry 16 from the map making contest 2017. http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... ht=contest

It won in the 2v2 category, but is still far from perfect, altough I think the setup with one forward position and one backward position will be the future of teamgames for sure.

Feel free to play around with it as you like.

eskimo
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:59 pm

Post by eskimo » Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:58 am

Re that game i mentioned. Hi got base walked/rushed minute 1 by the opponent, i was on his team. With support and his good play the opposing team failed. This caused the opposing team to loose.
This seems to happen every game.

The ability to expand backwards keeps your eco up while growing your eco slowly. Then you can just play the meta and walk the opponent.

I think this map definitely confuses the regular big team players.






That #16 map entry. Whilst this is an assumption based on the picture, it looks like a rush to the island map = win. This is a reason why i dislike the current team maps. It's too easy to shut down lanes and eco sources and then turtle up.

User avatar
Materianer
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:27 am

Post by Materianer » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:38 pm

Status Update:
first i drawed the Yin Yan Symbol with water on a 125x125 map.

Image

After adding the cliffs, beach and roads it looks like this.

Image

Dont forget to muddle the water ( by clicking on it like a crazy guy ) if you just filled it with shift, loOk the difference between pic 1 & 2

Next step will be the decoration stuff trees and such.

You have a nice suggestion for a name?
something like "Buddhas Return"

User avatar
FRenzy
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:00 am

Post by FRenzy » Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:17 pm

Hey guys sry for the late reply :
Wippie wrote: Hi Frenzy,

Cool initiative. Will try to support you as soon as I return from NYC.

Please check out #entry 16 from the map making contest 2017. http://www.sleipnirstuff.com/forum/view ... ht=contest

It won in the 2v2 category, but is still far from perfect, altough I think the setup with one forward position and one backward position will be the future of teamgames for sure.

Feel free to play around with it as you like.
Hey man ! Thanks for your help :)

Looked at it. This is interesting indeed. The team spawns setting can be interesting to play.

eskimo raised some good critics, I think I have others too, so I might propose a new layout later on.
Do you have replays for this map, or a general view of how this map played out ?


eskimo wrote: Re that game i mentioned. Hi got base walked/rushed minute 1 by the opponent, i was on his team. With support and his good play the opposing team failed. This caused the opposing team to loose.
This seems to happen every game.

The ability to expand backwards keeps your eco up while growing your eco slowly. Then you can just play the meta and walk the opponent.

I think this map definitely confuses the regular big team players.
I guess this is what I'm looking for :)

On another subject, I still feel that the eco on this map isn't good. I've played it, and it felt to me I was always on a knife's edge. I had to constantly put refineries down, ore was drying out very fast.
Hopefully I hadn't strong opponents to contest the mid patches. Had it been the case, I would have been so broke, and forced to go get my backside ore.

I'll make a V0.4 later, by changing the ore placement. Maybe a bit more ore overall (from 240k to 300k ?), with more ore at start, and a bit less in the middle (maybe even deleting central patch?)

What are your thoughts about it ?
Materianer wrote: Status Update:
first i drawed the Yin Yan Symbol with water on a 125x125 map.

After adding the cliffs, beach and roads it looks like this.
Hey man, thanks for your input !

I have a few critics/propositions for your map, if you like :)

- the cliffs seem too long to me. I mean that there are no connections between lanes : you can't exit the lane to go to another one. I believe this should be avoided.
Let's say : put 3 wide openings on the horizontals cliffs

- the tiny horizontal 1-cell bridge : they make the entire lane feel like a 1-cell lane (a lane is as narrow as its narrowest point IMO). I wouldn't put them, OR as previously said I'd make openings between lanes, so those bridges can be avoided if possible.

- big bridges : maybe they should be destroyed at game start ? To allow naval movement. And to force engy usage, if a player wants to open the bridge.


Looking forward to see your future steps :)
Materianer wrote:
You have a nice suggestion for a name?
something like "Buddhas Return"
Zen Attitude :lol:

My (dormant) YouTube channel : FRenzy OpenRA
Join the map-making train here

eskimo
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:59 pm

Post by eskimo » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:13 pm

I have a replay for you on Jungle 0.3. Shall i stick it on gamereplays? Luckily got 6 experienced players on it, but the game didn't last long.

Regarding ore. Yeah, the middle is certainly key. The map certainly needs a fast expansion to the back field ore with 1 harvester per patch.

I find with the right build order you can float really quickly.

User avatar
FRenzy
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:00 am

Post by FRenzy » Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:32 pm

eskimo wrote: I have a replay for you on Jungle 0.3. Shall i stick it on gamereplays? Luckily got 6 experienced players on it, but the game didn't last long.
Definitely ! Need this.
Or even post it directly here, as you prefer.

My (dormant) YouTube channel : FRenzy OpenRA
Join the map-making train here

User avatar
FRenzy
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:00 am

Post by FRenzy » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:25 pm

Design check-list / process

I thought it would be a good idea to identify the design points that make a good map, and try to apply them during the map design.

I've been skimming through OMnom's thread, trying to identify and sort out the main points, and adding a few ones. Go to that thread for more details.

This list can serve as a reference, and a check-list to verify that the different points are verified.

Of course, this won't be probably the starting point to design a map, but will be probably be used in an iterative process, focusing on 1 idea / subject at a time. I would probably go through the process I've listed : after a CONCEPT, go through MAP SIZE, LANES, OBJECTIVES, MONEY, TEAM COORDINATION. I think it's one possible way to think map design.

Anyway, here's the list :

----------------------------------------------------------------------

MAP SIZE :
- References :
Orelord : 61x61 - small
Sidestep : 96x96 - medium/big

128 might be a limit to an acceptable map size.

- big map = more space to design the map, create lanes and zones
but too big = difficult to see all the map, to cooperate, long distances for armies. (games becomes too long ?)

- spawn-to-spawn distance (R ratio)
small : more options early game (rush). enemy base first = high value target
high : less options early game. expansions = high value targets.
no necessarily better option, but gameplay will be different

----------------------
LANES :

- Length :
short, normal, long, air lanes
shorter routes should be riskier ? VS longer routes more rewarding (ex: possibility of sneak attacks)

- Number of lanes :
In 1v1 : 1, 2 lanes maps don't offer a lot of strategical variety. At least 3 lanes required.
In team maps : At least 3 per player. More than 3 in total, but some lanes can be shared.

- Lane size :
Open, very wide front (cf Pitfight) : can be considered as a multi-lane. Maximum mobility. But might be less interesting, strategically-wise (absence of obstacles)
10(+)cells : big lane, good for maneuvers / engagements. Counts as 1 lane.
5 cells : medium/choky lane, but can pass a whole army through it if undefended. Counts as 1/2 lane.
1-3 cells : secret passage (sneak attacks, ...). Small / slow (muddy) lanes are hardly usable for army movements. Counts as 0 lane.


----------------------

OBJECTIVES :
- contested areas of interest
ex: contested ore mines.
- make them "meaningful, but not be required to win"
ex: "get mid first or die". (like in Agenda, NW Passage, ...)
i.e. : should not be : primordial objective / very central / unique (equilibrate with other objectives)

- strategical values :
economy (get or deny eco), map control (control lanes), access to enemy base

- value : high / medium / low
articulate them : each area should get access to 2+ others ?
give a good number of them : 3+ high / medium per player, + some low ones ?
vary the types (ex : high eco but low map control, secured expansions VS deniable expansions, etc ...)

----------------------
MONEY :
- starting ore :
- references :
2ref SD build with 2 harvesters costs 11.3k
3ref 3 harvester build costs $13.8k
- start with at least 18k / 20k in starting resources in order to allow for different types of games
- maps' starting ore :
Sidestep : 31k, comfortable start, can early tech. But ore can be denied quickly (camping main field)
Behind the Veil : 17k

- References : total ore, mines, derricks per player :
Sidestep : 50k, 6 mines (2 expansions needed), 1 derrick. Eco is correct, if expanding correctly.
Patches : 32k, 6 mines (4 expansions needed), 1 derrick. Eco is tight, needs dropping many refineries early game.

-> 40-50k, 6 mines, 2-3 expansions seem to be good values

- avoid middle, shared, and vulnerable ore mines : tend to lead to snowball and stalemate situations.

- ore placement, chokes, cliffs
Makes ore fields more or less vulnerable (ex : tesla ore field over a cliff, very vulnerable)
Depends also on obstacle's orientation.
Make sure to know how vulnerable and accessible each ore patch should be, and by whom.

----------------------
TEAM COORDINATION :
(results of previous points)

- size of map : too big = unable to see what happens at ally's base. Will become 1v1s against facing opponents
- accessibilty to ally's / second enemy base : openness of lanes, cross lanes, ...
- relative players spawns
(ex : front + back (support) player ? or side to side ?)

My (dormant) YouTube channel : FRenzy OpenRA
Join the map-making train here

noobmapmaker
Posts: 1086
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:59 am

Post by noobmapmaker » Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:43 am

Nice write up, also thanks for the Omnom economy overview. I was looking for that info but couldnt quickly find it. Valuable information!

Lately I was thinking about 1v1 maps and personally I think maps are more fun when its not very easy to tell which parts of the maps are essential to have/occupy/control, and when its not obvious where to expand to. Also the lanes do not have to be very strictly seperated by cliffs/water/river. In summary I think that when you look at a map it should not be easy to tell where players will first expand, or if they have an army on spot A that the only route to B is through a striclty seperated lane. So if you spot the army @ spot A and you know it wants to go to B, you know for sure it will pass that lane. When you look at your sidestep-lane-image you can see that theres a wide variety in ways to move from A to B, making it less predictable and giving the player various options - which is fun.

There are other ways to create lanes which are less strict (strict = impenetrable: river/cliff/water). Penetrable ways to create lanes: trees (dense or not dense), debris (dense or not dense), passable water like in Apocalypse Now, houses (destroyable) or fences/brick wall (destroyable).

Also if there are places that are extremely strategical then make it more difficult or impossible to build a base. Can be done by using debris or trees (impossible to destroy) or by placing actors (houses/fence, etc - destroyable) and ore (harvestable). With the last two options players can create space to build a base but it takes time and effort to clear up the space. And again I like to give a player options: if you make it impossible to build a base there is no choice. But you can also leave some space so that it is possible to build a base, but it would require more carefull planning ("ok so I have to deploy here, destroy this then I can build there, then something small can be built there" - like in the center of Pitfight).

Also in the map editor we have the Gate. Im not sure if it works! But if Im correct its a gate that lets friendly units pass and needs to be destroyed by enemies if they want to go past it.
Playlist with ALL games of the Dark Tournament Youtube.com/CorrodeCasts
Consider supporting OpenRA by setting a bounty or by donating for a server

User avatar
anjew
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 4:16 am

Post by anjew » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:02 am

Materianer wrote: -snip-
This is actually quite inspiring to see that a map layout can be that easy to conceive.

I usually avoid making maps because I'm not creative visually but seeing how you conceptualised this actually gives me some confidence.
Image

eskimo
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 9:59 pm

Post by eskimo » Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:05 pm

Nice write up, will need to have another go at some map builds.

Didn't realise the replay file was too small, and that we can host here. Durrrrrr :lol:
Attachments
OpenRA-2017-06-26T203348Z.orarep
JungleWar0.3
(1.86 MiB) Downloaded 74 times

User avatar
FRenzy
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:00 am

Post by FRenzy » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:59 pm

eskimo wrote: Nice write up, will need to have another go at some map builds.

Didn't realise the replay file was too small, and that we can host here. Durrrrrr :lol:
Hehe, quite handy indeed ;)

Thx for the replay. It confirmed what I was feeling : with good players, this map shows flaws, that I'm not satisfied with.
Mainly, the middle pit and ore patches are very subject to turret wars, which is exacerbated by the team maps (turrets spawning 3 times faster ... that was painful to watch lol).
Also, confirmed that eco is not placed correctly on the map.

I will try to change the map soon.

Also, I guess I will start focusing a bit on 2v2, as a first step before doing 3v3 map making, which seems a bit more difficult to handle.

Thanks eskimo !

My (dormant) YouTube channel : FRenzy OpenRA
Join the map-making train here

Blackened
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 6:27 pm

Post by Blackened » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:31 pm

I'm assuming that replay was the game I played in which I bowed out after i looked south and saw my teammate getting rolled over. I felt very choked off on the top. Who ever moves their MCV between those two expansions(where eskimo did) is going to control both those ore fields pretty easily. My position was too cramped behind.

I imagine this map has a very high R value forcing very aggressive play. Maybe lengthening the map vertically would help. Right now no matter where you go you run into an ore field (which means running into a base)

User avatar
Clockwork
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:50 am
Contact:

Post by Clockwork » Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:32 pm

It would be nice if someone remade Mad Science. Its a personal favorite 2v2 map but there's loads of troubles in it with bad ore placements in the center and the bio-lab etc.

User avatar
FRenzy
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:00 am

Post by FRenzy » Wed Jun 28, 2017 11:50 am

Quick reply during my work pause ^^ will elaborate later :

PROBLEMS / ANALYSIS OF THE MAP :
- choky : narrow lanes, too much obstacles
too much lanes
- ore patches close to each other.
- mid = high value point.
"get mid ASAP". little variety of choice.
- high R value. players, key points are too close

http://imgur.com/0jDNvWH
Image


POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS :
- less but wider lanes
5 circular lanes ... but in fact : 10 lanes ! when cutting mid
- reduce obstacles
- bigger map
- change spawns ?
further away (lower R), less circular, ...
- less ore patches, more ore.
- contested ore should be less rewarding ?
less central ore

NOT CHANGING :
- map size : easy fix. also, testing might reveal current siez (128c) doesn't work for 3v3.
but want to keep refining map at this size. to see if it can work .
- changing spawns (further from each other, to get lower R) :
i don't like putting players in a corner : it would mean only 1 direction of expansion (towards center, no backwards), and also safer bases.
I want to keep trying with current positions
- changing circular spawns, into sth else :
will try on a different map.


PROPOSED CORRECTION :
- 5 to 3 lanes, >10cells each. mid lane links main bases
- strategical points :
force player to go backwards, towards safe and bigger ore patch, but lose mid patches.
or make him go mid, to two separated small patches, which means loss of time ot tech. but gains mid.
- 1 less ore patch per player, better sizes overall
- avoiding close ore patches that are accessible by a same MCV. (cliffs)

http://imgur.com/Qj2BBLg
Image

BEFORE / AFTER :
Image Image

My (dormant) YouTube channel : FRenzy OpenRA
Join the map-making train here

Blackened
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 6:27 pm

Post by Blackened » Wed Jun 28, 2017 7:22 pm

I think the proposed changes will make the map a lot better.


Happy wrote: It would be nice if someone remade Mad Science. Its a personal favorite 2v2 map but there's loads of troubles in it with bad ore placements in the center and the bio-lab etc.
I spent an hour or so and made a rough rendition for you.
http://imgur.com/a/wZq3M

I took away the 4 ore patches that blocked the side lanes in the middle and created 2 peninsulas with ore instead. Upped the map height to compensate a bit. Threw in some oil derricks and observation posts in key areas in case someone wanted to 1.6 it up. Probably doesn't fix anything since the map's chokes are the biggest culprit but I tried :lol:

Post Reply