Competitive Map Making Discussion

and what makes a good map

Announcements and discussion about community-run events.
User avatar
SoScared
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:16 pm
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by SoScared » Mon Apr 03, 2017 2:59 pm

Power, through superior organizational strength.

OMnom
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:04 am

Post by OMnom » Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:41 am

Okay, I've made another WIP map that could use some (a lot) of aesthetic improvement, but it's ready for some preliminary playtesting.

http://resource.openra.net/maps/20422/

I've kept the R = 0.75, but the Spawn-to-Spawn distance for this map is around 77c and the average spawn-to-ore distance is 58c. For reference, the previous map had an R = 0.76 and had an StS distance of 62c and an StO distance of 47c.

I've purposely made the center of this map closed off, similar to Winter Storm, but not nearly as choke-y. In theory, this should create only 2 key locations for the MCV to go to, which should reduce the number of refineries that are needed and allowing more build time to go towards tech.

In addition, I've also changed the CashTrickler value of the oil derrick to $42/s, which is the average income for 1 harvester on a full ore patch ( and the base spending rate for any production queue).
EDIT: $42/s is way too fucking much, and i toned it down to $14/s. This gives about $1000/min, as compared to the current $400/min. I'm still curious to see if increasing this to something like 1250/min would be good, or if changing the interval might do something.

The center also features 2 capturable forward command posts that grant 10c0 vision, which may or may not be able to replace the central MCV location. These cost 200 energy to capture and cannot be powered down.

Let me know how this map plays out for you guys? In particular, I'm curious to see if the forward vision is a viable replacement for a central MCV, and if the oil derrick is a little too powerful.

crlf
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 9:27 pm

Post by crlf » Mon May 15, 2017 7:09 pm

Mo's four ore mine starter interested me, and the discussions about tradeoffs between eco and map control prompted me to make this:

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21280/

I'd be interested to know if you see any placements that are do-or-die. My hunch is that there's now enough starting eco and base-to-base access that expanding is a risk.

OMnom
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:04 am

Post by OMnom » Tue May 16, 2017 12:07 am

crlf wrote: Mo's four ore mine starter interested me, and the discussions about tradeoffs between eco and map control prompted me to make this:

http://resource.openra.net/maps/21280/

I'd be interested to know if you see any placements that are do-or-die. My hunch is that there's now enough starting eco and base-to-base access that expanding is a risk.
I did some quick math on it, and it's got an R above 1 with a spawn-to-spawn distance of 45.9c and an average spawn-to-ore distance of 48.6. Even with the trees and blocked off middle, I would expect the actual rush distance to be around 60c, which would still give it an effective R of around 0.8. My gut feeling is that the excess starting eco, combined with the short rush distances, would make early rushes and base pushes very strong on this map. Moreover, there are at least 2 vulnerable spots that would be -2 for the defender and +1 for the basepusher, similar to what patches has right now. All in all though, this looks like a very interesting map and would definitely produce a different game.

If I have some time this week or next week, I'll try some games on it and let you know how it actually plays.

Mo
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 1:40 pm

Post by Mo » Sat May 20, 2017 1:25 pm

OMnom wrote:
Image


The single middle road in Mo's map makes the red locations of do-or-die importance; if I were to get my MCV in the opposing player's red location, I'm going to win more games than I would be losing. I have enough money to send my 2nd MCV straight to that location because I start with 4 ore mines (questionable, but interesting). The other zones play no significant role until the war over who controls the middle passage is decided.

Also, the terrain between each location of interest is extremely limited. Some direct passageways are only accessible by naval or air, which requires a significant amount of time and resources to use, and some do not grant any access to other locations at all (they have 0 map control). In addition, the progression of locations of importance facilitates passive play because the players are encouraged to develop away from each other (Red first, then Blue).

If the game were to progress in a mirror-colored fashion, then the game becomes extremely campy -- there is nowhere else to maneuver. Everything is funneled into the middle, the north bridges, or the south bridges, which would most definitely favor high tech and naval play. It may not be intentional, but the "Singles Effect" would most definitely happen if the game is not ended quickly. Some may not consider that to be such a bad thing, but in my opinion, I would rather just surrender than wait 10 minutes for a nuke. In my opinion, this is why maps should not cater to only high tech/naval play -- we should not have to be forced to spend 5+ minutes diverging massive amounts of resources to expensive units, only to lose all of them in 30 seconds.
Very intricate analysis and I recall you discussed these concerns with me, I haven't had time yet but I plan to implement your advice on altering the bridges to a 7-8 wide cell access, and I'll introduce 2 bridges for each island (with respect to bottom island), these will be above and to the right of the orange circle.

What do you think of these edits?

OMnom
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:04 am

Post by OMnom » Mon May 22, 2017 9:49 pm

Yeah, that might work.

If i have some time, i'll try to edit your map as well. Been rather busy these past few weeks

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

Post by noobmapmaker » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:02 am

Old thread, but did want to add the info here. Did a small research on the official 1v1 and 1v1v1 maps. Checked the starting cash, number of starting mines, total mines, number of gem mines and number of oil derricks. Cant guarantuee that all information is accurate!

Image
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
JOo
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 8:12 pm

Re: Map Making Discussion

Post by JOo » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:26 am

Materianer wrote:
OMnom wrote: That being said, I'd like to ask for people to keep nonconstructive criticism or excessive slander of any particular map out of this thread.
Damn i wanted to criticize that 95% of these maps are a bit boring because they are just mirror maps.
Not that mirror maps are fundamentally bad and for a balanced conditions you seem to need this at your 1on1 tourney but i prefer naturally looking maps.

It's an art to create a naturally looking map wich is good playable but if you get this working it will be a champion map.

Creating a just mirrored map is no challenge.
I fully agree with you on that Materia

Post Reply