Smitty wrote:Does it have a history of great games?
Like Omnom said this method works but relies on a map having some sort of establishment. for all we know
showdown could be the next ore lord. But no one has played it and we may never know. Maps need multiple play throughs to be vetted and a lot of the games might suck. Sidestep might never have been as it changed the old meta a bit. By old standards it didn't have great games. In future standards it might not have good games.
Smitty wrote:Pragmatism vs. Idealism
This is well said. I've often thought that what this game really needs is a 1.5 expansion. It's a fine line between balancing what RA originally was and what we've turned it into on this engine. This game is a far cry from what is on CNCnet. And I think possibly, what we need is a 1.5 expansion. New units, tile sets, factions etc. Something possibly like Fortnights mod that takes all the stuff we love about this version and create something distinct and better. Nostalgia for this game might end up killing it. But that's me being an Idealist
Wippie wrote:Personally, I think it is very well capable of creating good games, but open and flat and not exactly eye-candy.
My counter opinion, practicality and playability should be first before eye candy. Right now things that make a map look awesome can often hinder gameplay.
Polar Disorder is a nice visual map but the candy part really sours the sweetness of it all. (sorry for the bad pun
)
In the latter days of Starcraft Broodwar ramps were expanded to accommodate wider armies and it looked graphically ugly. They had buildings placed on chokes that offered sneaky ways to attack and many other things. It wasn't exactly pretty but it did create unique and exciting game play.
But again, visually this game could be improved simply by adding new tiles of grass/snow/desert without effecting gameplay.
Omnom wrote:What would be a medium sized map?
I would say a good indicator would be how quickly a unit could reach a certain point. Perhaps MCV to an expansion? Maybe an APC to the spawn? Something like that. I feel that makes it much clearer on the size of the map. Comparing just spawn distances puts a map like Sidestep into a smaller map category even though it's obviously pretty big.
Omnom wrote:Could you elaborate more on why you think that map doesn't meet your standards?
Im going to try to keep things orderly but honestly, there is a lot to go over and I might bounce around. If so I'll apologize now.
Monty Hall, like you said, really pigeonholes you into building engineers, and a lot of them. It's almost less about battling your enemy and instead about a race to capture the most things first. This is a war dammit stop trying to collect things!
Also, I dislike the use of creeps in competitive games. Competitive maps should have very little in the randomness factor. Crates aren't part of the competitive scene for the same reason. Creeps add a small, but indeed random part to the game. There is a 4p TD map with viceroids that spawn in between players. It's creative in the sense that you can drag them to the other player but it creates a "deal with it or lose" scenario. In a 1v1 or 2v2, you shouldn't have to worry about a potentially 3rd or 5th entity screwing you up.
Editted in hindsight: Look at the D2k worm for this very thing. If you happen to randomly(or are Fiveaces and guaranteed to) lose a harvester GG.
Also currently, you can hear gunfire regardless of where you are on the map. in previous releases you used to hear enemy medics heal and minelayers reload. It's a bit game breaking when you can hear that. Someone recent was talking about using sniper creeps to defend an area with oil derricks. It sounds cool but right now if you chose to go for those derricks and kill the snipers your opponent would hear it and be aware. Allowing them to respond to however they please. If you couldn't hear it that would be a different story.
Additionally I was doing some experiments for a build order in one of the RAGL maps. (going to be vague here as to not reveal my plan
) I was trying to complete something very time dependent. I came to find that the map didn't play out consistently. There were small random things that occurred that would end my strategy and cause a loss. I don't find that fair.
The map should not offer surprises to the player. Thus 0 randomness.
Maps need to be as balanced as possible regardless of position. It's important to note that
symmetry does not automatically mean it's balanced and that asymmetry does not automatically mean it is imbalanced. A map can be perfectly mirrored and be imbalanced. Top vs bottom often suffers from this. Ore fields are usually the biggest culprit but less noticed and less serious is the way units come out. Left vs Right in TD also has issues.
Asymmetry can be near perfectly balanced too. Singles isn't exactly mirrored but it is more or less balanced.
Another balancing act in map making is size/ layout. This is pretty well understood and I don't think I need to go into it too much. Large open maps favor faster units (Nod In TD for example) It is also important to note that bigger maps almost always hurt Ukraine. Both of their special units lose effectiveness on bigger maps. Parabombs take longer if the action is in the center. Nuke trucks have a larger chance to be spotted and killed before reaching their target. etc. At the same time Britain gets a boost in bigger maps. Stealth apc's have more room to make sneaky attacks. Spies also become harder to stop. In the early game rangers can be really good.
Respecting each factions strengths and weaknesses should be addressed when making a map. It's okay if one is a little weaker or stronger just don't get carried away.
Maps shouldn't suffer from the snowball effect. Like mentioned with old Warwind or even DCF you see it if you lose the gem mines. I think a good map should have the values close to 50/50. Having a gem mine on one side of the map is fine so long as there is an opportunity to get close to the same eco somewhere else. There are others strategic values to consider too. I know you've often brought up maps having too much value in one location. It's difficult to balance the intangibles simply because there isn't hard evidence.
Part of the problem is the lack of diverse strategy. Smitty brought up the counter to tank play being stale with his examples but those really aren't a different strategy. You are still doing the same thing just changing the timing of when you do it. Rushing is a different strategy than tank play. Base pushing is a different strategy than tank play and rushing.
Smitty wrote:Do I open with multiple tanks before my third MCV, one or none? Do I split my armies, how much do I split them? Do I try to hide my units while they mass, and then hit the enemy with a Barf-style all-in? Do I feign an attack on one side and then hit my opponent somewhere else with a raid or an attack?
These things are all so similar you have almost 0 commitment to one in particular. To me this is all the same strategy. It's kinda like saying, do I build 5 grens and walk to the ref, do I wait and get an apc and do i flame drop instead? That's all the same strategy too. Sure the timing is crucial to all those to work, but in the end there isn't much of a punishment for failing to hit the correct time and it's easy to just switch it up to the correctly timed version.
I'm going to hearken back to my CNC3 KW days a bit. There were much more abundant strategies. They were distinct. You knew when someone transitioned into a new one. With ORA things are much more muddy. Part of that is because you have a much more diversity in units and factions in CNC3 KW compared to RA but I also think it's because the intangibles were less obtuse.
maps should allow for diversity in strategy. And that is certainly the most difficult in ORA right now regardless of mod.
One last thing, I'm not trying to say that ORA should mimic CNC KW or Starcraft per se. Both did have their faults, but I do think that they were games that had a very high standard of gameplay and something to draw upon and improve.
After edit report: The amount of damn times I had spelling mistakes or had to otherwise edit this post... I suck at typing.
