Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Map design

2012-07-10T17:49:57+02:00

AdmiralZeech wrote:
You mention "TAG xxx xxx" as some maps. Are those guys putting their clan name on their maps these days?

How do the current ranked maps fare in terms of interesting stuff like these? I guess rather than asking I should look at them myself. But feel free to comment if you can spare the effort

I'd say the ranked maps offer a good deal of variety.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 10 Jul 2012, 17:49

Re: Map design

2012-07-10T17:30:24+02:00

You mention "TAG xxx xxx" as some maps. Are those guys putting their clan name on their maps these days?

How do the current ranked maps fare in terms of interesting stuff like these? I guess rather than asking I should look at them myself. But feel free to comment if you can spare the effort

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 10 Jul 2012, 17:30

Re: Map design

2012-07-10T17:13:52+02:00

Ah, you mean features that add gameplay dynamics. That's not really a standard because they aren't required, but yes, I get what you mean now.

-Wide open/flat maps heavily favor T1 tank spam. Most of the official maps are like this.
-Inaccessible plateaus near the favor interesting tactics like T1 artillery drops that you don't see much.
-Multiple distinct fighting areas is one of my favorite features. Basically, this is when you have areas on the map that both players can access, but only by drop or using ACU to build across a cliff. These areas have a lot of resources to make them worth fighting over, like the raised plateau in that one map that used to be on ranked.
-Lots of small cliffs favor T1 artillery that can hide behind them and shoot over them. Look at TAG Voi Vittu for the best example of this.
-Wrecks are great, but putting lots of wrecks in the center of the map is way overdone and a really boring concept now... think setons, where the front player's entire job is the rush to the center and reclaim. Wrecks should be distributed evenly, but not in the exact center of the map. If there are two wreck piles near the center, but each a little closer to one side of the map, then this allows people to fight over them, without being forced to do silly things like reclaim while being shot at. It increases the risk and reward for trying to take/deny wreck fields.
-Another of my favorite features is from the DLC map to supcom 2 Desolatia . Essentially, each of the spawns has a long cliff running on one side of the base. Indirect fire units can easily shoot over it to hit the base, but because the cliff is so long, it tanks direct fire units a long time to drive around it to retaliate. This is a great terrain feature. TAG craftiuous maximus also has a similar feature.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 10 Jul 2012, 17:13

Re: Map design

2012-07-10T16:33:52+02:00

FunkOff wrote:
There aren't a lot of common design principles because, unlike in starcraft where all player starting areas on all maps are very similar (one or two entrance ramps, easy second expansion) there's little taken for granted in FA. There's even that one map (I forget the name) where all players spawn underwater in the center of a large lake. It's really quite unique.

Thanks for the answer, but the things you listed are mostly just "professionalism" type things. Dont make silly mistakes or omissions etc.

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

What I'm interested in discussing is what kinds of map features might make a map interesting and deep to play. Since I'm not a good player I have no idea, but here are some theorycrafted possibilities:

- Areas to fight over, either with lots of good reclaims or many mass points clustered together.
- At the same time, relatively wide coverage of mass points, so that the entire map is relevant.
- Terrain features that enable tactics, like chokepoints, rivers, etc. It's a shame we dont have any aerial terrain like clouds or storms or super-high mountains. Also hilly areas that block direct fire shots, narrow passages that hinder bombing runs and arty, etc.
- At the same time, maps should be open enough to allow freedom, rather than being linear. If you have chokepoints, you should have several ways to avoid them, etc.
- Rewards for effort or thinking out-of-box. The mass points on the cliffs in Open Palms, that can only be accessed with a transport drop, is one example. Even the mass points behind the bases on that map might be examples. The civilian quantum gate on that map is another.
- Combinations of terrain that result in multiple unit types. Finn's or Seton's are an example, where the proximity of sea to land make the two come together more often. (compared to that triangular island map, where presumably you could ignore sea and just fight in the middle.)

Of course, if you do all of these on one map it would be too busy and overwhelming, so it's just a list of things that can be used in moderation to make maps more interesting.

I dunno, maybe SupCom players dont like having to worry about wierd and interesting terrain? Maybe we just want a mostly-flat battleground to implement our mathematically precise economic build orders and clash our giant armies together?

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 10 Jul 2012, 16:33

Re: Map design

2012-07-05T17:16:15+02:00

The map editor is a pre-alpha edition. Pre-Alpha. This basically means that the GPG employees made the editor with just the options available to make a map. If it can be done by another tool (photoshop for the symmetry? They probably need photoshop anyway so why not use it for that?), then it's going to be done by another tool.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 05 Jul 2012, 17:16

Re: Map design

2012-07-05T03:09:46+02:00

The map editor is severely underdeveloped in many areas. There's no answer for why one specific feature wasn't put in.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 05 Jul 2012, 03:09

Re: Map design

2012-07-05T00:20:16+02:00

Can I ask an obvious question- why didn't they implement symmetry tools into the map editor.
It would mean so much less hassle than messing around with other programs

Statistics: Posted by Softly — 05 Jul 2012, 00:20

Re: Map design

2012-07-04T19:06:34+02:00

Karottenrambo wrote:
Zavior wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmes ... _id=178253 sections 2.1 - 2.6 apply pretty much straight to supcom as well(as to any rts for that matter..)

Nope.jpg

In starcraft all maps are very much standardized because of the faction diversity. It needs choke points and ramps, save expansions, x minerals at every expansion and so on, otherwise certain strategies with x faction would simply be op. (Similar to the aurora/fobo problem on small island maps)

I guess it was pretty hard for you to check the link I provided, let alone read what was in it... I am not asking 1:1 copies of starcraft maps. The sections I specified pretty much speak only about what FunkOff listed, but go into more detail about it. Of course it has sc specific stuff, but if you cant figure out that minerals might have to be mass spots and tiny ramps maybe should be changed to accommodate for supcom, well I dont know what to say

Karottenrambo wrote:
Supcom usually doesn't have these map-problems because every faction is more or less the same. Every faction has almost every unit, with small differences. You can build any map, with any shape you want, if you follow funk's notes it should be balanced.

Is this here to prove that the general map theory from sc works in supcom too? As I said, the general theory behind the maps spans across the games.

Forgetting all the balance discussion completely, one can still create BAD maps and GOOD maps.

Statistics: Posted by Zavior — 04 Jul 2012, 19:06

Re: Map design

2012-07-04T17:48:47+02:00

You have to go to fairly great length to make a map really imbalanced. Maps can favour certain factions slightly, but I haven't seen a map where it is impossible to win versus faction A with faction B. The faction diversity in SupCom doesn't go so far.

You don't even need symmetrical maps as long as you take the distance between spawn points and mexes in consideration, as well as the number of props on the field (it is impossible to make it exactly even because you can't use the symmetry tools in the map editor) and the heightmap (Don't put one player on the flat field while the other one can box himself in by putting the one choke point full with T3 PDs).

It needs a bit of attention while you work on the map and then it'll be ok.

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 04 Jul 2012, 17:48

Re: Map design

2012-07-04T15:35:49+02:00

we need random maps in faf thats the only solution xD

Statistics: Posted by Iszh — 04 Jul 2012, 15:35

Re: Map design

2012-07-04T15:22:27+02:00

Zavior wrote:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmes ... _id=178253 sections 2.1 - 2.6 apply pretty much straight to supcom as well(as to any rts for that matter..)

Nope.jpg

In starcraft all maps are very much standardized because of the faction diversity. It needs choke points and ramps, save expansions, x minerals at every expansion and so on, otherwise certain strategies with x faction would simply be op. (Similar to the aurora/fobo problem on small island maps)

Supcom usually doesn't have these map-problems because every faction is more or less the same. Every faction has almost every unit, with small differences. You can build any map, with any shape you want, if you follow funk's notes it should be balanced.

Statistics: Posted by Karottenrambo — 04 Jul 2012, 15:22

Re: Map design

2012-07-04T10:08:44+02:00

AdmiralZeech wrote:
Hmm, I was never much of a competitive RTSer, and I never followed the Starcraft esport scene. I assume due to its long history and intense competition, the SC scene would have produced a lot of expertise on how to make maps that are diverse, interesting, and balanced.
(whereas I'm more interested in RTS from the simulation side, so I prefer asymmetrical realistic maps.)

Just wondering if there has been any effort/progress at applying good design principles to the maps used in FAF. Or whether anyone has even worked out what those principles are, when it comes to SupCom.

SC:BW mapmakers were hired to produce the maps, which the pro teams then tested. I'd guess a bit under half of the maps got into proleague or starleagues after testing. I would very much like to see some of the old scbw maps in supcom!

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmes ... _id=178253 sections 2.1 - 2.6 apply pretty much straight to supcom as well(as to any rts for that matter..)

Statistics: Posted by Zavior — 04 Jul 2012, 10:08

Re: Map design

2012-07-03T16:05:01+02:00

There aren't a lot of common design principles because, unlike in starcraft where all player starting areas on all maps are very similar (one or two entrance ramps, easy second expansion) there's little taken for granted in FA. There's even that one map (I forget the name) where all players spawn underwater in the center of a large lake. It's really quite unique.

However, there are a few things that, when reviewing maps, I usually point out for map authors to correct:
-Army spawn beacons should always alternate numbers and sides of the map. That is, so that the auto-team function "Even vs Odd" produces logical teams. Example in Open Palms, the upper left 3 spawns are all odd and the lower right 3 spawns are all even.
-Terrain features should be limited in height. Maps that have excessively high mountains, peaks, walls or other terrain features commonly interfere with players' camera movements, cause aircraft to collide with terrain, and block indirect fire weapons from shooting over them (up to and including nukes).
-Cliffs should look like cliffs. This is to say, areas that are impassible should look impassible (darker, marked with cliff-edge stickers) and places that look passable should be passable. There's little more annoying that having no idea where you units can and can't go.
-All mass/hydros should be fairly distributed. This is essential, but the map should be balanced so that each player has a fair shot. In virtually all circumstances, this means that wrecks, mex and hydros should be evenly distributed across teams, and should be mostly fairly distributed across individual spawns too.
-All mass/hydros should be usable. Unfortunately, mex/hydros can't be built when terrain is uneven, and it's pointless/frusterating to seem mass points/hydros that you cannot build on for these reasons. They should be avoided.
-Lastly, AI markers. A lot of players love to play vs AI. Sorian AI can sometimes do okay without AI markers, but AI markers greatly improve the experience when fighting any AI. Maps should include AI markers.

Statistics: Posted by FunkOff — 03 Jul 2012, 16:05

Map design

2012-07-03T15:18:08+02:00

Hmm, I was never much of a competitive RTSer, and I never followed the Starcraft esport scene. I assume due to its long history and intense competition, the SC scene would have produced a lot of expertise on how to make maps that are diverse, interesting, and balanced.
(whereas I'm more interested in RTS from the simulation side, so I prefer asymmetrical realistic maps.)

Just wondering if there has been any effort/progress at applying good design principles to the maps used in FAF. Or whether anyone has even worked out what those principles are, when it comes to SupCom.

Statistics: Posted by AdmiralZeech — 03 Jul 2012, 15:18