28 replies to this topic

[DylHole]

 

Get amongst it. 

Edited by DylHole, 06 December 2015 - 06:33 AM.

[rumblesom]

wow !! beautiful map

 

looks really cool im interested to try it

 

one thing i notice is the resources look a little low- perhaps add more ore to the small patches along the top and bottom walls.

 

fantastic landscape here

 

tip: try some "invisable snow day lamp"s for subtle lighting effects

[Edd]

looks good!

 

I def. want to be bot on this map though =P

[Shauny]

I agree with the above. Looks a great map

[game1]

Fantastic job! Looks nice

[OlafxD]

goob job, any new added map is a good addition to the game.

 

but can we for once have some creative head to create a non-symmentrical fair/balanced map?

 

id really appreciate it and would be lovely to see something new, cuz tbh all the symmetrical maps are starting to bore me

[Seke]

vnice gj

[XXxPrePxX]

1. I played this map with Dill pickles yesterday, and man there is a LOT of resources in a 1on1. Which, I think is great! We were over 10k all game with 3/4/5 war factories.

2. This would be awesome for a 2on2 clan match

 

but can we for once have some creative head to create a non-symmentrical fair/balanced map?

 

id really appreciate it and would be lovely to see something new, cuz tbh all the symmetrical maps are starting to bore me

 

3. I completely agree. Let's get some slightly unbalanced maps to create some interesting gameplay. Those tend to be my favorite games where you don't know what your opponent will do precisely.

[OlafxD]

not sure what you mean with slightly unbalanced, but im talking about balanced/fair maps but different - not symmetrical.

 

good example dmz: right side has airforce, therefor left side has easier access to gems. that means its balanced but in a different/more interesting way which makes the game more interesting/various.

[hardman]

Balanced but in less obvious ways (ie equal gems and landscape) like DMZ would be cool.

[ZiGZaG]

Looks pretty nice,I look foward to trying it.

Perhaps we could add some of the fan favourites from YR into ra2 qm.

E.g. offense defense, dune patrol, blood feud, dustbowl etc it would of course depend on public opinion though.

[FReQuEnZy]

one thing i notice is the resources look a little low- perhaps add more ore to the small patches along the top and bottom walls.

 
Looks like there's plenty on the map, a couple of hundred thousand at least.
Less ore leads to more interesting games IMO, also there's 6 ore mines per player meaning in late game securing all of them will be vital, which keeps the whole terrain important. If you look at caverns there's too much ore IMO and only 1 expansion spot in 2v2, 4-5 in 1v1 (not that you'd have utlize all of them, which means that some of the terrain stays unused).
 
 

looks good!
 
I def. want to be bot on this map though =P

Why bottom? Seems to me that top mid has more ore, also keeping in mind that the top has shorter miner trips on it's side.
 
 

1. I played this map with Dill pickles yesterday, and man there is a LOT of resources in a 1on1. Which, I think is great! We were over 10k all game with 3/4/5 war factories.
2. This would be awesome for a 2on2 clan match

3. I completely agree. Let's get some slightly unbalanced maps to create some interesting gameplay. Those tend to be my favorite games where you don't know what your opponent will do precisely.

1. Inefficient build orders.
2. Yes.
3. Find a more creative / practiced opponent it's not exactly dependant on the map, unless you're playing Official tourny A or B..

 

blood feud, dustbowl etc it would of course depend on public opinion though.

Blood Feud was already tested AFAIK, it was too small and led to too many sell MCV games.
YR has extra units to slightly change that, it doesn't really fit into RA2's playstyle.
The dog luck on that map is very annoying as well.

Dustbowl is already available in the Westwood Map packs. I have included it in my RA2 and next version of the UOP.


@Dylan

The map is nice, should offer for some interesting games and lead to varied gameplay, I like the split central at middle, plenty of expansions and build routes to consider, good amount of ore mines for late game.

 

Few things I'd suggest to change is...

• Add bridge huts to the center bridge, otherwise there's no way to fix it. (It's still possible to destroy it with units).
• Reverse the bridge huts in top/bottom middle to be on the player sides, which should make it easier to assult middle, otherwise it looks like it could be camped down too easily.
• Check the ore balance at top middle ( seems like br mid has the least ore ).

Edited by FReQuEnZy, 07 October 2014 - 09:52 PM.

[aCnChaOz]

One more Mirror Map.... cant you guys make more maps like cold war, may day, alamo ^^.

[FReQuEnZy]

One more Mirror Map.... cant you guys make more maps like cold war, may day, alamo ^^.

 

Alamo is symmetrical / mirrored and gives and advantage to soviet factions.

Mayday is semi mirrored top to bottom and gives and advantage to allied factions.

Cold war gives the allied factions and advantage and also top left has and advantage IMO.

[DylHole]

Thanks for the positive feedback and thanks Martin for answering everything for me. As for your suggestions - 1. no, 2. no you've got that backwards and 3. I doubt it, but even so, it's insignificant.

 

Thanks, Josh. I might add something like that, depending if any other changes happen to it.

cold war, may day, alamo ^^.

these maps would receive a lot of deserved negativity if they were released today; they're flat, imbalanced, and because of this, boring in my opinion 

an imbalanced map in any RTS is just silly, mirroring maps is a sure way to avoid imbalance

 

the popular desire for asymmetrical maps is unfamiliar for me; for what purpose would it serve? "interesting/diverse gameplay", how? 

Edited by DylHole, 08 October 2014 - 11:25 AM.

[Mikoz]

Map image looks sick and thanks for your work in creating ra2 maps.

Personal opinion playing wise ; i dont like it that much, there to much goin on. small entrances, bridges, buildings, oils, depots, paradrop hills??

Think ppl these days prefer more open maps and have better tank battles instead of playing may day maps. 

[ExpaNd]

For non-symmetrical maps, take a look at Tiger Bay for an idea.

The purpose of a non symmetrical map is to Force Gameplay, while older maps may not be entirely symmetrical they still force you to do things.

1)Things to fight for (causing forced confrontation)
2)Different things at start causing one side to be more aggressive and another side more passive .
3) etc...

These are very general ideas but they show the point.

Symmetrical maps are fun, but they are more like Arenas and not maps.

Maps should have purpose to everything on them (especially since the game has been out so long)
That's my 2 cents

Edited by ExpaNd, 08 October 2014 - 02:33 PM.

[rumblesom]

Cold War is a crazy map- one of my absolute favs and inspiration for tiger bay.

I think this map is actually quite open and gameplay should be frantic here. Sure there are bridges but there's no need to cross them- there are several routes to each players base.

Look to a map like heck for good ore distribution for 4 players. This map only has three large expansions and one of them is in a super vulnerable oil warzone with sentry gun base walking as a likely situation.

I think this map is pretty amazing and probably will be a favourite for 2v2 after play testing reveals what refinements should actually be made.

@martin you're way off about caverns- the ore patches are modelled after heck (the idea is heck +sv) and just yesterday in a qm I used every last patch at bottom. Maybe you've never (survived ) long enough to use them all

[FReQuEnZy]

I have survived long enough to use them, I've just wished that they ran out sooner, making the games quicker with smaller armies and less of a spam strategy.

Heck has the room large battles caverns has only room on the left middle for a large tanks assault. Which usually always makes the games turn out the same way.

SV has all that ore for 2v2 and in 1v1 to support all the defending and splitting a player has to utlizie for all of the choke points / routes to attack from.

 

 

2)Different things at start causing one side to be more aggressive and another side more passive .
3) etc...

 

Choosing a different playstyle, build order is what sets this for any map, choosing to go for superweapons or 3 a war rush.

[ExpaNd]

You don't get it, maps should have a focal point, regardless.
And even to build off of that, the terrain type being different but balanced is another main goal of being non-symmetrical.

Oh nice a big square with everything the same, looks like an arena,

Can't you have a map with a forest on one side and a desert with some hills on another?

Just stuff like that lol.

Edit: I'd rather have an obstacle course than an arena >:|

Edited by ExpaNd, 08 October 2014 - 03:10 PM.

[FReQuEnZy]

Edit: I'd rather have an obstacle course than an arena >:|

 

Play the campaign.

[Seke]

I don't think DMZ is a balanced asymmetrical map...

[ExpaNd]

I don't think DMZ is a balanced asymmetrical map...

Oh thanks for the input.

[DylHole]

can someone make a new asymmetrical map thread? im completely against the idea and dont see how it's any bit relevant

 

@mikoz, did you have issues with the smaller entrances, i.e glitching, poor pathing, stuck tanks? i'm not bothered about your other concerns at the moment 

[DylHole]

OP updated; a big thanks to Martin and Josh.