Mapping Contest - 4p

[chavez]

Heres todays post! The 4 player maps were a treat!

Tartarus Damn (4)
Sps
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=53954
Placing the critical objective on a position where only jumping units can access them makes for some fun gameplay. Unfortunately the pathways on the rest of the map are so tight that units have a great deal of difficulty moving around on them.

Crimson Beach (4)
Hybris
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=55361
Really enjoy the concept behind the map. With such an open map layout however, theres really no interesting areas to defend or alternate pathways to consider.

The Stand I (4)
KaoT
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=53697
The defensive bases are fun, but the circular paths are far too small. Once taken, the points on top of the spires are never contested because of the time it takes to get up there. More effort could have been put in to make the map stand out visually as well.

St Mathias Bridge (4)
Star Wars Kid
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=52106
Very balanced map, good 2v2 team game. The use of different types of cover in the blasted areas encourages the player to choose their approach wisely. Nicely arted up.

Relicthunt (4)
Diego
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=55192
Reminiscent of the Tainted Pair set of maps, limited chokepoints and resources make it a tough map to play. Could use more visual detail.

Apocalypse Later (4)
Ryilo
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=53052
Though this map has a unique layout with the placement of the player starting points, it suffers from its size and lack of usefulness. Perhaps if this was a smaller map the idea would work much better.

Tesseract Valley (4)
Kap
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=55145
A singular and linear path leading towards both bases makes games played on this map very predictable. At the same time it’s a unique experience, and building up masses of guys can be fun.

huntings (4)
dark_dracko
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=55284
Uneven strategic point distribution leads to a very unbalanced play experience. This map could also use a lot more attention to its visual appearance, some more time spent with texture changes, and mountainous areas that are too high would greatly help.

Archon IV (4)
Acturas
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=54483
Urban map with a lot of attention to detail given to all of the map, looks great! Layout is complicated to get your head around as there are no real easily identifiable land marks, and the high number of tight pathways can hurt when combat ramps up.

Icefields (4)
Abyss
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=51909
A good effort at doing an ice based map, the texture use is pretty good across the board, but more attention could have been paid to better identifying pathways. Dramatic changes in elevation adversely affect the declination of the camera making it confusing to scroll around.

Emerald Hills (4)
Rsebasti
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=53108
Starting positions on this map are way too close to each other, everything feels very claustrophobic and difficult to maneuver.

[dr2sheds]

Pretty much what i would have said - i reckon it'll be a toss up between SPS, SWK and Acturas' maps (IMO).
Good luck all.

regards,
sheds

[950Rav]

Just a thought. A lot of the commentary is really presented in a pretty negative form. It would be nice if the devs could go the extra step and reparse all of it into constructive criticism that gets a little more specific into what the mapmaker could have done differently or a few suggestions on what items you would add/remove/change to make the adjustments that you think are necessary. While I think its fair criticism, we haven't exactly been provided with a toolset that has ease of use high on its feature list. People willing to slog through it all for the sake of creating a map are practically heroes.

[Rayden]

A lot of the commentary is really presented in a pretty negative form. It would be nice if the devs could go the extra step and reparse all of it into constructive criticism that gets a little more specific into what the mapmaker could have done differently or a few suggestions on what items you would add/remove/change to make the adjustments that you think are necessary.

I think they did that at a certain degree. But you can't demand from relic to give detailed information about what has to be changed on the map. Everyone knows the relic maps, everyone knows what's making them balanced and fun. So just try to do it same way.

[950Rav]

I'll contest that "everyone knows" comment, Rayden. Playing a map and making a map are two VERY different things. Map creation is actually quite seperate from the strategic elements. I have done a lot of work in UnrealEd, and I actually created a web page at one point (still have it on disk) that talked about composition concepts in map making. The fact is, many map makers will design maps that either look cool or have a nifty gimmick without thinking at all about playability. Some will design a map that fits the playstyles of them or their friends but is completely useless when played by a pro.

And if everyone just tried to do their maps the same way that relic did theirs, this game would get boring REAL fast. I don't think that any of the stock maps resemble Jungle Assault in their strategic plan, for example.

So, with all that said, maybe I'll rephrase my original reply. Can we get some guidelines on what needs to be done to make a map work properly? You threw out the contest, most of the entries you received you're bashing, how about a little more information on how to build maps that actually MEET your judging criteria?

For instance, many references are made to narrow paths... how about more information on what good path sizes are and how pathing impacts the AI? Sometimes, tight paths are a desirable effect. Sometimes they aren't. Sometimes you want them, but only to a certain degree.

[kap]

opinions in any logical form are constructive imo.

and the mission editor provided by Relic is by far the most basic and easy to use editor i have come across.

[Argonaut]

I tend to agree with 950, here. I do not know how wide a path needs to be for a drednought to pass down it (For example), Let alone how to make room for a squiggoth to turn around. I think the criticism will be harsh, as the maps will eventually represent relic worldwide. Some basic information about techie things might have helped.

Q. What has the biggest impact on performance?
Q. How many squares does a drednought need for a path to be wide enough for it to walk down? What about all the different vehicle widths?
QHow much does a squiggoth eat (In metric tonnes) in a day, and how many squares does it need to turn around/walk about?

Q. Why the hell didn't I post these questions at the beginning of the contest??!??

I have already said this in the 2 player posts, but i'll say it again here.

Any feedback is better than an e-mail saying"You Didn't Win, Thanks, Relic"

[kap]

well

just like you can add models of trees, grass, buildings etc etc, you can add each races models* vehicles and characters. So i would suggest you place a squigoth in the level and drag it down the path slowly and see how it fits...

make sense ?

[Titler]

If I recall correctly, the Squiggoth/Land Raider/Avatar etc needs at least 6 squares, the smaller vehicles 4. I don't know if they will have problems path finding down a passage that small along a considerable length, but for my map, a single choke point of 4 was enough to keep the biggies off the bridges, but allow the smaller ones easy access past.

[dr2sheds]

Yup Titler's on it - when i want to restrict particular unit types - i follow a 2,4,6 minimum width plan.
2 - troops (rather than one as troops can tend to 'jig' otherwise and it ain't pretty)
4 - dreads/regular tanks
6 - large units

You have to be carefull about surrounding terrain too as the camera will have all sorts of problems tracking through narrow paths in elevated terrain.

regards
sheds.

[Hanna]

I'm working on a document about creating competitive- and tournament-quality maps. It's going to take me some time as there is a *lot* of research and testing to be done.

Plus, the next patch will change most of the rules, so it won't be finished until the pro-tour players have learned how to abus... I mean, learned the ins and outs of any changes to balance. It will again change when Winter Assault is released.

For instance, making a map that is still playable with "Take 'n' Hold" that doesn't make it so simple for an Eldar player to mass Bonesingers and 'turret camp' (I made up my own phrase, whee!) the critical location, hold it for seven minutes and win the game without breaking a sweat. That's just one example out of many, many possibilities.

It will cover balance, common tactics that a map needs to take into account, how not to favor a particular civilization when making a map and other topics.

I'll probably post working drafts as the project progresses but it's still in the very early stages.

Love,

Hanna

[Rayden]

I had to find out everything by myself so exuse my sight on this. But maybe a manual for newcomers would be great.

[dr2sheds]

Now THAT is a great idea!
As i'm finding out - making a balanced map is almost diametrically opposed to making an artful map.
Finding common ground is pretty hit-and-miss, although i've started playing with a gridded resource/objective setout superimposed on 'realistic' terrain for the MehnraTeams maps.
(still waiting for dowfiles to post Beachhead v1.1 bah!)

[950Rav]

I think a Squiggoth is bigger than 6, and it gets hung up on things that other units shrug off. I won't use a Squiggoth on almost any map strictly because it paths like crap and it stop trampling if it sees a paper clip on the ground.

I'm glad to see some agreement here. If I was going to suggest anything, it would be to consider critical points more. Critical points should always provide a strategic advantage in the form of visibility and be hotly contested. I also think there should be limited ability to build near one (to prevent turret abuse) but it should allow some decent cover and other ways to stem the onslaught of enemy troops.

[Hanna]

(Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood, I agree with you 950Rav about critical locations -- with only a few minor quibbles, but they're certainly debatable and I certainly could be wrong -- and I don't have a problem with Relic posting reviews of maps.)

Generally the best way to deal with turret abuse on critical locations is to have more than one critical location. Having a map with a single critical location that is easily accessible by a bonesinger/turret rush is a recipe for a "broken" map at least for take'n'hold. Limiting building can be used, but it doesn't make much sense to just plonk down unbuildable terrain around every critical location unless there is a justifiable reason why buildings can't be built there. And it doesn't stop portals from being built, though it does stop buildings from being built around the portal. Portals can be just as vicious accompanied by a Banshee rush on Space Marines. No need for turrets in that case. Or even portals as Banshees with fleet of foot can cross most maps faster than a bonesinger can build a portal anyway.

There is a tradeoff. Sometimes you just have to accept that there are some rush tactics that, unless countered by a smart player with uncanny micro, are going to end up in a short game. There are ways to minimize the damage by taking into account each civilization's advantages and giving them the opportunity to make use of them. You don't have to shut down every possible tactic, you just have to make sure that it's possible for as many different tactics as possible to be used on a map. In my opinion, it's better to provide balanced counters to an advantage than to remove the advantage altogether.

Remove the possibility of a turret rush and you get a banshee rush instead.

There are many different levels of balance, from the beginners mapping techniques to advanced techniques that I don't even understand how to tackle. I don't think any of us, not even Relic, have made maps that are entirely exploit free. Show me a map and I'll tell you what the exploits are (and I am by no means an expert, I am probably the worst player of Dawn of War ever, but I keep my eyes open and watch how other people use the maps to their advantage). More than likely there will be changes to the balance of the civilizations in the next patch.

There's really no way to stop people from finding advantages on a map and making use of them. The trick is to add in as many different advantages as possible so that as many tactics as possible can be used. That way on any given map you won't know that for sure you'll be getting an Assault Space Marine rush 99% of the time. And you won't know that you'll be able to get away with an Assault Space Marine rush because there are ways for the other player to counter it using the map's built-in advantages. It's all a balancing act and we have to learn from players by watching the replays of the top 100 or so players and how they will use different aspects of a map to their advantage. They're also very closely guarded secrets. If a player comes up with a tactic that is going to gain them a couple of hundred points on their score, they are going to keep it to themselves as long as they can. Once it gets out, everyone'll be using it.

When the next patch is released, this will all happen. It's going to be amazing to watch and I want a ring-side seat. But those are hard to get.

Since none of our maps can be used in automatch (except the lucky three, I assume) we'll have to settle for hoping that tournaments and other competitions will consider our maps. None of our maps are considered for tournament or competitive play. Some of them are very popular online, especially Jungle Assault SE, but it's not a being played in tournaments. Just the Relic maps that people know like the back of their hands. Not because they are better, but because people have been automatching on them for six months.

But we *could* be making them. It means working with the people who run the tournaments. Working with the players who are at the top of the ladder to learn how to make better maps. I am starting to think that if we make maps that work for the very best players, they will be just as useful and fun for players who don't give a damn about scores and stars and just want to have fun.

And that doesn't mean that the maps we've built up until now are bad. Which is why I complained about Relic's reviews. I wasn't complaining that they made reviews. I wasn't even really complaining in any real sense. There is more than one perspective from which to view a map and Relic has theirs and that is what they are using to judge them by, but they aren't the only valid perspectives from which to view a map.

I still believe that almost all of our maps are fun, well-made, and worthy of respect. Anyone who has spent hours and hours or weeks and weeks working on a map to release it to a largely unappreciative community deserves huge amounts of credit.

There's more than one way to make a map. This is just another way, one that I don't think any of us have explored in real depth. It would be very nice, though, if some of our maps started appearing in the tournaments and I believe very firmly that we all have the talent to do that. We just need some guidance. So, I'm going out there to find the guidance.

One of the most ironic parts of this story is the Sps/Psy's maps were greeted lukewarmly. Psy also happens to be probably one of the top three Eldar players in the world and knows a great deal more about the game than any of us. I think sometimes we have our own myopic way of viewing maps, our own set of unwritten rules. Maybe it's time to start looking outside of the box for more perspectives on mapping. To take things to the next level.

Love,

Hanna

[Abyss]

So some maps "including mine" will not be included to the new patch?

[Sps]

don't know if i mentioned this - you guys (relic) are free to edit them - testing Grounds 2 was 4 hours late and is one of the best (does need a small touch up as it went from 8p to 6 p and relic/sp numbers don't reflect that)).

As for my maps - altho I like the dam series and the emperors series - the two I was hoping to see mentioned (even as a definitevil loser runner up were testing grounds l2 and tainted marshes) those would be my faves.

Hanna - while i appreciate the praise I do see his point - and I'm hardly the top 3 eldar player - I smurfed I had my share of wins/lossess to the top 20. My conclusion is that there is no top "insert race" player - most of the top players are good regardless.

And please don't get this the wrong way Chavez, this comment is not due to any sort of disapointment, and I don't see your comments as "bashing" - I can take criticism, I honestly did the maps for the love of game not for a win so it doesn't matter whether they win or not.

In Dow units have a problem moving anywhere, even on a wide open map perfectly flat as a screenie I posted a while back of a scout squad separating in half - literaly half a map width from eachgother - while walking from one end to the other on a 1024*512 map. I have been too lazy to show numerous screenie examples of a single squad member getting stuck with a vehicle on most maps - burial, chamber, kayser etc. Simply because any criticism of dow as a game or dow balancing is greeted as a whine and/or bi**ing.

The reason for such a narrow pass is twofold - and this is also the reason why Jungle Assult SE is so popular, it forces smaller scale battles even late game, it also forces you to maneouver as opposed to full frontal attack (true of jungle - less true of TD as its much smaller). The main reason on TD tho is that it will allow a muc smaller force to stop a massed rush simply because they have to cross the dam first 1 by 1. This imo forces usage of the right units as opposed to a overwhelming units. if you attack ranged only you are dead the choke will literaly choke you a squad at a time - if you use jump units to tie up (island being a hiint you should build them) you can break through any defense. As i stated I love Jungle assault for the very same reason as movement becomes integralto strategy. TD 4p is actually not as good in achieving that goal because you know there is either ally or foe on the other side - TD 2players is perfect in that area as it allows for flanking.


My vote (not that it matters) - altho i find the periphery lacking in detail - Mathias bridge - for numerous reasons mainly because i just love the bridge concept. Was mad fun whistling "bridge on river kwai" as my marines marched across the map. :bandit:

[Star Wars Kid]

Thanks for the praise Sps!

I made a new version of St. Mathias Bridge for the community map pack that has much better looking out-of-play area (plus it fixed the ugly skybox/fog settings and a couple of other issues I found) If I win, I hope relic will accept it instead of the earlier version.

[Stilgar]

Win or lose SWK, St Mathias is a great map. I can't wait to see/play this updated version.

[Star Wars Kid]

Well then help Hanna out with getting the map pack released

[Stilgar]

I run 2 web sites, slack on my personal site, moderate on another site, beta test a web forum, build warhammer 40k models, hold a full time job and have a wife and two kids. Notice I couldn't fit playing DoW in there? If I get to do anything with DoW, it's going to be playing great maps like yours and ours (Old Geezers). In other words, if I had time I would, but I don't so I'm not involved.

[Sps]

I'd help out too but beyond updating some of the maps allready in or potentially in I simply dont have the time - need money for food first :P

[Star Wars Kid]

I feel like a slacker now...

[Stilgar]

no way man. You just keep mapping and keep resting those mapping skills between maps.