I kind of think Sirex is onto something, but the idea needs some refinement. My summary thought: 1. Make corridor maps have in-built scaling in that there are multiple corridors, but they are progressively less desirable to use until the game population increases. That is corridor #2 is less likely to be used in a 20 person game, and corridor #3 is almost never used until the game rises over 20 people. A task for the Mapper to figure out. 2. Open maps should scale up resources much faster than corridor maps, because on an open map, vehicles and commander-designed defenses are more important than infantry (including infantry-laid) defenses. Scaling could be by double-rate refineries, free refineries, resource rate effected by # of peeps in the server, etc.. 3. Cyclopedan (sp?) is an excellent example of balanced mapping. *******TL;DR My thinking is below: 1. We do have the corridor type maps, but usually they're only 1 or 2 corridors. They aren't automatically clusterfails, but they if one side doesn't dominate the other with a combination of teamwork and skill, they end up as defensive stalemates (walls and turrets like it's World War One) untill one side either does better research, or one side attrits the other's tickets (thru teamwork revives and/or skill). There IS sometimes potential for flanking, but it's usually only in the vertical (i.e. putting level 3 turrets in crossfires in hard to reach vertical positions at the Crossroads) or by a covered route (e.g. sewers in District). Technically there is a 'frontage' of how much area a squad can reliably cover, so it'd be useful for mappers to know in these cases, approximately how many Hammer mapping units that an average squad of 5 could hold. And I think Sirex is generally right that there gets to be a point where you ante up the numbers of players per 'frontage' that player skill becomes ineffective because the situtation becomes too dense of a clusterfail of trenches, turrets, and some kind of spam (bullets, nades, whatever). At that point, arty and resources and any special research is what decides the game. So anyways a mapper could project how many player squads, how many corridors etc... And maybe even make a map progressively scaled in area (e.g. like BF2 maps were progressive for the number of players), or make the maps scale by game play pressure (e.g. 4 corridors to scale the game up to a full server, but each corridors is progressively less desirable to use (too long, no cover, etc..) until the server fills up). 2. Open maps. I disagree that a lone engie >> squad. That's only if a competing squad is relatively noobish---i.e. doesn't coordinate, doesn't attack the CV if given a chance, doesn't revive itself, forgets to take Accuracy, etc.... It is true that a full squad is not necessarily better than say a 2 or 3 man squad, and more, smaller squads might be more efficient to grabbing resources. But a good squad allow revive or other engie specializations, or rifles/grens. A lone engies is generally only good if the other team fails to explore the whole map. The only way I agree with the idea is if the map is unbalanced such that one team can charge straight at the other team and set up a strong front to bottle up the enemy team, so that it can sends lone engies to lazily grab more resources than the other team. But then that's poor map balance, the mapper's fault. If the resource potential isn't equal (even if not identical means) at the start of the map, then there has to be something else that balances it like tickets, starting resources, vehicles, etc.. Otherwise with less people on the server, the team just needs to scale down it's squads' sizes and still try to maintain enough fronts that a lone engineer can't steal refineries. For mapping, I think the mapper should pay more attention to resource scaling on an open map, because vehicles and Commander-laid defenses become more important than infantry actions. Probably resources should scale up quicker on the more open maps. I think if there is a problem with open maps, and the only one I feel is way too open is the new tropical blimp one, is that Empires needs some kind of terrain to build a defense off of (i.e. natural walls and bunkers), because the engies stock buildables become weaker the more open the map becomes. Too open map = your base gets overrun by vehicles, or easily bombarded from range, and only tight vehicle squads (something that is rare except in anti-CV rushes) or massive turret farms will defend you. Too open maps make me think the solution is to add a second level of wall, a double-high wall, or increase the number of walls allowed per engineer on too open maps. 3. Cyclopean-it is the uber model of a balanced map. It's got different types of terrain. Defensible and Defensless regions. About the only thing 'bad' is that the middle is something you kind of avoid in it, except to grab resources and maybe a barracks. So it's still kind of a linear map in a donut-shape kind of way, but there is a decent amount of maneuver room, and there are chokepoints (just that they are largish ones).
Just be sure to maintain a positive kill ratio when you rush, or you'll just feed the other team skill points.
Why do you do this to me? You like read through my thread, misinterpret everything, then write a long post derailing the thread completely, and making me sit here 25 min to explain why you are wrong. And usually you get a mod to lock the thread, god help you if that happens here. And how would you do that?! It can't be done, and if it could it would be to time consuming. Why not just do as i said and use chokepoint maps on small player servers and open maps for big player servers? No they should not! One of my points was that if we kept chokemaps on low player maps and open maps on big player server the people involved in individual fights around the maps would be roughly the same, thus making game balancing easier. Your suggestion would make balancing harder sence you shift focus totally depending on map. And no we should not implement those idea, go play tank wars if you like that. Infantry should still be good on open maps, because on open maps there exist breaks, like the different hills and ruins on duststorm. You would like totaly destroy infantry fun. What are you talking about? We have those maps already! But i don't want corridors on large player server! Corridors are retarded. But the point being about the whole thread is linked to this, this is my suggestion to have chokemaps for around 20(+-8) player server and open maps for 40(+-8). Then it works whit squads! Yes thats the point of the thread, witch i want to minimize. Or you know what? We could let chokepoint maps be for small player servers and open maps for big player servers? We did not mean that a single engineer was better then a squad in a fire fight. But we meant that on open maps whit small number of players going in big squad isn't enough to cover the whole map, then we get the problem with lonely engineers going and nade spamm then cap refienrys. And that is lame. We don't want lonely engineers as a feature to be implemented! It is a problem we are fixing by having open maps only played on big servers 40(+-8/) player. Good how did you interpreted us as we wanted to have lonely engineers? No resources should not scale up quicker, resources are already very quick to get. Heard of forward barrack? Yes but then the fights gets less intensive and teamwork goes down. And why would we want to nerf infantry???!?! Instead we would want to implement forrest,farms urban terrain that breaks up the landscape to make infantry good on big open maps. No the solution is not to make turtling easier, and the developers have stated that no more turtling features will be implemented. The solution is to have the landscape breakup like on duststorm, and forward barrack will also contribute to making vehicles less prominent. And you do know that infantry ML turrets and RPG can hold of vehicles? Vehicles be default don't single handedly kill all infantry. Also any tank force without infantry support will die horribly when attacking infantry with RPG, mines, ML walls. Also infantry can push forward with barracks armoury and the things i mentioned, tanks can't. Cyclopean is the one map that really shows what happens if you got small player numbers on a big open map. Tried playing it 8 players on each team? Everyone tryes to get north west and the city to fortify them self, sence you are so small a numbers it gets like 3 people north west 3 city one guy mid one commander. Thus we get totally screwed, because one engineer can like single-handedly be allowed to take the whole mid relatively fast. Open up for lots of lone wolfing, which we know the developers don't like. That is lame. Same thing on Isle.
Sirex, I'm sorry if you feel my ideas or so contrary to yours that it feels like a threadjack. I guess my bottom-line is that you could make scaleable versions of maps, like BF2 does (scaleable by number of players on the server), but it is possible to make a corridors type map with a large number of players as I suggested (though it's a mapper's challenge to make the corridors weighted in value so they act as 'vents' as more players surge on to the server). But I think your idea of arbritary player limits is wrong. The better solution is better mapping (so teams aren't drawn or forced to only one chokepoint, and so no maps are too open), or better modding that requires squad play (e.g. script that GODS_Ezekiel is working on---thread over here: http://forums.empiresmod.com/showthread.php?t=8062). As the game is now, engineers capping of refs by themselves is a play feature, and is only unbalancing if the map is poorly designed that it lets one team rush a choke against another team to make room for lone engies cap a disproportionate share of refineries. Otherwise the COM needs to emplace better static defenses if it's too boring for the team to guard its refineries. A lone engie isn't strong against multiple MGs. And open maps nerf infantry by default. They take away cover. They lower the benefit of engineer-laid defenses. Hence the need to scale up the resources on open maps so the infantry can get vehicles. More vehicles mean it's easier to police against lone engineers.
<unconstructive comment> In the time it has taken for Sirex to write this novel in forum post form, he could have learned Hammer and made a map that avoids the pitfalls he is preaching against. </unconstructive comment>
And in the same amount of time you might learn not to misinterpret threads. Sence i have mostly been talking about existing maps, not making new kinds of maps. kthxbye.
What is it whit people and their inability to read, you sir must be totally unable to read and understand text. Because like i have said several times now i am talking about existing maps, so stop trolling.
I've read the whole damn thread, thank you.. Also I know you are talking about all existing maps. You are saying that every empires mapper is doing something wrong. I'm just asking for some proof. oh and btw. saying someone trolls after only one post is ignorant and stupid.
No you are ignorant because you have still not understood me. Which other people have managed, which indicates that the problem lies with you. No i have not said that mappers is doing something wrong like you say. I have only said that i think we need to look at the phenomena that chokepoint maps work best with a small number of players and open maps with a large amount of players. And what that has for effects and how we best use that, and i have given suggestion for this. Do you get me this time?
well maybe I misread some stuff anyways you kept saying we should do this in maps and that, so I kinda wanted to see you make us an example..
Are we to assume that since Sirex hasn't responded with another tirade that he is instead using his time to map?
If you troll one more time i will report you. I have already said that i mean existing maps and still you persist on knowingly misinterpret me and flaming. Thus i will contact mods if you continue.
i am more for those clusterfuck maps where the game takes longer than 8 minutes...on open maps like duststorm and valley, games tend to take like...8...minutes... before a victor can be declared... Game aint fun if its won with LTs and APCs....i want ze big guns!
