Well I was just thinking that empires has no classic RTS style maps by which to play on. And now granted there are only 2 teams from which to play these on but you can still play 2 teams on a classic 8 player RTS map. So anyway I was considering makeing a 8 base circle map with the middle ground of no mans land. Something like Big Game Hunters for starcraft. So what can you guys forsee for this map being good, bad, difficult for empires strategy, just what we need! I think the fact that the map wont be a circle wont allow teams to just rush around and instantly own all the enemy buildings, you would be confined to 1 base killing at a time. There is the possibility that vehicles will dominate the middle no mans land making infantry a thing of the past depending on how it is made. I wouldnt want haveing early vehicles the win or loss of the map but may have to accept it. maybe if I make the middle bumpier than hell no one will be able to shoot while driving, infantry would have all the cover in the world, you couldnt build in the middle then, but I dont want tanks to be useless either for epic tank battles in the middle. Opinions greatly appriciated on this. I would also like the spawn system to be totally random, just like classic RTS is. I'm hoping to get ahold of silk and ask about what we can and cannot do with the random spawn locations(ex. having both barracks spawn on each other is bad). Also cant decide to have Pit of death between the bases or classic empires cliff style, granted NF instantly goes at a disadvantage of sailboat barracks being rocket sniped. Probebly leaning twords cliff style on this one, forsee many submarine CVs otherwise.
I thought about using that map myself. There are a few issues: Starcraft maps are balanced with air in mind Starcraft maps are balanced with vespene and minerals, seperate resource types. Starcraft maps are balanced with random player starts in mind, this is part of the gameplay. The map itself has a LOT of chokepoints and resources, I can see it playing out with a shitload of hidden bases and hide and seek. The map will probably be cluttered due to hammer limitations. But the maps success is a testament to the design, I can see it working if you can do it right..
well I wasnt thinking of just direct copy of big game hunters, I was merely useing it as reference as to general layout of the map. Useing basically a 3x3 'grid' is a very common thing for 8 player maps in any RTS game. Thats all im refering to, i was just useing big game hunters as an example so you guys would know what the fuck im talking about :p .
Yeah, I think the largest issue is that starcraft has two movement types: Limited Unlimited Empires has two types as well. Vehicle Infantry Unfortunately, they don't work the same, this means when it comes to the layout, you'll have gameplay issues because aircraft are a very important piece of starcraft strategy and mobility, in short, the map won't have enough movement routes and gameplay will become stale as you'll always be travelling the same route and fighting in the same positions, there will be very little choices made when it comes to attacking and defending.
Infantry can't climb every slope. And there's no walls in starcraft, nor turrets that can shoot for 20% of the map.
If you are planning to put eight base locations into an empires map, you aren't going to have room for much else. As a rule, you should be designing maps from an FPS point of view, I've said before that empires is only an RTS for two players on the server.
i think it could work, but bgh is a example for the reasons empty listed. i think showdown, or any 2 player ground based map, is a better inspiration. for a map balanced without air in mind look at warcraft2 maps (warcraft 3 maps have mobs, shops, fountains, and the like that are used to help balance)
Try emp_bush OT: well everything we talked about on steamfriends still applies. You can use (some) existing rts maps as a start, but as you yourself said they will need some tweaking: - You'd need infantry and vehicle areas - Since you play the maps in fps, you need a layout that limits visibility, which was not needed for the original map - Cause it's fps, you need to think about snipers, rocket sniping, ranged cannons, artillery ... a flat area with water works for rts, but not for fps - Long roads and complex shaped routes work for rts cause they're just ai, but players do not want to run miles and miles - You don't want everyone to be fighting in one place. This would become chaotic and a total lagfest, also .... - Remember that walls and turrets can be placed to block areas of. So multiple routes are highly prefered.
Maps need to be as linear as possible, that's what gets the conflict going, however they also need to have at least one other route so that turtling doesn't become a problem, if you aren't enjoying fighting over the same area, that area sucks, make a better area. You don't have to make only one route to have the map be linear, you can use resources, flags, and terrain to make one route more favourable or one area more hotly contested. I wouldn't make it especially complex however, I worry that kutm might be too complex and it only has three routes through the map.
But remember, simple terrain can make an area desirable, for example, the normal NF expansion on slaughtered, there's no Ref, there's nothing there, it's just tactically a brilliant spot for a base.
That's the clearing in the northeast isn't it? Been a long time since I played slaughtered, or empires really so my memory is fuzzy. I don't think that's so much a desirable location, more that it's the only location, unless you want to try building a base along a valley, which most people don't, even in RTS games they prefer areas that look like they should have bases in them. Although I would agree that the terrain can be a selling point, good cover for example can sell an area, as can a height advantage.
Not really, it makes the game boring. Imagine that area in slaugthered where the BE tower is, now imagine 20 vehicles in that area, 20 infantry soldiers, buildings, turrets and walls. You wouldn't be able to move an inch. You'd lag like hell, your fps would be 1. Nukes could not be used cause it would hit a (friendly) vehicle or building 2 m away and you'd be overheated. Or if many used nukes, all 20 infantry guys would be dead, and all 20 vehicles would be immobilized. People would try to leave that area to shoot from a distance. To get some space. To drive around with something that has been made with tracks or wheels so it can actually move. So they can cool down and actually use the weapons they paid for. There's nothing epic about 20 vs 20 in an passage blocked of by walls. Now if you have 3 passages, teams would be divided amongst all 3. Everyone would still be fighting, and the quality of the action would be a lot higher. They would have to check the minimap to see if the enemy is able to break through one of your defenses. A squad holding the east might be ordered to quickly go aid the squads trying to hold north when it seems the enemy is about the get through. Then they break through in the west, and 2 out of 3 squads from north and east will be ordered to try to destroy the vehicles that breached west defenses and to try to close the gap and rebuild the defenses. The two squads that got left behind alone in north and east know they're on their own untill (if) the gap in west gets closed. They also know if they fail now, no one will be able to come close this second gap and the game might be very well lost. Once the gap in west closed and the other defenses can withstand the enemy forces, the squads that retook west might try to advance if the other two squads seem to be able to hold the other passages for a bit longer. Now this is epic! Quality fights everywhere, while everyone is in a serious rush. But everyone in one single area? That's not nearly as fun as it sounds.
Wasn't you the one who was playing from AUS with 150+ ping on most servers? And you get no lagg? Good idea, tried it myself with Wc3s Booty Bay.. But got bored. A classic RTS could work, just don't go for big game hunters (that's a 8 player map and theres only two players in emp).
look I allready said this once I'm NOT COPYING big game hunters, like I said I was useing it as a general example for the whole 3x3 grid layout, im not going to make some giant flat piece of land. As I said in the first post I was leaning twords cliffs instead of pits of water anyway, like just about all empires maps are like. and just cause big game hunters only has access through the middle doesnt mean I cant make a access route around the edge of the map, Im just useing big game hunters as an example of the 3x3 grid for 8 player maps. I just want 8 seperate areas to build bases and for the enemy to not know where your base is at the begining, more access routes less people seeing where the enemy is comming from(ie their main start). you guys make this so difficult :p
