5127 replies to this topic

[TeslaCruiser]

I would like to share thoughts about maps, mostly about 2v2 and 3v3 maps + standard game mode and rules

Some maps are 'overplayed' and others are rarely used. This kind of behavior happens in every -video-Game. There is nothing weird in it. But it can help to improve the way new maps are created. -If there is going to be any

The most played maps share some things:
Distances between positions aren't extremely large
Terrain is quite simple and open. Positions have multiple routes to approach
Tech buildings: Tech Oil Derrick, Tech Airfield, Tech Missile Bunker, Tech Machine Shop, Tech (Field) Hospital

Most prevalent maps
2v2
Barren valley
Caverns of siberia
Coldest Peak
Cool party - mid heavy
Divide and Conquer - mid heavy
Double Malice - mid heavy
Fiorland - tend to crash
Frozen Badlands - mid heavy
Golden State Freeway
Lowlands
Upriver
Walk of Egypt - mid heavy
Yin Yang

3v3
Bad Weather - mid heavy
Battle Tendency
Dead Six
Defcon Six - mid heavy
Malibu Cliffs
Misery Malice - mid heavy
Revenous - mid heavy

In my eyes, we choose this maps because they allow -relatively- fast games and open fights were maneuvers can be done and different playstyles can be practiced.

Some tech buildings add frustration to the game -like Tech Maintenance Center, Tech secret lab.
Tech Academy, Tech Heavy Machinery, Tech Aeronautics, Tech Defense Bureau and Tech Military Docks can also add frustration. Don't get me wrong, one or two is fine but some maps have a superabundance.
It is also the case of tech defenses: none= good. A few= good/ok. Many=bad. Map plagued with defenses= unplayable

Tech Reinforcement Pad is my personal favorite and I would love to see more maps with this thing.

Warhead Junction is a nice map. While the starting positions are 'campy' the players need to move and fight for the tech expansions, derricks and map control in general. Map size is fine.

 

That is it. As always this is about my PvP experience. Thanks

[NorthFireZ]

I'm starting to think there should be a map where everyone starts with a tech reinforcement pad very near, if not on top, of their spawn. This will obviously give players more options at T1 and will introduce early conflict because you now have vehicles to play around with instead of pure Infantry. It's something I hope map makers will keep in mind while creating the next maps. If at all possible, take hints from Tesla's map pool, because those are great maps. 

[PACER]

I'm starting to think there should be a map where everyone starts with a tech reinforcement pad very near, if not on top, of their spawn. This will obviously give players more options at T1 and will introduce early conflict because you now have vehicles to play around with instead of pure Infantry. It's something I hope map makers will keep in mind while creating the next maps. If at all possible, take hints from Tesla's map pool, because those are great maps. 

In MO, BuildSpeed (minutes needed to build $1000 worthy of things) = 0.6.

To build a WF you'll need to go barracks-power-refinery-WF which means 5100+ credits (foehn power has special construction speed debuff), equals to 3:03. W

While a reinforcement pad starts dropping at 3:30 + 0:26 (barracks+engi) = 3:56, in the meantime we can already build one tank or two APCs.

 

Nice thought but I'm afraid it will hardly change anything

[PACER]

I'm starting to think there should be a map where everyone starts with a tech reinforcement pad very near, if not on top, of their spawn. This will obviously give players more options at T1 and will introduce early conflict because you now have vehicles to play around with instead of pure Infantry. It's something I hope map makers will keep in mind while creating the next maps. If at all possible, take hints from Tesla's map pool, because those are great maps. 

 

Maybe we could give the reinforcement pad a first discoverer bonus like derricks - an immediate free drop for the first capture.

[TeslaCruiser]

When you deploy a warfactory the first thing to build are miners. Even in small 1v1 maps the most used build orders include 2 or more miners. Tech reinforcements are free. Those are the reasons why is a gamplay changer

[TeslaCruiser]

I'm posting here a response to a discord question

StolenTech: can you then list the points which make a good map in your opinion then ?
and the problem with small maps is that they somewhat promote camping aswell because resources can't be spread far enough that they force the player to move out of their comfort zone

 

Me:

I have not a theory about 'good maps' but I have a list (previous post).
This is obviously my opinion, but not my opinion only. It is the result of many many games.
The maps in my list can provide an enjoyable experience in a consistent way at a decent skill level.
What is a good map is a matter of personal preferences. But the community of players chooses maps. You can see that in every video game.

So. What makes a map good?
1- Map is coherent whit the game technical capacity.
This is self-explanatory. I know we are talking about a mod here but still. If something is beyond the game capacity then it shouldn't be there in the first place.
Examples: 3v3's Mount Mirage, In the Seam, Straight Shot
*This is mostly about size
2- Terrain allows players to perform maneuvers.
If the map forces the players to fight for narrow passages or bridges then it is bad. Why? because it reduces the play styles to one: camp
There can be campy maps and I'm perfectly fine with that. I'm just not playing in those (most of the time)
Examples: 3v3's Amazon Atack, Army of the Potomac, Barren Grounds, Bering Strait Redux, Connection Cut.
*This is mostly about terrain
3- Tech Buildings. The key here is moderation
I also have a hierarchy:
Tech Reinforcement Pad, Tech Oil Derrick, Tech Airfield, Tech Missile Bunker, Tech Base Expansion Post are awesome
The rest not so much.
Tech Power plant is ok, Tech Nuclear Plant makes tech up way faster and I'm not sure if that is a good thing -Soviet T3 in two minutes-
Tech Satellite Hack Center: terrible idea to cap this thing
Tech Secret Lab: Balance Breaker
Tech Maintenance Center: Balance Breaker
Veterenacy Buildings: Not my thing. The fewer the better. Affects balance in a bad way.
Tech Defences: The fewer the better.

About Basecrawling: There are multiple ways to prevent base crawling
a- Large map
b- Terrain
c- A better option (expansion post)

Warhead Junction is an excellent map and is a good example of a large map done well. It is also the case of Battle Tendency
One of my personal favorites 2v2's is Big Town USA which is a really big map. But not many players share my enthusiasm about it.
 

[UNSC THE CHILL OF WAR]

Can mission loading screens have cameos of the new units and structures, just like in vanilla red alert 2 and Yuri's revenge

[Speeder]

No, because the amount of colors that each loading screen uses is very limited and I want the gradients on those to look good. In MO each cameo has its own palette too, since they're all pcx files, so it would look even worse if you had even one on a loading screen now.

[BlackAbsence]

Lancers are either crazy great or crazy terrible because of their extreme power with minuscule range: They're practically cybernetic brutes.

As result, most anti-infantry vehicles can out-maneuver/out-range lancers when commanded carefully, making the lancer a pointless countermeasure for vehicles.

I believe that all anti-vehicle infantry should be capable of effectively killing vehicles regardless, given every situation, especially when at a fundamental tech level.

Therefore I propose an alteration to the lancer: More range / Less fire power, and a different projectile animation that looks like a crescent force-wave only because I think it'd look nicer.

It'd also make more sense with garrisoned lancers striking further with this alteration because they can now strike farther outside garrisons.

[TeslaCruiser]

You can use jakal Lancer to catch vehicles

[PACER]

Lancers are either crazy great or crazy terrible because of their extreme power with minuscule range: They're practically cybernetic brutes.

As result, most anti-infantry vehicles can out-maneuver/out-range lancers when commanded carefully, making the lancer a pointless countermeasure for vehicles.

I believe that all anti-vehicle infantry should be capable of effectively killing vehicles regardless, given every situation, especially when at a fundamental tech level.

Therefore I propose an alteration to the lancer: More range / Less fire power, and a different projectile animation that looks like a crescent force-wave only because I think it'd look nicer.

It'd also make more sense with garrisoned lancers striking further with this alteration because they can now strike farther outside garrisons.

Brutes ARE anti-vehicle infantry

[BlackAbsence]

I'm sure you, of all people, know how powerful an early lancer+jackal spam is.

With the lancer alteration, it would nerf that tactic and give more intensive to use tanks, instead of a squadron comprised of about 6 lancer+jackals sniping out structures against defenders too slow to do anything about it.

 

 Brutes ARE anti-vehicle infantry

That they are, buddy. That they are and brutes are fine that way.

If Epsilon needed an anti-tank infantry with reach, they'd use archers.

 

EDIT: Now that I'm thinking more about this lancer alteration, if the nano-synced version of the lancer is suppose to swap out [close range+speed] for [normal range+armour] then maybe, since they've already got normal range with the alteration, they should swap out [normal range] for [close range+extreme damage] like how the current lancer is. They could use miniature megalodon blades and you could give 'em a cool samurai name or somethin'.

Edited by BlackAbsence, 24 July 2017 - 09:20 PM.

[TeslaCruiser]

Jakal lancer is ok

Jakal lancer + minermite is cancer

 

You want lancers to be t1 tesla troopers, no thx

[dirtman423]

The mod is excellent so far from what I have seen of it. Each faction is quiet nice and varied enough.

(I enjoy the Allies in particular.)

 

But one thing that bugs me to no end is the design of two commando units for The Epsilon Army and The Soviet Union. Yunru and Libra feel too out of place in their design. Specifically, Their appearance.

 

Whats the reason for them to be designed, visually in such an anime like appearance? Will this ever change?

 

 

I would add Eureka, but given that it is apart of a completely original faction. I think it can pass.

Edited by dirtman423, 25 July 2017 - 05:26 AM.

[TeslaCruiser]

Haha I feel the same
AFAIK a lot in mo is about anime references that is why héroes are Loli like ;v

[BlackAbsence]

Lancers already are t1 tesla troopers, practically, which are better.

I'm suggesting them not to be that way, tes.

[UNSC THE CHILL OF WAR]

Can the tesla cruiser be given the voice set of the RA3 tesla tank as it sounds much more intimidating.
Can a modified voice set of the V4 rocket launcher (from RA3) be given to the Scud launcher for the same reason.
The original voices, to me, just don't sound right. Doesn't have the thick russion accent like other units (e.g kirov, dreadnought, akula, tigr, Romanov, etc

[PACER]

That's not a so clever idea in terms of copyright. For now we're <only modifying its model> without changing the quotes. However if we use the ra3 ones that'll become total piracy.

 

-> besides that tesla cruiser voice is not too bad, not as bad as pyros XDD

Edited by PACER, 25 July 2017 - 08:45 PM.

[Bernadiroe]

Maybe I just realized this but, does the Aegis Cruiser's missile swarm removed? The one that spawn so much more missiles if you manually click the enemy.

 

Also I want to request a map much like Bay of Pigs but for 4 players in skirmish. Seems the 6 players map are too crowded with the new AI for a decent fps. (mid-game there are seem to be more frequent hiccups on the fps)

Either just remove the north and south base or remove both sides' east and west bases and make the north and south has 2 bases each.

[mevitar]

Also I want to request a map much like Bay of Pigs but for 4 players in skirmish.

Dragon Harbour.