What if Chinese was the one who gave last warhead and platform to Rashidi sometime after Focus Shift?
And then Rashidi be like: "Nah, I just want the launch platform for my research. Yuri will eventually sense me having warhead. That won't be good. Platform OK, I give warhead back to you."
And gave warhead back to Yunru.
And Yunru be like, "I can't have an unexplained warhead when Chinese HQ inspects my base! They will think I am revolting or something!"
And gave the warhead back to Rashidi.
And so on.
And so forth.
And while Yunru worries about the warhead that Rashidi sent back to her for the 17th time.
Wondering, "I can't use it."
Then people started arriving. People of red and purple.
Then Yunru be like, "Oh. I know now. "
Then planted evidence in her head to put blame on Rashidi, in case Yuri's forces ever got to her.
The reason why Malver is so invincible in Obsidian Sands (as opposed to Singularity) is because Malver was the one carrying the warhead over thousands of miles. His psychic and muscular powers have risen with the exercise.
Posted by lovalmidas
on 07 October 2017 - 01:55 PM
My own notions on how good a map is:
Remember that a map is, at most, a (mostly) environmental canvas from which the game is played, and hence the good maps are usually those that can utilize the existing game resources (engine) to meet or exceed player expectations.
What makes a good game?
- Compatibility with the player's expectations
- Compatibility with the rest of the game elements
- Activity control.
The human mind (and the human body) has a range in both type and multitude of activities for optimal engagement.
Too much activity = overwhelmed, feeling of helplessness as you cannot react sufficiently to adversaries.
Too little activity = disengaged, boredom.
Too complex activity = confusion, stress
Too mundane activity = grindingly tiresome.
This is usually dependent on the player, their opponent's skill/activity level and their expectations of the game. So it would be prudent to engage with what most would be comfortable with.
Or use difficulty settings to discriminate the players for a better fit.
- (PvP) Fairness
Nothing ruins a game more than perceived unfairness. Especially in an area where you have expected, and in an area you have no control over. (Note: Don't expect fairness from our campaign )
A symmetry is the simplest way to ensure fairness, but a complete symmetry is not always required.
We love symmetry in maps. Partly because the changing meta means it is going to be hell to balance the asymmetry in asymmetric maps.
But other things can break the illusion of fairness as well. Map elements, even if symmetrical, can benefit one faction more than another, so keep that in mind
Of course, that is if you plan to make true multiplayer maps that are fair.
- Resource balance
The main resources here are
Money (map: ore, gems, money generators VS game: costs of units)
Space (map: buildable area, paths to strategic areas / opponents VS game: size of structures / armies)
Advantage, usually 'Technological' and/or 'Environmental' (map: pre-placed tech structures, strategic areas, high ground + game: tech tree)
Time (not very relevant to the map)
Deploy them as you see fit to keep the Activity Control in a good spot.
This is also part of the map's function: To immerse the player in the game environment, because the map is the environment. As all aesthetics are as abstract as art and asserting art achieves agony (woah, that alliteration), do not take my following words as some gospel.
Aesthetics should be sufficiently engaging but not overwhelming (see Activity control, but in the context of the eyes and ears)
Aesthetics should make sense to the overall design (sometimes, putting people off-track and implementing crazy ideas can work - behold the gimmicks! But only sometimes.)
Aesthetics should not get in the way of the player's objectives, or they may be deemed as irritating (too bright, too dark, too flashy, too much rain, enemies too camouflaged)
The game elements?
Foremost, the game engine. Few would play on a map that runs on 5 FPS. (Unless you are into pseudo turn-based MO, or are simply trying to cheese a little more micro)
Very incompatible elements and arrangements may result in crashes or desyncs (e.g. overlapping buildings). Consult the forum.
Next, the pathfinding engine. The pathfinding is not the best (see Westwood's attempts in CnC and RA1). Please don't stress it further.
Then, the graphics engine. This is usually handled by the mod assets. On the map, just make sure the lighting settings make sense. Consult existing maps to learn their settings.
Lastly, the meta. This is the least controllable because the meta shifts before the balance can say "kurwa". Straying too far from the meta can lead to either (1) sub-optimal gameplay, or (2) a surprising breakthrough in the meta. There is no such thing as 'too open' or 'too restrictive' if you do not clash with the other points mentioned, but remember that some maps are more enjoyable than others. Use maps that to not confirm to 'standard tactical map designs (whatever that is)' at your own risk.
Posted by lovalmidas
on 03 October 2017 - 06:48 AM
I doubt that stealth tech is stolen from allies, since we already had shadow ring back in Human shield (although huehuecoyotl talks about it as if it the first time we get to use it since it wasn't introduced in 3.0)
What? You have Shadow Ring in Human Shield???
Rahn's probably been genetically programmed to be absolutely loyal to Yuri or something. As for Libra, I kinda get the impression she doesn't really care who she fights as long as she's got someone to fight. It's when Yuri wins and there's no more enemies that the trouble starts... and then Foehn wakes up and she's suddenly happy she's got prey to toy with again.
Yuri: "The time has come for our new er- Libra, what are you doing to that Proselyte?"