Sins Forums
I suggest all the map makers elect 1 person to be in charge of maintaining 1 file to dl for everyone to use. Keeps things simple
Or just as simple is to release the pack with whatever maps the mapmakers add. The ones that are good are played the other are forgotten. If somone doesnt like a particular map, they can delete it from their GalaxyForge file. Easier on everyone.
Though I do agree we limit the content to just a few maps per map maker for the intial launch. Each pack afterwards can have more maps per makemaker or new mapmakers in general.
Idea behind this is to offer better games. Once we know EVERYONE has the same pool of maps, we can host those maps without some sort of lenghtly preprocess. If you feel that there is too many maps, we can make some sort of a limit of 3 maps per creator.
While I agree with you, Astax, the problem is identifying which maps should make the shortlist of that standard multiplayer compilation. I think that may require a larger selection of maps which can be vetted by the community, from which we then produce a selection of multiplayer standards.
So, we start off with a "community-wide compilation" pack in which each author submits no more than 10 of their best works. From this, we will have forum discussions over which ones are the best for multiplayer. We will then select 30 or so maps (that's 6 maps each of 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, and 5s) for the "multiplayer standard compilation" that will be recommended for all ICO regulars.
Maps from the community-wide compilation would basically be sample works that people can try out, whereas maps frmo the multiplayer standard compilation would be maps that average people in the lobby might be expected to have.
Sometimes it's difficult to judge a map unless it has actually been played a few times. I have experienced this a lot in FPS. I will look at a map and say that it's crappy only to learn later that players like it. I start playing it when it comes up in the server rotation and eventually I grow to like it as well.
Darvin I think that the creator of maps will chose his best maps to submitt. With a limit of maps he can submitt, he will think twice about putting in garbage maps. I don't think there will be that many map makers, well not at first anyways.
In the long run we may reward the better map makers by allowing them more submissions.
I think the point Dirty Sanchez basically responded to your comment, Astax. It's not that map makers will submit crap, it's that you often need to play on a map many times before there's consensus on whether it's a strong multiplayer map or not.
True; let's begin by setting up a "comprehensive" map pack where each creator showcases their 10 best works (plenty of room there). We'll discuss the maps over a couple of weeks and slowly whittle away the ones less suitable or less popular in multiplayer until we have a neat list for our "essentials" map pack.
Everyone think that's a good plan? Get together your 10 best works for the first iteration, and we'll try to set up a submission system.
any guideline for the map authors as to what types of maps are wanted beyond balanced starts for each player?
harpo
Yeah, I think a very basic guidelines should be in order. Cuz I for one have alot or odd, yet fun maps. Im sure they wont be too fun if your looking for exact balance. So Im with Harpo on this.
Oh boy, so I've gotta lay out some ground rules now.
Rule #1
These are more guidelines than rules. If you have a good map that breaks one of these, don't consider it ineligable. If you have a map that breaks many of these, maybe you should consider submitting something else. One of the maps I've shortlisted for my contribution to the compilation does indeed break one of these rules.
Balance
Your map should be reasonably well balanced. It doesn't have to be perfectly well balanced; randomized resource rocks and militia are beyond our control, and so long as these factors overshadow the imbalances on your map they should be fine.
Size
You should have between 5 and 15 planets per player. That is, a 5v5 should have between 50 and 150 planets.
Start Locations
Players should have at least two lanes (preferably three or even more) leading from their homeworld, at least one of which is an asteroid. Uncolonizable gravity wells nearby is a plus, as well. If you place desert or terran planets near player starts, be sure to give them alternatives to avoid these (since they can randomly have lots of militia). In general, start locations should maximize player choice.
Neutrals!
Ensure you have neutrals to fight over. They don't need to be in the middle of the map, but they should be accessible to Vasari scouts...
Start Distances / Chokes
Try to make player start locations between 3 and 8 jumps apart so they're neither too close nor too far away. Similarly, try to avoid creating one choke point that must be crossed. If you absolutely must do this, try to make it a star or a gas giant (uncolonizable wells which are too large to cover with a single starbase). If you're making a multi-star map, you may want to include interstellar phase lanes and wormholes to add back doors.
Avoid Sloping Jumps
Sometimes it's possible to create very "steep" phase lanes. This usually happens when two planets are placed very close together or with interstellar phase jumps (since stars vary greatly on the Z-axis). Try to avoid creating steep jumps. The easiest way to avoid this is just to space out your interstellar phase lines and avoid placing planets in very close proximity (like virtually adjacent)
Something you want to play online
Most importantly, try to submit something that people want to play online! This is really subjective, but if you keep this point in mind I'm sure you'll pick some great material.
Anyone want to add other guidelines?
ps; if you need web-hosting for your maps, you can always try submitting on RTSCommunity.com. Feel free to yell at me if your submission isn't getting approved (I have admin power over there and can get it done for you).
pity that you want small maps, my smallest is 41 planets for 2 players and range up to 400 planets for 10 players
harpo
Ok so what is the deadline for first subimssion round? I so far got one map I wish to submit. It's not an original map but rather a modification of Close Encounters so that there is 10 players. 8 of the 10 start on dead asteroids with no possibility to make any money or otherwise interfere, no phase lanes. This allows for observation of 1v1 matches on a pretty decent map. I think this would be a good map to have by everyone, thus we can have some fun games where you can watch the action happen!
Dude... 20 planets per player is gargantuan. The game doesn't even ship with a single stock map of that scale. Most maps average 7-8 planets per player, and the random maps (which are the standard choice for multiplayer) vary from 8-10 planets per player.
The smallest map in the game is Point Blank; 7 planets, two players. We'll round down to 3 planets per player. Since this is unreasonably small, I deemed 5 a fair minimum. Now the largest maps (on a per-player basis) in the game is Ancient Gifts; that one registers at a whopping 17 planets per player. Given that, I've decided to raise my guideline maximum to 15 planets per player.
Going by the standards of what exists, we can say that 3-5 planets is tiny, 6-7 planets is small, 8-10 planets is average, 11-12 planets is large, 13-15 planets is huge, and 16 and above is massive.
Now, with that said, I redirect you to rule #1. Just because you may break one of the rules doesn't mean you're inadmissable. If you have a good submission, submit it!
As for our deadline, at this point it's too early to say. I'm still waiting on my friend (must be out of town) who may be able to hook us up with an installer program.
This would be really great. I've been looking for a good Sins map pack.
Ten maps per creator might be too many for the multiplayer pack, if we want players to have a chance to compare them? Also, a smaller mappack might be much more useful, it may too much to expect the online community to have to learn more than a dozen new maps. I'm not sure I want to learn and play any more than a dozen new maps, and I'd expect contributors to be among the strongest supporters of the mappack! Wouldn't it be more preferable and much quicker for the mapmakers themselves to select one or two of their most appropriate multiplayer maps?
If there are to be two packs, one larger and one and a smaller one for multiplayer, shouldn't the thread about the larger pack be in the mod section, so that there is less confusion?
Should there be a new thread for each contribution/set of contributions, with a [Mappack] tag, perhaps? Otherwise the organisation might be mixed up with map discussions.
Okay, here's my plan:
Stage 1: Submssions
Accept up to 10 submissions from individual map-makers (up to 100 submissions total, at which point we'll have to cut the number of eligible submissions). Once we're ready and have enough content, we'll proceed to stage 2.
Stage 2: Comprehensive Release
We'll release our huge list of maps and have an open debate on the forums regarding which ones are best suited to multiplayer. No one person will have veto power, and setting up multiplayer matches on these maps will be encouraged. We will slowly reduce the number of maps until we have about 30.
Stage 3: Essential Release
We'll release an "essential" compilation which will be promoted as a multiplayer standard, enabling anyone to host these maps any time. There will be approximately 30 maps total, which are the ones selected from stage 2. We will continue to refine and maintain both the comprehensive and essential releases.
If that seems fine, I'll start getting everything set up for stage 1.
Well then I'll submit my 5v5Imperium Map. It can also be playeyd FFA or 2v2v2v2v2.
how about maps that can be completed in 2-3 hours
suggest 10 maps per author
deadline say this coming wed so people will have it by friday to play over the weekend.
update every first of the month or so
Excellent I made a submission. I do have one idea also, when you complie the map pack maybe ad somethign at the end of all the map names to designate the pack they came from? Just so the maps from subsequent releases don't get confused witht he old ones.
Changing the maps in any way could have backwards compatibility issues, I'm loath to do it without a very very good reason.
Are there plans for any really huge maps like what harpo says he has? That sounds like a map I would like to play on, but alas...I cannot find any
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
