New Map: Sedition

from Sins Forums

[MGC]Sedition

My first new map in a while.  I wanted to create a map that was a multistar for eight players but also of a reasonable size for multiplayer games.  One problem with multistars is the choke at the star, I tried to counteract that by adding phase lanes and wormholes to link the systems and also by restricting the strategic value of what could be accessed directly from the star itself.  Note also that for 4 vs 4 team games the players will be placed alternately, with one player from each team on the opposite side of each gas giant.  Any suggestions for improvements welcome.  It is a map with reflectional rather than rotational symmetry, so perhaps there is room for improvement there, however it would still have to keep to the design criteria I've outlined, and a problem with rotational symmetry might be that all the players of one team had direct access to the ice planet, rather than only two of them.

The map should also be suitable for FFA games.  The problems with human FFA games we have at the moment are that the maps tend to be too big and the Diplomatic Victory condition is an entirely unsatisfactory method of determining the winner of a human FFA game.  Also, FFA games tend to reward the players that refrain from combat.  As this map is quite small in terms of resources, these issues should be alleviated somewhat, a player who avoids combat should have an inadequate base to create much of a fleet. 

I've often advocated a different victory condition based on ownership of all of a map's artifacts, but it also occurs to me that the problem is vastly compounded by the unlimited nature of resources in the game, which I feel is holding Sins back as a game- after all the entire impetus for exploration and conquest has always come from there being finite resources available to the competing factions.  Having created the problem of unlimited resources, Sins tries to work around that with 'supply costs,' which has created the somewhat artificial economy-starbases-fleet boom gameplay we have at the moment, as if it was at all rational that it should cost money to crew and service ships and not starbases.  Sins fails hard at multiplayer FFA, which is the mode that new players might expect to play the game in.  Having a limit on the resources available would be an automatic aid to speeding up and concluding games.  

I also noted when I uploaded this map that it seemed to be directly available for download here: https://www.wincustomize.com/explore/sins_maps/311/ with none of the delays that other map creators have complained of in the past.  Perhaps we can finally get a community multiplayer mappack onto the Sins download site itself?

29,072 views 12 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

Very interesting ... !!!

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top

I've often advocated a different victory condition based on ownership of all of a map's artifacts, but it also occurs to me that the problem is vastly compounded by the unlimited nature of resources in the game, which I feel is holding Sins back as a game- after all the entire impetus for exploration and conquest has always come from there being finite resources available to the competing factions.

Strange, I've always thought games with finite resource held their games back. As far as I'm concerned the Rise of Nations model of limiting the rate resources can be extracted rather than the total quantity of resources is far superior to the old school RTS model, as finite resources just tend to lead to more needless economic micromanagement. Besides, Sins already rewards expansion more than anything else, so this lack of "impetus for exploration and conquest" leaves me quite confused.

Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 2
Strange, I've always thought games with finite resource held their games back.

Indeed, and when two players of comparable skill go at it with finite resources, a draw becomes a very real concern.

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

That looks like a nice map.  For 4v4 locked team games, would each team start on on separate stars?

Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting DirtySanchezz, reply 4
That looks like a nice map. For 4v4 locked team games, would each team start on on separate stars?

No, one player from both teams is in each North/South "Hemisphere" of both systems. Thus each player is going to have to engage another player before linking up with allies.

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

I think that would

Quoting DirtySanchezz, reply 4
That looks like a nice map.  For 4v4 locked team games, would each team start on on separate stars?

 

I think that would be the best layout for 4vs4 as Sanchezz mentioned.

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting GoaFan77, reply 5

Quoting DirtySanchezz, reply 4That looks like a nice map. For 4v4 locked team games, would each team start on on separate stars?
No, one player from both teams is in each North/South "Hemisphere" of both systems. Thus each player is going to have to engage another player before linking up with allies.

In that case, maybe he should make a 2nd version of the map that only differs in the starting positions.  Some of my maps have 5 different versions where only the starting positions are different.

Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top

I considered different starting positions for this map but rejected them.  The random option left the possibility of 1 vs 3 in each system which I wasn't keen on.  Even with the extra phase lanes and wormholes I would expect a 4 vs 4 with each team in a different system would just choke up, as its far too easy to starbase the asteroids that are linked by the inter-system phase lanes.  If I was to make a 4 vs 4 map of a similar size with each team in their own system, then I would use magnetic clouds at each end of the inter-system phase lanes to prevent them being starbased.  I can't see that sort of map also being useful for FFA, but I can make one if there is a demand for one. 

You would need to have experience of online multiplayer FFA Sins games to fully understand what is entailed.  Simply put, to engage in conflict with another player is disastrous.  Even fairly easy victories leave a faction miles behind.  

I've never played Rise of Nations.  I like that style of game so I had a look at the gameplay videos and I have to say I'm not impressed.  Total War might be a better representative of an infinite resource game, though in Total War the finite resource is time, which helps immensly with the victory conditions.  I don't know why you'd describe either model as 'old school,' they've both been around as long as strategy games have?  I disagree entirely with the proposition that finite resource games stalemate more than infinite resource ones, though.

The game I'd really like to see would be a modern version of Homeworld (a finite resource classic), with each battle/campaign set in a single solar system or similar.  Sins has some groundbreaking elements but 2d gravwells and spacefaring factions without telescopes are not progress...    

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting DesConnor, reply 8
I've never played Rise of Nations. I like that style of game so I had a look at the gameplay videos and I have to say I'm not impressed. Total War might be a better representative of an infinite resource game, though in Total War the finite resource is time, which helps immensly with the victory conditions. I don't know why you'd describe either model as 'old school,' they've both been around as long as strategy games have? I disagree entirely with the proposition that finite resource games stalemate more than infinite resource ones, though.

I don't think you quite understand me. I used Rise of Nations as it was one of the popular RTS games that used the "you can never run out of trees to cut/stone to mine etc." model that has been used by most RTS games since, such as Supreme Commander and Sins itself. As very few popular RTS games used this until around 2000 this model is newer. I was contrasting it to the old Age of Empires/Empire Earth/Dune model where a player has to worry about running out of finite resources, which has indeed been around since strategy games have existed.

Quoting DesConnor, reply 8
I disagree entirely with the proposition that finite resource games stalemate more than infinite resource ones, though.

A. Because you have finite resource, if you control more than half of the resources on the map there is no reason to go on the offensive as you know your opponent will run out of resources before you do.

B. Sins also has a limited finite resource like total war does, planets. Turtling in the classic sense is almost impossible competitively in Sins as they provide almost all of your resources and production methods, like cities in older Total War games. If you claim to be into multiplayer as much as you claim surely you must know this.

C. If by stalemate you refer to the late game starbase buildup, this could be entirely negated by the use of actual game ending units, which hopefully rebellion will provide with Titans. There is some logic to saying that defenses should increase in costs just as fleets do, but I think it former solution would be easier to implement competently.

Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top

Populous is older than all the RTS games you mention and used the infinite resource model, no?

A.  This seems weird logic.. so if your opponent controls more than half the resources you must attack as soon as possible or lose? 

B.  I am not sure what you mean by turtling 'in the classic sense.'  Turtling dominates competitive Sins multiplayer, the player who can afford to build fewer ships until later wins.  Multiplayer team games had two specialist forms of turtle, the 'eco' and 'suicide' versions, though the 'suicide' version may have only been viable because of the form of feed used before 1.32, its too early to tell.  Turtling never has been about territory gained from neutrals, its about whether or not you attack your opponent.  I played one game where I risked building slightly more fleet than an opponent and he was able to starbase each gravwell my fleet attacked as I was attacking, a classic turtle style.  Play some multiplayer and find out how to play.

C.  Unless the attacker has preponderance it will always be more expensive to attack in any RTS game, because a defender can reinforce more quickly.  A defender out of resources cannot reinforce.   This by itself means that late in the game finite resource games are less prone to stalemate.  Also, infinite resource games allow a defender to continually increase production rates, which makes them more stalemate prone.  From what I've seen  the supposedly modern Supreme Commander gets around this somewhat with absolutely the dullest terrain of any RTS ever, so that the defender can derive no possible advantage from it.  A Titan will be just another unit, and has drawbacks- after all it can only be in one grav well at a time.  Proper victory conditions, and even a variety of them, would be more of an improvement- an artifact victory, a 'king of the hill' style, maybe a space invader style etc.   

Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
a variety of them, would be more of an improvement- an artifact victory, a 'king of the hill' style, maybe a space invader style etc.

 

While I disagree with DesConnor  here on some of his points this above statement would be nice. I would like to see 'king of the hill' or 'wonder' style game play types as an option. That would be a lot of fun. Perhaps even the 'endless spawning wave of enemies' would be a nice change of pace. :-)

Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top

Good map, Desconnor :-)