View Full Version : MP poll : which map style you prefer
October 25th, 2003, 08:10 AM
Tell us about your preference in map construction, for *multiplayer* games.
October 25th, 2003, 08:14 AM
please keep in mind this is for MP play. In SP the settings would be differents, with many players enjoying bigger/richer maps/more leisury pace (I suppose).
So even if you never played MP, try to set your mind on MP settings http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
October 25th, 2003, 12:42 PM
the 'bottlenecking' preference is rather surprising. It reminds me of Heroes of Might and Magic maps where in essence you have the maps separated in tiny regions, each being closed by a mountain or a big pack of monsters. It gaves a definite puzzle approach to the scenario (do the right thing in the right order). Is this that which would be of interest to some of us?
October 25th, 2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Pocus:
the 'bottlenecking' preference is rather surprising. It reminds me of Heroes of Might and Magic maps where in essence you have the maps separated in tiny regions, each being closed by a mountain or a big pack of monsters. It gaves a definite puzzle approach to the scenario (do the right thing in the right order). Is this that which would be of interest to some of us? <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmm a few "campaign" storyline maps would be fun. You mean like that?
Im just guessing but I think the preference for bottlenecks is the preference for strategically important locations you can concentrate on. I generate the same type of thing on my random maps by having some provinces be too strong to be taken out until very late in the game so that a bottleneck is created by a weak province between two super-strong ones. Some consider water to create a temporary useable bottleneck. Others prefer permanent bottlenecks created by mountains.
And then there was the old idea of lots of seperated areas and designating a particular pre-found magic site to represent teleport gates (mapping such sites to provinces and setting up #neighbor to other such sites)
I think the jump from some bottlenecks to many and skipping the one-per-player is because the one-per-player maps would be chess-board. Too fair and balanced. There is a need for some like that but not a lot. Mostly for the later tournament style games that pop up when people are ready to test their favorite strategy against others with as little random element as possible (IMHO)
-- My report is on "How I spent my summer vacation as Lord Pretender for the Marignon Nation".
[ October 25, 2003, 15:10: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]
October 26th, 2003, 08:20 PM
bump 21 votes
March 4th, 2004, 07:35 PM
OK it came up again in another thread. It might be time for more people to jump to the first post in this thread and vote in the poll.
The excellent maps done by targa and tiltowait. When asked what size map to do next people said large. I got excited because I also want large but apparently I dont want the same large that they want. I know I keep harping on this but "large" is such a variance. (personally I put my vote in for huge)
Karan is 162 land and 20 water.
with 17 players thats 10 independent provinces each. The game allows a "starting number of provinces" setting maxxed at 9 each
Orania is 259 land and 20 water
17 per land player, 10 per water
The maximum number of provinces is 500.
If 450 land and 50 water thats alittle more than 25 for each player before forcing war. So is 200-250 going to be considered a "large" map?
If so then ...
300 is huge?
400 is epic?
500 is insane?
Ok I want to change my vote to insane. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I totally understand its not likely to be done anywhere near as nice as that wonderful Karan map which is why I spend alot of attention on the DomMap Random Map Generator project.
March 4th, 2004, 07:49 PM
Well my vote is for "variety", which isn't listed, so I haven't voted (and thanks to someone using that option again, therefore can't see the results http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif ).
That is, if you're going to create a new world, try to make it offer some things that others don't, or at least in ways or combinations that others don't.
I vote for sizes that don't exist yet, types that don't exist yet, and interesting ideas. Or, variations on things that aren't plentiful. Small maps are good for PBEM. Large maps are good for epic SP or maniac MP.
Specific province names and appropriate and interesting values are always appreciated.
So are interesting concepts like the ringworld or islands floating in a void, weird but explained connections, etc.
March 4th, 2004, 08:15 PM
I really like lots of natural obstacles present in the multiplayer maps. Unscalable mountains, uncrossable wastelands, impenetrable forests and expanses of water separating the players. This is most likely caused by my enjoyment of games such as Heroes of Might and Magic and Warlords.
It's not that I want to map to be small. It's just that I don't like the idea of being able of attacks coming in from just about every direction. I simply find it frustrating and unrealistic. Every conflict is a headon collision of whatever armies available. It's a great way to compare the ability to counter or counter-counter different army compositions. Sort of like watching a headbutt olympics in mountaingoat county.
That's why I've been such a fan of Gandalf Parkers Poke in the eye map since, when cranked up to independents 9, creates really interesting patterns of bottlenecks on the map. This turns the large map smaller as well, with the possibilty of sudden growth should someone get the upper hand of the local defenders.
I also enjoy random maps a whole lot. Nothing is so stimulating as going up against the unknown. On the other hand I really enjoy scenarios nearly as much. What you know lets you create strategies, what you don't forces you to create tactics.
[ March 04, 2004, 19:16: Message edited by: Wauthan ]
March 4th, 2004, 08:19 PM
Edit: Nonsense comment. Disregard.
[ March 04, 2004, 19:49: Message edited by: Wauthan ]
March 4th, 2004, 08:42 PM
You mean just making the .map file?
March 4th, 2004, 09:10 PM
Karan size is my favorite size, 160-170 land and 20-25 water with some large inland bodies of water connected via rivers like targa did. I just feel that smaller maps have more character because they can require smaller tactics (ie.holding a pass btw you and your enemy), did that make any sense?
March 4th, 2004, 09:20 PM
I rarely play maps with more than 110 provinces because I don't like the tedious micromanagement obligations of late game. I tend to use standard map settlings, but with very high magic (65%).
[ March 04, 2004, 20:24: Message edited by: Potatoman ]
March 4th, 2004, 10:08 PM
I'm a big fan of the World map. It's got a level of bottlenecking that just feels right: Not everything is split into bottlenecks, but the bottlenecking has that just-right feel to it.
This is entirely natural. After all, it's as natural a map as you're going to get, and nobody can rightly say they're not familiar to some extent with the map. Except a large number of Americans, apparently.
March 4th, 2004, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Buzzbomb:
I just feel that smaller maps have more character because they can require smaller tactics (ie.holding a pass btw you and your enemy), did that make any sense?<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">That's not a behavior of map size, that's a behavior of map topology. Both small and large maps can exhibit this behavior, depending on how the terrain is laid out.
[ March 04, 2004, 21:16: Message edited by: Norfleet ]
March 5th, 2004, 04:12 PM
I like just about every map size. Though for SP games I prefer large-huge maps. I haven't played a big map in MP yet, but considering that this game is made for PBEM I see no real problem with it.
For an afternoon hot seat game I like the "Aran" size maps. For a weekend game the "Orania" size.
For me, bottlenecks are as much a storytelling device as a strategic position. So I like'em a lot, but too many of them kind of defeat their purpose. Unlike others I do not like the "clear one valey at a time" expansion of HoMM. Holding a bottleneck should give you an advantage, but it has to be possible to circumvent them.
March 5th, 2004, 07:44 PM
Someone could make a large map... and then also several small maps which are sub-sections of it. Just an idea.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.