MP poll : which map style you prefer

[Pocus]

bump 21 votes

[Gandalf Parker]

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. 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.

[PvK]

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 ).

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.

PvK

[Wauthan]

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 ]

[Wauthan]

Edit: Nonsense comment. Disregard.

[ March 04, 2004, 19:49: Message edited by: Wauthan ]

You mean just making the .map file?

[Buzzbomb]

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?


BB