Map design philosophy

Based on Neutrino's replies, I think he's really trying to push for this.

Mike

I would like to have similar maps on planets in like Starcraft; Chokepoints, stepbased Highgrounds, maybe some Special Areas with cover, blind or toxic effects.
They have to be clear and balanced, the Chances for both Players should be even.
Some Varitiy is always good. Their should be different maps were different strategies are favourable.
Some changeable Terrain would be nice to have, rolling stones to block path, destructeble rocks, formable terrain(lower or raise)

But........there is alread ya game with all that, the whole point of TA/Supcom is that the game is way more organic and way way less arbitrary then the 'Norm' for RTSs.

I really hope there will be no standard map design. It was amazing how Total Annihilation had totally changing game dynamics depending on the map played and even on individual map features. Open flat plains with minimal terrain breakup made for fast flowing, chaotic skirmishes, while even the faintest of chokepoints or mounds became hotly contested areas. I would like to see maps go as open as Comet Catcher and as condensed as the recent desert biome concept images.

Yes, this. Maps in Starcraft are really boring.

It's one feature I loved in Spring.
One way to mix it with a randomly generated planet would be to mirror the planet and each players could choose a starting position in their side of the planet.

A second way is that when two player choose the same starting location, the area become
forbidden and players must retry elsewhere. It could work well in 1vs1, I don't really know in 4vs4

Like

Lolwat.

Another thing I've noticed between SupCom and TA: The position of mass/metal deposits is very very different. TA typically has them scattered about almost randomly, whereas SupCom has them grouped together more.

If we are going to have it so that players can choose their start spots on planets, I would hope that we go for the random scattering as opposed to grouping. Grouping pretty much means that there will only be so many starting spots which is very sad.

The clumping was mainly due to having fewer players than map spots, where they always had 4 spots plus 2 more fairly close. One thing a few user maps did that I really liked was that the clump of 4 was only there if a player spawned there.

Mike

Yep, but I'd like it quite a bit if there were no clumping at all at least on some maps.

It should not be hard to have maps with a flat distribution of metal patch and add 2-3 metal around the commanders at the start of the game.

This fellow doesn't get it. I mean no clumping at all. Even at start positions.

This makes bases more fluid, terrain control more important, and if start positions can be chosen, they'll be chosen based more on surrounding (protective) terrain features instead of available resources.

The problem I have with a uniform spread like that is the loss of focal points. In FA a spot that has 2-3 Medes in closer proximity was a natural focal point for expansion and combat.

Not to say that a uniform spread isn't interesting or that there aren't other ways to do Focal Points, I'm just not sure if that alone is he right answer.

Mike

Total Annihilation showed focal points are possible by more factors than just resource contention. The doctrine that metal spots can be the only thing giving terrain value is a one-dimensional and dull one.

I didn't mean that they were the only focal points, merely that there will be fewer tools to create them.

Mike

The distribution of metal is really going to create different strategies.

More dense concentrations will demand a harder fight and have a greater need for bases.

Thinly spread resources depend more on light, fast forces to control large tracts of land.

Land with no resources at all is just annoying. Chances are it will be ignored. That makes it good for alternate attack routes, perhaps. It could be a great landing spot for invasions as well.

Ideal place to drop down a radar jammer and work on that nuke silo in peace.

There were no resources on the sea in SupCom and it is still that way on most maps in FA. The strength of the naval units still makes controlling sea important.
If high terrain gives tactical advantages you might want to control those hills even if they don't have any resources.
The map Williamson's bridge only had 1 mex in the mittle. Economically, controlling it wasn't so important but it is the shortest route to the enemy base so it had a lot of importance to how the map played.

reality.

This is kind of a naive way of looking at it.
"The sea" is quite a large area in the maps you're talking about (I assume Setons/Roanoke/etc). The sea in those maps makes up at least 50% of the map. Yes there were fights in the sea, but they were in a particular area of the sea and with the objective to control your enemy's resources (and, in FAF's patched version, the reclaimable wreckage). The Top Left corner of Setons, for example, rarely sees any action apart from the occasional scout for ACUs.

Williamson's Bridge had walls covering the diagonal between the bases, so there was no room to go around or anything for that. Without that, it would have just been a wide open space to go around. Speaking of that map, most of the fights I had on it were on either side of that diagonal, because that's where the mexes/reclaimables were.

Resources give the ability to fight over areas. What you're talking about, generally, are map made or artificial choke points that you must get past. These only work if there's an objective (such as resources or the enemy base) on the other side. Without them it's kind of useless and will be unused. It is the essence of map control. The requirement to control something. Without something to control, the tactical significance of the area of the map diminishes.

Generally you will try to protect an area around your base to be safe from TML strikes (in supcom). This will either be done by clearing out a 5km area or by building TMD. For nukes it doesn't matter, so you'll just build SMD for that.

Maybe one problem with supcom was the power of T2/T3 radar and T3 air. It made it very hard to do much of a sneak attack because the scouting power given by the aircraft nullified any chance at this against anyone good.