PDA

View Full Version : Map ideas


deathgrail
09-12-2009, 09:52 AM
I was hoping for some maps with a ctf, or king of the hill scen. Could be a quick play map with unit limts, or respawn limits. Could also do attack/defend maps.

Darathor
09-12-2009, 01:10 PM
There already are Attack/defend maps, and a ctf or a king of the hill map wouldn't be too hard to make and might be made rather soon after the release, or even before.

Andy Joslin
09-12-2009, 06:33 PM
Yeah, these could easily be made after the release (or you never know, we may decide to include some 'extra' scenarios with release).

Josh Warner
09-12-2009, 08:26 PM
Yeah, these could easily be made after the release (or you never know, we may decide to include some 'extra' scenarios with release).

Once you guys do hire a few interns, I'm sure some of them would be more than happy to create alternate game mode style maps for skirmishes on top of the stuff you want them to do for those 15-20 hours regular commitment. I certainly would.

On top of these fairly standard ones, there's a lot of fan favorites from wc3 and other games that would do well. Defense games, Aeon of strife (dota), all sorts of map types that don't require reinventing the wheel but would be popular. Especially if there's an official one done by you guys or the interns, dynasty scenarios that maintain huge followings are what keep wc3 alive more than anything. There are a handful of maps that have a vast majority of the players. The real question is, how flexible MMORTS mode would be to include these game altering scenarios if at all, I doubt it... but it is an interesting concept.

It's odd thinking of ideas for things when we're still not sure what works, I can't wait to start testing and being able to actually give feedback instead of guesses.

sneaky_squirrel
09-12-2009, 08:56 PM
If there is anything I learned in AoMH (Age of Mythology Heaven) is how to make crazy/twisted maps ;p.

There is an actual "minigame" scenario, tower defense games, ping pong, a connect 4 and many more crazy things.

Geez can't wait to start making something.

Josh Warner
09-12-2009, 09:04 PM
If there is anything I learned in AoMH (Age of Mythology Heaven) is how to make crazy/twisted maps ;p.

There is an actual "minigame" scenario, tower defense games, ping pong, a connect 4 and many more crazy things.

Geez can't wait to start making something.

Yeah, all of those sound familiar from either Sc or wc3, never got into AoM to begin with though. It was too much of a departure from the Age Of I'd come to know and love, and change is scary when it's one of your all time favorites, so I stayed away from it lol.

There are plenty of game altering scenarios we can come up, I figure the interns will be given certain things to complete that the devs don't have time for, rather than do whatever they want, but after finishing any obligations for the week, I'd think they'd be free to work on their own projects, and if that's the case all of these ideas could indeed be ready before beta ends, which would really give the game a good push in the right direction, everyone here is well aware custom scenarios/UMS, whatever you call them based on the games you've played in the past are what keep RTS games alive after a year or two (Except in korea, good lord starcraft there..) though MMORTS mode could very well overtake it, I still think there's some possibility for some interesting concepts that could be added to MMORTS mode later on, and custom scenarios would be a nice change of pace if someone wants a break from MMORTS but still wants to play DoF.

MrBlack103
09-13-2009, 03:32 AM
Might be a lot of work for the maker, but doing a scenario that changes gameplay to make it turn-based would be interesting. Of course, a good RISK-style map is always worth a couple of hours play (capture cities/territories to get extra troops/income etc)

Puppeteer
09-13-2009, 04:20 AM
I think Haeso's got the right idea. Let the interns do the 'extra' maps. That way, your other devs can dedicate time to more important areas of DoF... or just more, simple maps for MMORTS/skirmish.

Josh Warner
09-13-2009, 12:58 PM
Might be a lot of work for the maker, but doing a scenario that changes gameplay to make it turn-based would be interesting. Of course, a good RISK-style map is always worth a couple of hours play (capture cities/territories to get extra troops/income etc)

Actually turn based can be faked, it can't be replicated. Not in a scenario editor, at least. I imagine if you had the entire game's source you can fiddle with it to make it turn based. it seems like it would be easier to take an already turn based game and recreate the dof units/buildings lol.

As far as standard risk type ums where it's real time? That's incredibly simply. Could do that in an hour if you used stock units and such, spawning scripts(or triggers if they exist) plus zones and you're set. Of course that leaves a lot to be desired and expanded on, but the actual hard parts wouldn't take long, the balancing/tweaking etc is just time consuming really.

I think Haeso's got the right idea. Let the interns do the 'extra' maps. That way, your other devs can dedicate time to more important areas of DoF... or just more, simple maps for MMORTS/skirmish.

I think they're going to have the interns doing a lot of MMORTS quests if I recall correctly. The question is if we provide a quality scenario, would they give us a little sticker and call it 'official', that'd go a long way towards getting a lot of people interested. Developer sponsored custom scenarios are cool, especially if they come bundled with the game so nobody has to worry about compatibility issues/downloading it third party or whatever. Especially if they're actually -good- ones, I know they said something about wanting to eventually having a team once the game is established that would hand pick the best user created stuff and at the least make a mention of it officially.


Edit: We're all bored people with lots of ideas and little constructive to do, what say we create a list of the various types of custom scenarios we'd like to see, or even quests for MMORTS/campaign.

wills370
09-14-2009, 12:56 PM
Sounds really nice to have some late in game scenarios added. would have to be careful that they dont draw to much away and try's to be awsome in to many things which in turn means it never meets the mark in any of them.

One idea could be easy defence and attack games or a escort scenario. i know they are the adverage sort of scenarios but they are the ones most in keeping with the aims of the game.

Darathor
09-14-2009, 03:33 PM
I like escort and ambush sort of deals in maps. There was a map for wc3 where there was a computer caravan with a few guards that went between two cities on opposite sides of the map. One team was the guards protecting and getting money from the caravan, and one team trying to loot it and kill everyone. It was very fun.

MrBlack103
09-14-2009, 09:35 PM
That caravan scenario sounds like real good fun. I wish there was one like that for AoK. I used to play it quite a lot. Thinking of getting into scenario-design for it again.
Anyways, arena-style games are always good for a quick online battle.
One idea would be to modify some of the campaign battles so they are available for multi-player. This way you would be able to re-create various "historical" conflicts.
Another thing that might work is a "fixed-force" mode, where you select so many troops of various types, then battle with only a few ways of getting re-inforcements. The outcome of the battle would depend entirely on the players' tactics.
Lots of possibilities, but of course the essential content in the game comes first.

wills370
09-15-2009, 12:54 AM
That caravan scenario sounds like real good fun. I wish there was one like that for AoK. I used to play it quite a lot. Thinking of getting into scenario-design for it again.
Anyways, arena-style games are always good for a quick online battle.
One idea would be to modify some of the campaign battles so they are available for multi-player. This way you would be able to re-create various "historical" conflicts.
Another thing that might work is a "fixed-force" mode, where you select so many troops of various types, then battle with only a few ways of getting re-inforcements. The outcome of the battle would depend entirely on the players' tactics.
Lots of possibilities, but of course the essential content in the game comes first.

Sounds a good idea and would be very easy to recreate many diffrent range of games at relativly little cost.

Puppeteer
09-15-2009, 04:09 PM
I like escort and ambush sort of deals in maps. There was a map for wc3 where there was a computer caravan with a few guards that went between two cities on opposite sides of the map. One team was the guards protecting and getting money from the caravan, and one team trying to loot it and kill everyone. It was very fun.

This sounds like one in Age of Mythology; two factions were vying for a caravan (piece of Osiris). Whoever had more units near the caravan, they gain control of it. You had to slowly manoeuvre it round a pass into your city.

wills370
09-21-2009, 07:19 AM
This sounds like one in Age of Mythology; two factions were vying for a caravan (piece of Osiris). Whoever had more units near the caravan, they gain control of it. You had to slowly manoeuvre it round a pass into your city.

Hmm not sure how it would work in DOF as it focuses on hving more vetran warriors also. So although you may have fewer they might be able to obliterate the enemy force given a chance.

SvN
09-21-2009, 10:15 AM
I'm looking forward to some naval maps where your fortress is on an island and the only way to get to the enemy is by the sea:) imagine how hard it would be to land an army on the well defended beach of an island fortress... it will be challenging and I would love it:rolleyes:

deathgrail
09-22-2009, 06:49 PM
Also could do a ctf multi. player map with a king of the hill twist. The flag, tower,keep,wagon, ect starts to reduce your mens moral making it harder to keep the flag.

Also could try a spy v spy type map with tons of traps/levers where your units fight npc, and players for control over effect type traps like pit falls, random fire balls, negiative effect debuffs, ect.

sneaky_squirrel
09-22-2009, 07:26 PM
That is actually possible, things like that happned in AoM (Capture the flag and units moving uberly fast detonating switches).

JDmino
09-22-2009, 09:36 PM
It is true, though I never really fancied CTF.

I would probably make some kind of LOTR map or something. :) Mines of Moria perhaps?

wills370
09-30-2009, 03:21 AM
It is true, though I never really fancied CTF.

I would probably make some kind of LOTR map or something. :) Mines of Moria perhaps?

Yeah capure the flag would be a hrd on on this game. Especially if you just attack with a patrol of horses assuming allhorses are similaar speeds you wouldent be able to catch them. One idea however would be that you have to capture a NPC city. (there would have to be two to make it even).

Josh Warner
09-30-2009, 03:29 AM
Yeah capure the flag would be a hrd on on this game. Especially if you just attack with a patrol of horses assuming allhorses are similaar speeds you wouldent be able to catch them. One idea however would be that you have to capture a NPC city. (there would have to be two to make it even).

Or you just use a script to make the unit carrying the flag move slower.

wills370
09-30-2009, 09:36 AM
Or you just use a script to make the unit carrying the flag move slower.

Hmm would make gameplay awquard if you already have a slow unit in possetion of the flag it would be super slow. And being squad based in some units all the units in that squad would look like there in slow motion.

If on the other hand they had to gain possesion of say a caravan wagon that could work?
Where that would auto move for them and you had to defend it while the enemy tried stealing it off you where by the caravan would turn round and move towards there base.

Darathor
09-30-2009, 03:04 PM
You could just have the flag slow the all units that carry it down to a certain amount.

Josh Warner
09-30-2009, 04:00 PM
Hmm would make gameplay awquard if you already have a slow unit in possetion of the flag it would be super slow. And being squad based in some units all the units in that squad would look like there in slow motion.

If on the other hand they had to gain possesion of say a caravan wagon that could work?
Where that would auto move for them and you had to defend it while the enemy tried stealing it off you where by the caravan would turn round and move towards there base.


The animation doesn't really matter honestly, a trigger based slow for CTF that reduces the carrier speed down to below that of regular infantry is the best way to do it, really the only effective way. An automatic movement takes a lot of the strategy out of CTF.

wills370
09-30-2009, 05:41 PM
The animation doesn't really matter honestly, a trigger based slow for CTF that reduces the carrier speed down to below that of regular infantry is the best way to do it, really the only effective way. An automatic movement takes a lot of the strategy out of CTF.

#The caravan then could easily just have optional sides. Where it changes sides after you claim it and you can direct it as one of your own troops.

To me i wouldent like to see units moving at a super slow pace while all your others are just walking by at the correct pace. would look to odd. To me anyway.

Plus with a caravan say full of gold it is more understandable why you are fighting over it then say a flag.

Josh Warner
09-30-2009, 07:11 PM
#The caravan then could easily just have optional sides. Where it changes sides after you claim it and you can direct it as one of your own troops.

To me i wouldent like to see units moving at a super slow pace while all your others are just walking by at the correct pace. would look to odd. To me anyway.

Plus with a caravan say full of gold it is more understandable why you are fighting over it then say a flag.


CTF is hardly ever a flag outside of FPSes. CTF name of the mode, think of it as pride. When the roman's for example lost a legion's Standard it was a great dishonor, fighting to get it back even though it's little more than yeah, a flag, was still considered a top priority. It was their pride. Or it could just simply be a magical item the unit picks up that weighs them down.

The problem with creating a seperate unit that changes control is that you have to kill the enemies units around it. This leads to ring around the rosie if your opponents army outmatches yours, letting you move the object even further than you would otherwise, just stalling and delaying to win rather than fighting.

When it's an actual unit that can be killed you need to protect it or it would drop, and if it's a good CTF - think of the requisition nodes and such in dawn of war if you've played it, you have to take several seconds in order to pick it up, uninterrupted. This means again, that you absolutely have to fight to win since your unit won't be able to run away effectively. It's a game mechanic thing, and scaled animations can work just fine. It's not like their attack animations or anything get slowed. Also Willis, the dev's have told us there are several types of movement speeds - one of which is 'walk' I believe, or perhaps march, then jog and sprint or something. I recall there being 3 at the least. Now simply forcing the carrier to 'walk' and restricting it to specific types of units that can carry it ie; standard infantry that don't have high base speed and making them walk will be perfectly fine balance wise. Unless the 'walk' speed is consistent with all units, but I believe the three movement speeds are just multipliers for the base speed of the unit itself, so it would still require restricting it to slow units or scripting.

Either using the forced walk/limited types of units as carriers or just slowing the carrier to a set speed is preferable to a special unit that changes side based on script, I mean if you prefer it, that's your call. But I just don't like the idea of as soon as you get it just microing your units away from actual combat but staying close enough to maintain control, it allows for some very cheap and ultimately boring strategies.

wills370
10-01-2009, 12:48 AM
CTF is hardly ever a flag outside of FPSes. CTF name of the mode, think of it as pride. When the roman's for example lost a legion's Standard it was a great dishonor, fighting to get it back even though it's little more than yeah, a flag, was still considered a top priority. It was their pride. Or it could just simply be a magical item the unit picks up that weighs them down.

The problem with creating a seperate unit that changes control is that you have to kill the enemies units around it. This leads to ring around the rosie if your opponents army outmatches yours, letting you move the object even further than you would otherwise, just stalling and delaying to win rather than fighting.

When it's an actual unit that can be killed you need to protect it or it would drop, and if it's a good CTF - think of the requisition nodes and such in dawn of war if you've played it, you have to take several seconds in order to pick it up, uninterrupted. This means again, that you absolutely have to fight to win since your unit won't be able to run away effectively. It's a game mechanic thing, and scaled animations can work just fine. It's not like their attack animations or anything get slowed. Also Willis, the dev's have told us there are several types of movement speeds - one of which is 'walk' I believe, or perhaps march, then jog and sprint or something. I recall there being 3 at the least. Now simply forcing the carrier to 'walk' and restricting it to specific types of units that can carry it ie; standard infantry that don't have high base speed and making them walk will be perfectly fine balance wise. Unless the 'walk' speed is consistent with all units, but I believe the three movement speeds are just multipliers for the base speed of the unit itself, so it would still require restricting it to slow units or scripting.

Either using the forced walk/limited types of units as carriers or just slowing the carrier to a set speed is preferable to a special unit that changes side based on script, I mean if you prefer it, that's your call. But I just don't like the idea of as soon as you get it just microing your units away from actual combat but staying close enough to maintain control, it allows for some very cheap and ultimately boring strategies.

The idea i had would of been similar to yours where either you need to inflict a certian amount of damage (make him change his mind to who he was helping:P)
or you could claim it buy standing by it for several seconds. I guess once it moves with your own troops it would act as much a unit as it would a flag. the diffrence only being in the visuals. Could even be that the cart was left empty and you have to populate it with your own men. that way your health would be dependant on your mens etc.

Josh Warner
10-01-2009, 01:13 AM
The idea i had would of been similar to yours where either you need to inflict a certian amount of damage (make him change his mind to who he was helping:P)
or you could claim it buy standing by it for several seconds. I guess once it moves with your own troops it would act as much a unit as it would a flag. the diffrence only being in the visuals. Could even be that the cart was left empty and you have to populate it with your own men. that way your health would be dependant on your mens etc.

You could create a script that after a certain percentage is dealt switches ownership or turns it neutral and you have to set a unit on it for a few seconds like DoW's requisition things to gain ownership. I still prefer the things you can do with a carrying system, but this would technically work if you really can't stand a change to unit animations I guess.

The things about carrying is, you can do lots of cool things with it ranging from creating lots of the same unit type to conceal which one is actually holding the item, or give the carrying unit special bonuses/penalties and so on.

wills370
10-01-2009, 08:47 AM
You could create a script that after a certain percentage is dealt switches ownership or turns it neutral and you have to set a unit on it for a few seconds like DoW's requisition things to gain ownership. I still prefer the things you can do with a carrying system, but this would technically work if you really can't stand a change to unit animations I guess.

The things about carrying is, you can do lots of cool things with it ranging from creating lots of the same unit type to conceal which one is actually holding the item, or give the carrying unit special bonuses/penalties and so on.

Yeah that would work too. Possibly give the users the option in 2 formats called either wagon dash and capture the flag. Could have small variations in gameplay also.

Josh Warner
10-02-2009, 02:24 PM
Yeah that would work too. Possibly give the users the option in 2 formats called either wagon dash and capture the flag. Could have small variations in gameplay also.

Suppose you could create several types within the same map, on init. have the first player choose which mode, or choose to let the mode be decided by vote. Wouldn't be too difficult, and adds a lot of replay value to the map if people can pick what they want. It might be a little messy to code for, but you could definitely do it.

That's one of the things I wish more games did, lots of customizable options once the game starts instead of just making 10 of the same map with slight variations.

wills370
10-03-2009, 01:01 AM
Suppose you could create several types within the same map, on init. have the first player choose which mode, or choose to let the mode be decided by vote. Wouldn't be too difficult, and adds a lot of replay value to the map if people can pick what they want. It might be a little messy to code for, but you could definitely do it.

That's one of the things I wish more games did, lots of customizable options once the game starts instead of just making 10 of the same map with slight variations.

Yeah thats true. And it could suit peoples playing style better say if they focus more on shock troops then thoose which prefer long term combat.

would make a really nice set of games to have though where the lifeline of the map before people never want to play it again much greater. i know i am reaching that stage on COD4 now lol.