Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Forum index  > General discussion   >

9 player FFA map

11 posts, 586 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
sort

GBrankDregs
5 years ago
(edited 5 years ago)
With the map making contest coming up again, I'm seeding a new idea. As with Shifting Sands, it started in photoshop, and ended up being a real map thanks to Manu12. If anyone wants to pick up making this map idea; please let me know, otherwise I might learn and make it myself.

This map will be a 9 player FFA map. I've nicknamed it Nonsense, named after the 9 sided shape, nonagon.



It's completely geometrical at the moment in terms of design, for balance sake. FFA players often desire map balance.

It's intended to be medium in size and very short on mexes, with increasing reclaim value as you get to the center. The size and this resource decision are to force a battle royale style. We've got enough huge porc -> Superweapon maps. This map is the fight-for-your-life along the sides or duke it out in the middle brawler that FFA is missing.

Despite 9 players, games should be decisive much more quickly. Think of a slightly larger, 3x the players downpour, or similar to Aum without the cliffs and gaps.
+3 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
5 years ago
(edited 5 years ago)
This design has the same problem we've discussed earlier WRT 3 and 4 player maps - all metal is uniformly contested.

Adding some less contested areas (back expansions, defensible "naturals" etc) would be an improvement.

The supermex is an extremely fragile thing - see how it goes on Sandcastles.

It will be quicker, for sure; but i fear at expense of being fun.
+1 / -0

GBrankDregs
5 years ago
(edited 5 years ago)
There's no supermex it's reclaim. I want it to be contested. The only ones that aren't are the back 2. This is deliberate. In this game, the proximity of the contested mexes is so close that it's way within anyones power to react or die quickly - not stagnantly sit in their base whilst 2 other superpowers eventually swallow them.
+1 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
5 years ago
I guess this really depends on the closeness then. Will a Stinger at the "main" 2 mexes cover both two contested mexes?

I still think that it would be good for there to be something to do in case you lose both your contested mexes to your two neighbours, besides not prolonging the inevitable.
+0 / -0

GBrankDregs
5 years ago
The range from the starting 2 mexes to the contested mexes would be around 1.5-2x stinger distance, for base comfort and room to play. It's close but it's not claustrophobic. Slings and even the crappy badger will actually see a place in this map, and it's deliberate.

Having something else to do... I don't think so. If you lost both of your contested mexes, go to the middle and reclaim or be destroyed. It's that simple. I want early knockouts in this map and someone getting messed up is intended, and just what happens to all players eventually on a larger scale anyway. We shouldn't be afraid of it on the smaller scale either.

If you want I can design a seperate map that addresses that concern though?
+0 / -0

PLrankAdminSprung
5 years ago
Mex layout can be dynamic so you can make two layouts and have the same map pick one of them 50/50 for variety. This can also be done with reclaimables and boxes. A setting can also be done to deterministically pick one but this lacks in the UI and discoverability department.
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
5 years ago
quote:
If you want I can design a seperate map that addresses that concern though?

That would be great!
+0 / -0
USrankAdminJasper
5 years ago
(edited 5 years ago)
I have played maps like this hotstepper comes to mind.

1: The limited size and metal do not make a good FFA map. A good FFA map should allow a player to stay within their base and still have a chance. The base needs to be defendable in case you get 2v1d. Base should have at least 4 or 5 mex that are defendable. Prob 5 is a good number but depends on layout. At least 3 at starting location and another 1 or 2 nearby within base.

2: Base needs to be large enough that arty cannot kill the whole area too easy. Also bases need to be far enough apart that arty in one of the other bases is not overpowered.

3: Fighting over center and then getting 2v1 or 3v1d is not fun. Center should have mexes but not enough that it becomes a king of the hill map. If it is a king of the hill map at least have a hill. Throne comes to mind.

4: Natural snake like or rocky terrain is always nice and better looking. Coagulation Marsh or Ravaged_v2

5: Large amounts of reclaim are frustrating because it is outside the normal econ and timing dependent with huge alpha. Often they force the game outside the players control.
+0 / -0

GBrankDregs
5 years ago
Jasper, all good points - if I were interested in making something similiar to what we already have, but I'm not. This map doesn't fit your opinion of what a FFA "should" be, and that's ok.

However, and this goes to Anarchid too, I didn't design this map out of ignorance - but familiarity with the current state of FFA and what's potentially missing. It's a deliberate decision to design outside of the creative constraints of what is familiar.

No problem if the map fails, or if a few people don't like it because it encourages them to play differently. I'm way more interested in generating ideas and learning through the actual outcome. If it sucks - it can be iterated upon. But we won't know if I let your feelings run the show, will we?
+0 / -0
NLrankWesley
5 years ago
Looks like a silo rush map. I dont like silo rush maps
+2 / -0

USrankStStephenHawking
5 years ago
can't quite pin it down but I feel like FFA zk has some hidden potential to be great, imagine the factory spread and interaction range you'd see right away with a map like this.
+0 / -0