Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Back to List

Thornford Crossing 1

By Anarchid
Rating:

Etched by ravenous moss and crawling with thorny fungus, this world dreamily waits for more dead things which give it sustenance.
Size: 14 x 14

PLAY ON THIS MAP


Downloads: 185
Manual downloads:
http://api.springfiles.com/files/maps/thornford_crossing_1.sd7
http://spring1.admin-box.com/maps/thornford_crossing_1.sd7

Last battles

Multiplayer B920382 4 on Thornford Crossing 1
Bots B710030 1 on Thornford Crossing 1
Bots B659838 1 on Thornford Crossing 1
Bots B640378 2 on Thornford Crossing 1
Bots B625867 2 on Thornford Crossing 1
Bots B625854 2 on Thornford Crossing 1
Bots B625838 2 on Thornford Crossing 1
Bots B625818 2 on Thornford Crossing 1
Bots B625808 2 on Thornford Crossing 1
Bots B614701 2 on Thornford Crossing 1


Preview
Filter:    Player:  
sort


EErankAdminAnarchid
6 years ago
Woah, no registrator / springfiles / rapid problems this time.
+3 / -0

PTrankraaar
6 years ago
(edited 6 years ago)
Nice map.

In my opinion, there are too few metal spots, and the income per-spot is too high. On ZK, there can be issues with people using terraform around the few mexes to lock out enemy raiding completely. It can also lead to balance issues on other TA-like games, where advanced extractors costs and energy drain are balanced assuming spots averaging 2.0m/s for the basic extractor.

The amount also seems inconsistent, fluctuating between 2.95 and 3.15, with some disparity between starting locations.

Note : It seems the metal per spot is about 10-15% lower than I got on an older ZK version, maybe there was a change in extraction rates.


+0 / -0


AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
6 years ago
If this is a Licho metal map perhaps link to it in the metal layout thread for feedback? The same could be done of the rectangular map.
+0 / -0
FIrankFFC
6 years ago
There is a typo on the description. 'sustenance'
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
6 years ago
(edited 6 years ago)
quote:
In my opinion, there are too few metal spots, and the income per-spot is too high.

Do you think replacing 2-clusters of 3-value mexes with 3-clusters of 2-value mexes would help, or do you think there should be more clusters?

quote:
The amount also seems inconsistent, fluctuating between 2.95 and 3.15, with some disparity between starting locations.

This is the unfortunate side effect of using the metal raster. I'll ship the new version with a config. I guess that mostly shanks other spring *TA games though.

Other issues noticed during limited multiplayer testing and that are going to be changed:

1) FFA mode lacks any value to the middle. In 1v1 or teams, the middle is valuable logistically, and also ends up having a reclaim field - in FFA, no such thing. I'll add a supermex in a FFA mode.

2) The startboxes sometimes behave super weird, rendering in one place, but only allowing placement in the *other*.

3) The castles are too dark.
+0 / -0


RUrankAdminikinz
6 years ago
(edited 6 years ago)
I think it's more interesting not to do the ffa center supermex thing and see what happens in practice, as an experiment. It's not even bad necessarily if there's no value in holding center, maps are allowed to have low-value areas.
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
6 years ago
There was one FFA game and the center was ignored in favor of everyone staging a series of 1v1's along the edges. I guess more science could be done.
+0 / -0

PTrankraaar
6 years ago
I made my first map recently and put a modified luamex as a map gadget, that way even games without it can still play.

clusters of 3 2m/s spots are better than pairs of 3 m/s spots.

You could add a bigger metal spot in the center, and single small ones in the water corners.

Maybe the thorny features could use more contrasting textures compared to the background.
+1 / -0

AUrankAdminAquanim
6 years ago
(edited 6 years ago)
Supported.

EDIT: There is some problem with random selection of startboxes but I think it is getting fixed ZK-side.
+0 / -0
Back to List