The Modern Multiplayer Map Reader's Digest

[Rigor]

got it. im curious

[Quetzalcoatl]

Hi, I hope u wont hate me for this one...

Done few edits to Aethermaw:
* modified prestart event (units on differed planes will from now on display during replays)
* modified map a bit to take advantage of more 1.9 features (mainly embellishments)
* replaced some of shallow waters with fords (to fix transitions on the edges)
* ran wmlindent on config file
* removed that big starting message that explained what to do

Hopefully some of above would be useful .

Cheers
Q

[Crendgrim]

I think the starting message is quite important for those who never played that map before.
And (IMHO) for those who are already used to it, one click more shouldn't be that hard to do.


Crend

[Doc Paterson]

Hi, I hope u wont hate me for this one...

Done few edits to Aethermaw:
* modified prestart event (units on differed planes will from now on display during replays)

Cool.

* modified map a bit to take advantage of more 1.9 features (mainly embellishments)

I'll be honest; I don't love the visual alterations. I'm aware of all of the available terrain options in 1.9.5, including the embellishments that you used (such as the desert embellishments, which are already in use on the water in the lower right corner mage-dueling-academy "scene"). You know I love your work in general, but in this case, I think you've made the center of the map look far too "busy." It has a very grimy/wasteland/orcish paradise kind of a look to it, and that's not the sort of battleground I'm trying to make here. Basically, If I'd have wanted it to look like this, I'd not have made it as I did. Every hex of the current version is how I want it to be.

* replaced some of shallow waters with fords (to fix transitions on the edges)

I'm not going to change the in-game impact of a hex just because the edge transitions aren't finished yet. Those are specific design choices that were made for a reason- I want land units to have movements penalties there. I'm content with waiting for whatever graphical upgrades will come.

* ran wmlindent on config file

Cool, thanks.

* removed that big starting message that explained what to do

Not cool. I agree with Crendgrim on this, and I only put it there in the first place because I thought it was necessary.

[Scatha]

Hello,

This is a long post [though it was longer before the forum ate it and I rewrote some of it...], and a little bit of a tangent. If you'd prefer I take it to a new thread, Doc, just say.

I'd like to start by saying that I have tremendous respect for the people who design maps for multiplayer Wesnoth. I think they do a terrific job of producing maps which are interesting and fun to play, and balanced for different factions and P1/P2 -- I don't think this is an easy job at all.

That said, I'm a bit concerned about a trend towards visual clutter in some of the maps. One of the great strengths of Wesnoth as a game is its clarity -- you can normally glance at a map and understand it in a moment.

By 'visual clutter' I mean (roughly) things which are present visually which don't impact gameplay. I think that they particularly pose a barrier to attracting new players to multiplayer. I know that I was a bit intimidated by some of the multiplayer maps when I started, and I have a friend who was put off almost entirely. I recognise that it's harder to design clean-looking maps for multiplayer than for campaigns, because large blocks of terrain pose balance problems, but I feel that more might perhaps be done.

One of the biggest problems I have is with statues. I think they are very cool flavourwise on Caves of the Basilisk, enough so to justify being confusing. But I'm not at all sure they're worth it on other maps, when a cave wall / impassable mountains might be used instead. (OK, I like the statue of Sulla on Sulla's ruins, but not the yetis)

There are a couple of issues with statues:
- Wesnoth generally conditions us to look at the terrain level and at the unit level separately. These statues are effectively part of the terrain, but they register at the unit level, which is confusing.
- They interact badly with fog of war. Because they're units, you can't see them if they're covered by the fog. This means that unless you know the map very well, you can't actually make plans properly because the fog shows you an incorrect version of the map.

Other general issues:
- Things which look like they might be villages but aren't are a nasty surprise for new players. I think a lot of people fall for this the first time they play Howling Ghost Badlands (which is otherwise a lovely map). Windmills are also slight offenders, and they move, which calls attention to them, which is a shame when they have no meaning.

Here are a few map specific comments:
(I should preface this by saying that I'm generally very keen on the maps, even those I perceive as flawed in this way)

Howling Ghost Badlands: As mentioned above, the burned-out buildings are liable to be mistaken for villages.

Elensefar Courtyard: Perhaps a bit cluttered, with statues, windmills, and wells. Also, the perpetual-twilight region on the right is very cool but could do with more visual clues. I presume it's a technical challenge to have it just remain one colour while the colour of the rest of the map changes around it with time-of-day?

Scarred Foothills: Awesome map, but I really don't think the wolves add anything. Admittedly in this case I don't think they're confusing, so this is merely an aesthetic question.

The Walls of Pyrennis: I'm afraid I don't find the impassable terrain looks good in this one (it's also less visually distinct from the castles on the map than ideal). But this is again mostly an aesthetic judgement.

[Caphriel]

Elensefar Courtyard: Perhaps a bit cluttered, with statues, windmills, and wells. Also, the perpetual-twilight region on the right is very cool but could do with more visual clues.

Now that you mention it, wouldn't it be better to just have an explanation of that, like on Aethermaw? Judging from games I've watched, many players aren't aware of that mechanic of the map at all.

[Doc Paterson]

That said, I'm a bit concerned about a trend towards visual clutter in some of the maps. One of the great strengths of Wesnoth as a game is its clarity -- you can normally glance at a map and understand it in a moment.

Half of the maps you cited are not even mainline. Pyrennis is Rigor's so you can talk to him about that. (I personally think the decoration there is fine, and actually clarifies, rather than complicates, seeing as some of the keeps are impassible.) Scarred Foothills is also not mine. I had done a version of it a while ago, but it was altered by someone; I'm not sure who. Either way, I don't think it was the best balanced map. I don't mind the wolves, though there is that weird graphical glitch going on where they don't have front legs. :/ Courtyard is Krotop's, though I haven't seen him in quite a while, so I might consider an edit or two there (normally I would leave these choices to the author, if the author is around). HGB is the only one you mentioned that is both mainline and of my own design. I'm not going to sacrifice the visual theme there because a new player might mistake a burned out village for a real village and send a unit there though- They only need to play the map once to learn that lesson.

One thing that I do basically agree with though is that statues may be becoming a little too common in newer maps, and I'd like to see a general decrease there.

I recognise that it's harder to design clean-looking maps for multiplayer than for campaigns, because large blocks of terrain pose balance problems, but I feel that more might perhaps be done.

This is a matter of preference. To me, most campaign maps look pretty boring, and thrown together. "Big clump of trees here, big clump of mountains here, path here, done." If you want to make a multiplayer map with generally larger terrain clumps, you should do that, and test it. Maybe you'll find a configuration that works.

[Scatha]

Thanks for the reply Doc. You make your points well.

I feel on HGB that even that one time is really one time too many, but I do like the visuals, so I'm torn there. If it were easy to make the burned-out villages a little more obviously burned-out, that might be worthwhile, but I imagine it would take substantial work from the artists.

I actually have similar criticisms to you of quite a few campaign maps, but the problem there seems to be mostly that not enough work has gone into them. I brought this issue up here because obviously a lot of work has gone into a lot of the multiplayer maps, and I thought people probably cared enough about the possibilities of making them better.

For (to my mind) pretty campaign maps, I'd cite as an example the maps in the cooperative multiplayer campaign "7 seasons", although many of them are filled with large amounts of one type of terrain (note that the first map in the campaign is IMO not one of the best, though). I may at some point have a go at making a map, but I think I'd like to learn more about this game first.

[Caphriel]

As a possible alternate solution to the burned-out villages on HGB, and to help players who are playing new maps for the first time, do you think it would be reasonable to mark villages in some way? This may be beyond the scope of this thread, and I feel like it's been discussed before, but I can't find it.

[Rigor]

seeing that more and more games are being played on cynsaun i think there should be something done about 6 mp leaders. they just take the position in the east in no time, giving the northern player no chance to secure his eastern flank. im sure u will come up with something really easy and reasonable

thx for your input scatha, perhaps its asked too much but do you actually wanna help changing maps too? i wouldnt mind too much since u would show us ur suggestions not only in theory but also in detail. the easiest operations that help to make the design more beautiful would be to hold the alt button when u click wit hone type of terrain on another type of terrain, e.g. mushroom and river: you can create decent overlays by that. for pyrennis/scarred foothills there was another technique we used, you would have to invest some time looking at the maps cfg file, where you could play around with the image path and try to find a better looking picture.

to shortly answer your question about the maps: pyrennis is not completely finished yet, we await the KOTFs first round results so there will be some improvement on the map, and scarred foothills was created by siddhe, who is no longer online, and i found the map and modified it a lot after it looked almost like it does now, then doc polished it further until it reached its current shape. i think the map is pretty good in terms of gameplay and looks, and the wolves have been a more recent addition. however, it would be nice if u looked into the map editor urself and played around a bit and post the results online.

[Velensk]

Villages are marked in a way, however it's so unnoticeable that I don't think most people are aware of it.

If you are telling a unit to move to capture a village a little (village icon)+ icon appears over the hex.

[Horus2]

Villages are marked in a way, however it's so unnoticeable that I don't think most people are aware of it.

If you are telling a unit to move to capture a village a little (village icon)+ icon appears over the hex.

Maybe more noticable that the terrain indicator in the top line says "it's a village terrain, man". I found it useful in every similar doubtful case. Burned village gfx are good as they are.

[Velensk]

It occurs to me that I never actually got around to giving you this. These are the else clauses I made so that Hornshark works with non-mainline factions.

I am not sure that the giant rat exists in 1.8 so you might have to tweak it somewhat for that release.

Code: Select all

[else]

        [unit]
            side=1
            type=Young Ogre
            id=Big Baby Bo
            name= _ "Big Baby Bo" 

            x,y=24,4
            [modifications]
                {TRAIT_LOYAL}         
                {TRAIT_RESILIENT}
                {TRAIT_STRONG}
            [/modifications]
        [/unit]


        [unit]
            side=1
            type=Giant Mudcrawler
            x,y=25,3
            [modifications]
                {TRAIT_LOYAL} 
                {TRAIT_RESILIENT}
                {TRAIT_DEXTROUS}
            [/modifications]
        [/unit]


        [unit]
            side=1
            type=Tentacle of the Deep
            x,y=8,1
            [modifications]
                {TRAIT_LOYAL}                
                {TRAIT_QUICK}     
            [/modifications]
        [/unit]
        [unit]
            side=1
            type=Tentacle of the Deep
            x,y=7,1
            [modifications]
                {TRAIT_LOYAL}                
                {TRAIT_QUICK}     
            [/modifications]
        [/unit]


        [unit]
            side=1
            type=Giant Rat
            x,y=1,1
            [modifications]
                {TRAIT_LOYAL}  
                {TRAIT_STRONG}              
            [/modifications]            
        [/unit]
        [unit]
            side=1
            type=Giant Rat
            x,y=1,2
            [modifications]
                {TRAIT_LOYAL}  
                {TRAIT_QUICK}              
            [/modifications]            
        [/unit]
[/else]

# for side 2

[else]
        [unit]
            side=2
            type=Young Ogre
            id=Baby Baby Dro
            name= _ "Big Baby Dro" 
            x,y=6,20
            [modifications]
                {TRAIT_LOYAL}         
                {TRAIT_RESILIENT}
                {TRAIT_STRONG}
            [/modifications]
        [/unit]


        [unit]
            side=2
            type=Giant Mudcrawler
            x,y=7,21
            [modifications]
                {TRAIT_LOYAL} 
                {TRAIT_RESILIENT}
                {TRAIT_DEXTROUS}
            [/modifications]
        [/unit]


        [unit]
            side=2
            type=Tentacle of the Deep
            x,y=22,27
            [modifications]
                {TRAIT_LOYAL}                
                {TRAIT_QUICK}      
            [/modifications]
        [/unit]
        [unit]
            side=2
            type=Tentacle of the Deep
            x,y=21,27
            [modifications]
                {TRAIT_LOYAL}                
                {TRAIT_QUICK}      
            [/modifications]
        [/unit]

        [unit]
            side=2
            type=Giant Rat
            x,y=30,27
            [modifications]
                {TRAIT_LOYAL}  
                {TRAIT_STRONG}              
            [/modifications]            
        [/unit]
        [unit]
            side=2
            type=Giant Rat
            x,y=30,26
            [modifications]
                {TRAIT_LOYAL}  
                {TRAIT_QUICK}              
            [/modifications]            
        [/unit]
[/else]

I will note, that balance against the standard unit sets shouldn't be too much of an issue as if one faction is non-default, the other likely is too.

[tekelili]

A game vs leocrotta on new hamlets, darves vs orcs (both random). I dont know if it proves anything, but we found impossible play game from some point lines becomed very tight. Please, dont get ofended by chatlog coments about map, playing a game they are a little flawered

EDIT: As side note, I also remember a game vs goldilocks on den of onis where, after I get kill adventage on defense, I was unable to find a way to get profit of my adventage when found a line of trolls for his defense, same as happened vs leocrotta. It is just my lack of skill or darves haw no chances on small maps, vs skilled oponents that only takes small risks that they can recover if plans go bad, when playing orcs?

[Gallifax]

Hi Doc,


please have a look at the replay and the discussion.

Cheers