General Forged Alliance Forever Mapping Survey

[Morax]

Hi all, it seems that 2016/2017 plus has seen an increase in mapping and it would be appreciated if non-mappers can give some general input to authors.

If you are someone who does create maps, please wait until several others answer the following so they don't get distracted by people who know how it works.

DO NOT CRITICIZE WORK IN YOUR RESPONSES. USE POSITIVE INPUT ONLY, PLEASE.

1) Where do you want to see the general mapping trends go?

2) What 1v1 maps do you like and why? Please show with screenshots or describe features such as gameplay-wise mechanics, aesthetic details, and etc that make an impression on you.

3) Team game maps, same deal.

4) How important are aesthetic details to you? What are unacceptable traits such as areas that are too bright or maybe non realistic terrain that is used to enhance gameplay.

5) FaF username and rating (1v1 and global) to help understand the skill level audience.

Thanks, and hoping this input can help myself and other authors produce fun content for the game.

[keyser]

1)
I would love to see more water map with sea mexx (but that's what happening nowadays)
I would especially love to see map without air spot (we kinda can do that with adaptative maps, but i still see most map being played with an air slot)
Could be also nice to see some new 5x5, because all 5x5 we have are super old.
Also maybe having a good map (no troll map) where you start from a T2 transport (which auto ctrl k after droping ACU if possible...)
kind of lack of 10x10 map where acu drop is worth it (map where you don't have to spam T1 a lot)
Also i feel like we don't have map where the army placement is so important that positioning of army can give a super good advantage. Like in sc2 you can take position with terran, and use tank to bombard mineral lines of your opponent.

2) i like 10x10 map that are open (not too turtle), because i can fully use my ability to maneuver my army with my commander (twin river, loki, darkfall..)
I also like map like white fire, that allow ACU to be useful on the battle front even if they are water navy map.

3) I like map that allow me to use different strategy every game. On lots of maps you kinda need to it only one way, and it is kind of boring. Something like funeral plain maybe. Not quite sure, i usually like to change map often to set up different strategy, but it feel like difficult to find a map with plenty of different ways of playing it.

4) gameplay > aesthetic, but aesthetic is still very important. I mean you could make a gap super beautiful, i would still not play it. I would still play on a map interesting gameplay wise but ugly as f***, would be sad though that you mapper didn't spend time to make it beautiful when he had a super interesting idea gameplay wise.
For example i was ok with badland, not super pretty, but not too problematic (gameplay wise it isn't really nice, but w/e). Sure it's nice to have some new "badland" more beautiful, but it's a little plus.

5) keyser : 2000 ladder rating, 1850 teamgame rating

[NapSpan]

1- I really like "big" maps where ACUs spawn far from the map border like "Farce in tha Forest"(not sure about this name but I,m to lazy to search again) or "Emerald Crater", enough big and resourceless to improve good army management, mobility, raiding and make battles more dinamic since in this way reclaiming its more important.

Keyser: Also maybe having a good map (no troll map) where you start from a T2 transport

If this is possible I really would love to see it, maybe being able to move the drop order around to start wherever you want, with maps enough big to punish players trying to start far far away and getting ACUs away from certain areas with civilian AA. (maybe using T2 transport and T1 AA, nobody wants to die at start by one stupid mistake)

2- I like maps 10x10 or bigger, kinda open and with enough water to make navy possible but with more land than water (something like "Hanna Oasis" but not as massive or "Gentelman's Reef"). To me good maps need to have good gameplay and aesthetic at same level, i dont really care if one map is georgeous if it has (in my opinion) crappy gameplay like "Lake Arokh" (good-looking map with weird gameplay).

3-I like maps that dont Impose you some kind of strategy by your slot, something like "Tabula Rasa" but without that feeling of playing 4 duels instead of one big battle. Also I would love to see one 20x20 or 40x40 map without being more than 50% water,
40x40 is big but T3 ships are big too and navy play somehow simplifies battles.
I know with big maps there are problems with game going slow, so maybe just more 20x20 maps with less than 50% being water and of course not being anything like Setons.

4- Gameplay >= Aesthetic, you are gonna to be looking to the map about 30 minutes after all, make it look nice. People would play again one map for sure if it is enjoyable and beautiful. As example "The Scar", it's gameplay is really interesting but it's ugly as hell so people dont play it.

5- NapSpan- Global: 1200 Ladder 1000

[biass]

I don't know if you actually want mapper responses in the survey because i don't know if you made a typo but i made a short response anyways:

Spoiler: show

1) Where do you want to see the general mapping trends go?
: I hope that people start to work on stuff that is more out there, or different, to the norm
OR
I hope that the vault gets some whitelist sorting or filters and then the mapping scene becomes more competitive to create a decent map so eventually we'll have month long masterpieces instead of a 5 minute shitout that spam the vault every day

Both are nice for the end audience

2) What 1v1 maps do you like and why? Please show with screenshots or describe features such as gameplay-wise mechanics, aesthetic details, and etc that make an impression on you.

5km: esgaroths ruins? or something, its a nice open 5v5 map with a bunch of different lanes and stuff, i think the best 5km maps are the 5km maps that are not cramped

10km: Regor, because it's one of the best 1v1 maps for the formula of taking half map, expansions, etc, while still adding stuff like drops, water passes, to make it versatile

20km: Seraphim glaciers, blends the three military branches in well enough while still taking to that aforementioned formula, etc

Im not really a fan of any teamgame maps, sorry

4) How important are aesthetic details to you? What are unacceptable traits such as areas that are too bright or maybe non realistic terrain that is used to enhance gameplay.

Don't peak the light balance, else, hopefully you can attribute something "different" to the style you were going for, if it looks like trash, we'll know.

If mappers were bound to a schedule or a deadline, the excuse could be made for neglecting either looks or play, but we're not, and thus mappers need to take care of both if they want a nice map,

biass is 1263 global and 1465 ladderino atm

[nine2]

I would love to see 2v2 team maps that reward raiding.

In a 1v1 you must build units otherwise lose the map and then you are dead. In team games the opposite happens because ACU's cover all of the positions and they are not raidable.

If you made extra positions that aren't occupied by ACU's then players would need to spam. Ecoing and tech upgrades would be a risk.

For example if you played 2v2 on open wonder you would get this sort of gameplay. I don't see people doing it.

[Plasma_Wolf]

1)Maps with more than one option to win, but also not so many things to do at the same time that a single early mess-up will kill you. This usually goes with something easily missed in the early build order.

2)My opinion about maps I like or not like usually depends on how well I do on those maps. I used to hate Williamson's Bridge but I found a working build order and now I love it. I used to love Regor VI Highlands but now... Well I don't hate it yet, but I'm not much of a fan because of my performance.

3)I don't play many team games, but a team game should be an actual team game instead of a series of 1v1s. On Seton's for example (admittely based on what I've seen in replays, not on me playing on it), what it essentially is: air vs air, navy vs navy, navy 2 vs navy 2. At the start a land 1v1. Of course there's a team element. Air has to help out wherever navy is in trouble (and the navy players can do a lot of work to disrupt opposing air), but there are other maps where players have to send their armies over to help others way more often. Where you see two ACUs attack a single one and the supposed fourth player has to rush to help. That's the sort of thing I want to see in team games. Mostly because it adds more chaos.

4)Aestetics and gameplay are equally important to me. But I've never seen a custom map with great aestetics and truly horrid gameplay. There are two ways you can work out a map. The first is by thinking a lot about the gameplay you want to see on the map, and then make that. After that, refine in textures and detailed heightmapping. I do it the other way around. I just do heightmapping and textures to make islands, hills and mountains I want to see, place mexes on the map and see what happens. I recommend trying both.

Take your time for the aestetics. Thanks to the version system in the map vault, it's good to upload early versions where the gameplay is about the way you want it and you only have to refine the stuff.

It becomes a problem if aestetics affect gameplay. This is the case with huuuuge mountains and very steep slopes. This simply destroyes the air game. Bombers won't drop properly and interceptors will be out of control. I've made very high ridges on Point of Reach. Back then I liked it and I don't want it to change now, but if I were to make the map now I'd certainly have them lower.

5)Plasma_Wolf. 1v1 rating about 1500 (sometimes lower sometimes higher). Don't play many team games but I think I have about the same performance as in 1v1 with a bit of practice of how I should work with others in team games.

Because of this thread I wanted to look up an excellent map that I can't remember the name of. It's a rectengular map (horizontally longer), I think 10x5 or 10x7.5. When I searched the GPG forum archive I think I saw the name of the person who made it (from memory). That would be Paceydre. The map was absolutely stunning in aestethics and had at least 5 lanes for battle. Each lane is quite narrow though. I also know it's been played on FAF occasionally, but maybe the gameplay doesn't allow for a lot of variety.

EDIT: The map is called ForestPlanet

[Morax]

I'm going to give this thread a little more time then write a reflective post. Thanks for the responses so far.

[Turinturambar]

for 1v1 I would like to see a 6x6 or 7.5x7.5 which Plays out similar to a 5x5 (meaning low mass huge priority on armycontroll and Micro of small Groups of units etc) or a new interesting 5x5 (so preferably not a one or 2-lane map).
I would also like some open 10x10 maps with reasonable mass and not too many mexes you can safely tech.
for teamgames (4v4) I would like to see if 12.5-15km land maps to make teamgames less turtelish with nice raiding etc. (without insane reclaim...) on this maps pplayers could also have 20+ t1 mexes of which only 6 should be safe to tech though.

for aesthetic I only care if the Terrain is not so bright, that seeing mexes becomes an issue and the texture should make it easy to see moutains etc (on some maps the are green hills you cant rly see and then the pd you build Ends up Shooting against that hill :/ .
also best no textures that can be mistaken for water/water thats unrecognisable.

Keep the reclaim as low as possible pls (e.g. comet catcher is a nice map without having any reclaim)

ladder 2.1k;global 1.9k

[Morax]

Hi all,

Just FYI this feedback is immensely helpful.

Unfortunately I lost 2+ weeks work on my up and coming map and it's been very difficult getting it fixed.

I will resume work on new maps with this after I finish the 3 new maps I am making for my tournament.

Thanks again

<3

[JoonasTo]

1) Where do you want to see the general mapping trends go?
More active maps.
All spots equally important on maps(no air spots.)
More active mex placement, not eco/turtle mex placement like 6-3+3-2-1-2-3+3-6(base-expansions-front-mid-front-expansions-base), rather 3-2+2-3-5-3-2+2-3.
Reclaim fields only in contested areas, less reclaim in general. Less trees that force specific buildorders(like wonder, selkie, setons.)
Less factionally unbalanced maps(ie. no maps with tactically placed water barricades for Zthuue/Wagner to wreak havoc or maps with uneven terrain so Aurora/Rhino/Othuums are screwed.)
More asymmetrically balanced maps(like setons, selkie, Tabula.)
Less lane locked maps where an early decision on which route your units are sent might decide the game because the lane is impossible to get off and too long.

2) What 1v1 maps do you like and why? Please show with screenshots or describe features such as gameplay-wise mechanics, aesthetic details, and etc that make an impression on you.
Comet Catcher. No reclaim at the start. Mex placement that rewards map control. Lots of room to maneuver around. Raiding matters. No problematic terrain.
So in short, a map that rewards good map awareness and active gameplay over map specific information or buildorders.

3) Team game maps, same deal.
I don't think there's a teamgame map that really hits home like CC does in 1v1. Multiple ones have great ideas, concepts or features but they all have a weakness somewhere. Setons has great asymmetric gameplay but also such a horrible turtle air spot, for example.
The perfect teamgame map would have diverse gameplay, preferably with an ocean(with mexes on islands in frigate range, because can't do storage underwater and zthuues being able to kill mexes while frigates cannot is a huge problem) and 20x20km(20x15) if 5v5(4v4), 10x10km(10x15) if 2v2(3v3), but also ease of movement between teammates' areas to facilitate teamwork. This requires more complicated terrain than 1v1 maps do which makes them more harder to balance and more complicated to make sure they don't bottle up the gameplay too much. Also 6v6-8v8 must be larger than 20x20 to not become turtley.
Players should also never start too close together because then one player dying is irrelevant as the base is free reclaim for the team who just had the death. This is commonly a problem on maps not designed for so many players to begin with(Canis 5v5, Hilly Plateau 5v5.)

4) How important are aesthetic details to you? What are unacceptable traits such as areas that are too bright or maybe non realistic terrain that is used to enhance gameplay.
I don't particularly care for looks(I play on low fidelity anyway.) I just want the map to be easily readable from a high zoom level, that includes hills so if you have to colour every unpassable hill, cliff and rock purple to achieve that, do it. Zooming in to realise you've been shooting all your OCs at a hill or that the enemy just made landfall through that "cliff" is not acceptable.
What does irk me is objects like unbreakable walls used for map creation. Don't really know why myself, they just trigger me. I guess they just feel gimmicky.

5) FaF username and rating (1v1 and global) to help understand the skill level audience.
JoonasTo, ladder 1300-1500, global 1600-1800.