Age of Strategy Forums

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2020 5:47 am**

I think i will start wiping out many many maps started with random maps because of the old map handling i should remove from code.
and also these maps can not be that nie having no decoration layer. (that format had no possibility to have multiple layers)

hereis the list,

Code: Select all

	
	greenfield_20.tmx"));
	rnd_desert_medi_20.tmx"));		
	mediterrain_20.tmx"));
	fix_river_20.tmx"));		
	rnd_user_xriver_20.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_river_roads20.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_forest_river_20.tmx"));
	lakes_20.tmx"));  
	ocean_20.tmx"));
	rnd_user_perilous_realm.tmx"));
	greenfield_30.tmx"));  
	fix_river_30.tmx"));
	rnd_user_island_30.tmx"));	
        rnd_user_v2_river_roads30.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_forest_river_30.tmx"));
	rnd_user_north_south_30.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_the_forgotten_land.tmx"));
	rnd_user_planktown_35.tmx"));
	rnd_user_shadow_hill_35.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_the_ruined_city.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_the_prison_fight.tmx"));
	rnd_user_abandoned_city_35.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_gualcanal_31_36.tmx"));				
	greenfield_40.tmx"));
	rnd_user_fire_altar.tmx"));
	rnd_user_montain_arena.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_continent_bridge.tmx"));
	rocky_40.tmx"));			
	lakes_40.tmx"));
	rnd_user_xriver_40.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_river_roads40.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_forest_river_40.tmx"));
	ocean_40.tmx"));
 	rnd_user_mega_quad_arena.tmx"));
	rnd_user_the_bridge_of_greenfield.tmx")); 
	rnd_user_river_roads.tmx"));
	rnd_user_great_river.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_forest_river_50.tmx")); 
	rnd_user_world_map_50.tmx")); 
	rnd_user_v2_the_england.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_the_england2.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_world_south_america_45_54.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_world_africa_47_52.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_world_north_america_51_57.tmx")); 
	rnd_user_v2_world_europe_65_45.tmx"));
	rnd_user_v2_great_lake75.tmx"));

please tell me
a) can i wipe them all out? (there will still remain many other maps)
b) please tell me if there is this and that that you would like to stay -> this case we need to design it as a new map and then i can wipe out

thanks!

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2020 10:09 pm**

Well, isn't possible to just convert them to the new format? Or we would need to manually re-do them? Some of these maps are just classics to let them be erased.

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2020 10:23 pm**

no possibility to convert - or about 1 week development

Posted: **Sun May 17, 2020 5:33 pm**

Will these maps eventually be replaced by new ones? My problem is that a lot of the maps in your list are the bigger ones, and I feel we need more of these, not less, especially as the map editor has a max of 40x40.

In particular, mega quad arena is fantastic, almost the perfect map for a four way fight, and the real world maps also have great appeal.

Can anyone (me, for example ) get a map editor bigger than 40x40 to send bigger maps to you for your approval? I host mainly 6 player matches, and I feel we really need the bigger maps, and ideally more of them.

Posted: **Sun May 17, 2020 6:50 pm**

Well to make bigger maps, you will need map editor privileges, that are granted by the dev for your account, I personally don't have, but managed to make some with an old exploit that i guess it is fixed... But would be nice to have the map editor privileges to make more maps anyway xD

Btw Huge maps beyond 40x40 you start to get huge issues with the random generation logic of TC's, having TC's spawned in unfair ammounts on unfair sides. So i think Daniel locked them for this reason.

I've been testing the 1 TC match in a while on oversized maps, and can say that they are fun, but long due the lack of factories, so you pretty much end playing a tower defense and siege war, long enough that could make you finish the match with max multiplayer badge, but on smaller maps as 20x20, they are ok to go.

Btw i already own some maps. Not enough to replace them all but still something, I just hate the idea to send them one by one using an external app, it takes too much time for a simple task, if we had a batch i can gladly send them all.

Posted: **Sun May 17, 2020 7:02 pm**

you dont have grant to send me these maps? if you have please send me (from the mapeditor)
if not tell me your exact username and i will grant it to it.

Posted: **Tue May 19, 2020 10:44 pm**

My ign is "Visconti" in all games aside AOG, which is "DDD" xD

Well i can send, but what i meant is:
- Why we can send only one map at time? One map per e-mail is too much spam imho as we are talking about several maps, we waste too much time making and reading them all.

I want to send them all together (Aside the 1 TC ones). So i can redo some of these old tmx ones.

Posted: **Wed May 20, 2020 9:09 am**

send me the best 5 at first.
thanks!

Posted: **Mon May 25, 2020 10:43 pm**

Hard to say what's best... Its like to ask who's your prefered children xD

Tho, made these 3 from TMX ones, not sure about what other map i should re-do next.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 5:33 am**

aweome you are!

Q1: i thought that since those maps were created we have spawners and neutral TC bering able to place by mapdesigner, shall we put them down for more fair TC alignment?

(drawback: will be less varying as most TC-s will be on same spot)

Q2: dont forget those old maps were "ugly", as there no decorations either, so please on remakeing them use nice decorations too, flowers, dirt, trees and so on. (i dont see from these intro-images if u used them or not)

Posted: **Wed May 27, 2020 3:14 pm**

Q1 - Sure, can be done, but as random games, it would be better for them to stay random, so for them, i propose a new definition...

Instead of using "SpawnPoint x to player 1 or 2, 3 or 4, 5 or 6", that is usefull for campaigns, you should make a new spawn point to define "SpawnPoint x to »any« player". So se can keep this randomness on fair TC alignment.

Q2 - Well, i attempted to make those 3 as closest of the originals as possible as legacy maps, that's why i labeled them as "Classic", since they are popular maps from the older code...

Btw i was thinking on make a customized version of them aswell with updated looks and seasonal versions.

Posted: **Wed May 27, 2020 6:58 pm**

which polayer starts where: that is already random. u can use those

but my plan was not to let any new map being THAT random so no unfair setup will be - you dont support this idea?

i can understand if randomness is also tempting to have such.

Posted: **Wed May 27, 2020 8:43 pm**

He meant that making same spawn points but for all 1-6 players so their position at start will be chosen between 6 possioble ones instead of between 2 for each3 pair of players.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2020 2:52 am**

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 6:58 pm which polayer starts where: that is already random. u can use those

but my plan was not to let any new map being THAT random so no unfair setup will be - you dont support this idea?

i can understand if randomness is also tempting to have such.

Don't get me wrong, i totally support fair setup, what i want to say is that... This pair spawn definition is not suitable for random matches, since you can literally know information of "who" and "where" on fog enabled matches before joining the map by just looking the join order of players that entered before you... That is not cool and can be exploited on bet games...

makazuwr32 wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 8:43 pm He meant that making same spawn points but for all 1-6 players so their position at start will be chosen between 6 possioble ones instead of between 2 for each3 pair of players.

Yes, i don't like to lock specific spawnpoints for specific players... So a new spawnpoint that covers all players, giving them the same chance of spawning on all possible points would be great for this.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:18 am**

Having Preset spawnpoints for any player will really help and also needs to change that random map fortknight

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:26 am**

DoomsdayDragonfire wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 2:52 am
Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 6:58 pm which polayer starts where: that is already random. u can use those

but my plan was not to let any new map being THAT random so no unfair setup will be - you dont support this idea?

i can understand if randomness is also tempting to have such.
Don't get me wrong, i totally support fair setup, what i want to say is that... This pair spawn definition is not suitable for random matches, since you can literally know information of "who" and "where" on fog enabled matches before joining the map by just looking the join order of players that entered before you... That is not cool and can be exploited on bet games...

makazuwr32 wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 8:43 pm He meant that making same spawn points but for all 1-6 players so their position at start will be chosen between 6 possioble ones instead of between 2 for each3 pair of players.
Yes, i don't like to lock specific spawnpoints for specific players... So a new spawnpoint that covers all players, giving them the same chance of spawning on all possible points would be great for this.

but they are random now (i mean you can never know which player is on which spawnpoint - or can you?

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:32 am**

If you place those 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 spawn points you can know where they will spawn.
Difference between 5 possible locations and 1-2 possible locations is really big.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:48 am**

i dont understand, how would you know?
tell me example please - thanks!

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:28 am**

you will always know if you know the map where players 1-2, players 3-4 and players 5-6 will spawn.
For example you are player 3 and your ally is player 4. you will know for sure in this case spawn position of player 4 because:
1. spawn position for players 3-4 is chosen between 2 positions made via those spawn things;
2. you as player 3 know for sure your own position and thus if you know template and where approximately can players 3-4 spawn find spawn position of player 4 (because of point 1he has only 1 possible spawn location).

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:57 pm**

nononno this case it should be totally random that which player spawns on which position from the possible total 4 positions.

isnt it how it works?

tell me and i will fix.

Posted: **Thu Jun 04, 2020 9:19 pm**

No it exactly works like how mak explained and its dependent on your player number on player list so if you were the player1 you would always spawn at tc for player 1-2 but to make it realy random for player 1,
map should have more than 2 "tc for players1-2"

Map editor needs a tc for players 1-6
"A.K.A. random"

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:24 pm**

ok what if i fix it anmd will work as it was intended:
all players get random places like

Version A:
on 2 player matches random which palyer spawns on which "2P" spawner
on 4 player matches random which palyer spawns on which "2P"+"4P" spawner
on 6 player matches random which palyer spawns on which "2P"+"4P"+"6P" spawner

what do u think?

Version B:
or shall i forget these distinctions and spawn randomly eah case?

on 2 player matches random which palyer spawns on which "2P"+"4P"+"6P" spawner
on 3 player matches random which palyer spawns on which "2P"+"4P"+"6P" spawner

so every player on all spawners can appear?

Version C:
or a mixed one:
only 2P and 4P used if 2..4 players game.
and 6P only used in 5 or 6 player games

so:
on 2 player matches random which palyer spawns on which "2P"+"4P" spawner
on 3 player matches random which palyer spawns on which "2P"+"4P" spawner
on 4 player matches random which palyer spawns on which "2P"+"4P" spawner
on 5 player matches random which palyer spawns on which "2P"+"4P"+"6P" spawner
on 6 player matches random which palyer spawns on which "2P"+"4P"+"6P" spawner

in all case randomly that which player is where spawning from these.
(i thought this because generally 4 players are placed in coner like places and only 5 and 6 player gets a disadvantageous middle location - so maybe those should nto be used on 2..4 player matches)

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:18 pm**

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:32 pm**

Version b I think. I haven't been playing anywhere near long enough to identify spawn points, but I'm thinking the more random it is the better.

Posted: **Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:17 pm**

A random game, who defines how many players that the match should have is the host, map makers just need to provide spawnpoints for them.

So i think all you need to make is a new "1P/SP" spawnpoint (for all players) using "B".

There is no need to change pair spawns (2p, 4p, 6p) as they work for pre-set maps and campaigns.

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:34 am**

i did not wanted to make a new as these are used already on many "random" maps.
and if they dont work as intended i wanted to fix these themselves.

for campaign maps you dont use these as there are fixed positions of players with units and already owned TCs.

so these are only about random / skirmish maps.

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:55 am**

I'd say best option is "A" as for me.

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:27 am**

I'll go for B

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:40 am**

B. Is best

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:59 pm**

Stratego (dev) wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:34 am i did not wanted to make a new as these are used already on many "random" maps.
and if they dont work as intended i wanted to fix these themselves.

for campaign maps you dont use these as there are fixed positions of players with units and already owned TCs.

so these are only about random / skirmish maps.

Currently, i think skirmish is one format and random is another.

I consider skirmish maps, a branch of the campaign format, maps where the map maker CAN define the ammount of players, Tc's, who will spawn and where they will spawn. To summarize, map maker define most of the rules.

Random maps as i mentioned before, the only fixed definition would be the spawn location, how many players, who would spawn where, etc, all are random. As the Host would define them.

That's why i think pair spawns don't needed to be changed, they fill their role on the skirmish format, all it is need is a generic spawn point for random maps so they can have a fair placement.

Age of Strategy Forums

TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)

Re: TMX: old format RANdom maps (tmx based)