80 Height Epidemic

[Fisherck]

Map Making Good Practices

The map editor lets you do lots of different things... that doesn't mean that everything should be done all of the time.  I will put here some general guidelines and suggestions to consider when making maps.  Not every map will need to adhere to these guidelines... but every map maker should at least consider these guidelines.

1: Don't make the map any bigger than it really needs to be.  The taller the map, the worse it will perform on slower computers.  Don't make a 80 height map if you don't really need to.  Always think about how you could accomplish the same thing in a smaller map.

This says it all. The number one rule, and the one seemingly most frequently ingnored. As it stands, currently there are 45 maps. 15 of them are 80 height. A third of all maps are max height! Why? And it's not getting better, 5 maps in the que are 80. And if you don't count the already submitted beta maps, 10 out of the 21 maps submitted by new mapmakers are 80 height.

For a new map maker, height does not make a map better. It will be harder for you to fill it up with "good" stuff. Please make them smaller. :)

[Kithros]

Some maps are ok at 80 height - but I would say particularly the ones that have a lot of unused space on the map definitely need to be made smaller, there are an abundance of maps with waaaaay more than enough build space and almost the entire map blank with 80 height which is just silly.

[thepenguin]

Not every map will need to adhere to these guidelines... but every map maker should at least consider these guidelines.

this says it all, and BTW, what's the problem w/ a lot of maps having max height?

[Fisherck]

Not every map will need to adhere to these guidelines... but every map maker should at least consider these guidelines.

this says it all, and BTW, what's the problem w/ a lot of maps having max height?

Well, first off, the reason Virgil gave. It is slower. But we can look at this mathematically too. You can make a map between 22 and 80. That leaves 58 possible map heights. As of now, there are 46 maps. Not even enough to have one map per possible height. Yet we have managed 16 80 height maps. :)

But we have to look at why new map makers would want an 80 height map. Because it is more impressive? I guess they look at the largest height as the best way to make a good map. Looking at it this way, then hopefully they will eventually learn.

I just had to express myself in this topic. It has been annoying me. But maybe it is just a "phase" that many new map makers will have to go through. ;)

[thepenguin]

Well, first off, the reason Virgil gave. It is slower.

Not by very much

But we can look at this mathematically too. You can make a map between 22 and 80. That leaves 58 possible map heights. As of now, there are 46 maps. Not even enough to have one map per possible height.

and the problem here is ???

Yet we have managed 16 80 height maps. :)

maybe because it's a good idea

But we have to look at why new map makers would want an 80 height map.

because there's more room for people to do stuff, and for you to put stuff

Because it is more impressive?

I'd agree with that statement, a map of height 22 is far less impressive than a max height map


I guess they look at the largest height as the best way to make a good map. Looking at it this way, then hopefully they will eventually learn.

so you're hoping that they won't make the best map that they can?

I just had to express myself in this topic. It has been annoying me.

But maybe it is just a "phase" that many new map makers will have to go through. ;)

Everyone gets to have their own opinion, and has the right to disagree

[Kithros]

Well, first off, the reason Virgil gave. It is slower.

Not by very much

But we can look at this mathematically too. You can make a map between 22 and 80. That leaves 58 possible map heights. As of now, there are 46 maps. Not even enough to have one map per possible height.

and the problem here is ???

Yet we have managed 16 80 height maps. :)

maybe because it's a good idea

But we have to look at why new map makers would want an 80 height map.

because there's more room for people to do stuff, and for you to put stuff

Because it is more impressive?

I'd agree with that statement, a map of height 22 is far less impressive than a max height map


I guess they look at the largest height as the best way to make a good map. Looking at it this way, then hopefully they will eventually learn.

so you're hoping that they won't make the best map that they can?

I just had to express myself in this topic. It has been annoying me.

But maybe it is just a "phase" that many new map makers will have to go through. ;)

Everyone gets to have their own opinion, and has the right to disagree

The point is people don't make the best maps they can, they make maps that are far better suited to being smaller maps - and they don't put more stuff in their maps.


EDIT: For instance, look at the map 'Recon' (ID 43) - you can't possibly try to tell me that anyone will actually need that much build space, especially since there are no crystals meaning you could never go above 60 energy production. That map has a completely ridiculous amount of absolutely blank space.

Oh, and incidentally - I find most of the small maps more interesting than the huge slog maps which I definitely do not consider impressive.

[Ranakastrasz]

The bigger the map, generally the more units exist, hence the more expensive the process loop becomes. The amount of creeper calculations also goes up, but I do not think that is quite as extreme.

[Sqaz]

TP: Look at it this way: How many maps in the game have a height of 80? None except Stygian depths.
So there must be a reason for that since Virgil knows pretty damn well what he's doing ;D.

Just look at his CW2 Custom maps, all 22 height but fun to play, and his choice maps are even harder than all 80 height maps present.


Also remains the fact that you have to fill up that space with something, but just as in CW 1 there comes a point at which you have all the energy you need, and in an 80 height map that point is bound to come soon as the lowest Creeper can almost impossibly form a threat.
The two different ways these 80 height maps are composed are the following: OR just a long, long map in which you have to fight through a clear area or dig through it which is totally unchallenging and boring, cause nobody likes to do the same thing a billion times,
OR several stages, where after 2 of them (at best!) you come to the turning point in which nothing stops you from winning but time, if you think now: "But after them first stages comes something damn hard and innovative" I'll believe you, but maybe one stages but not enough of these things to fill up the map, so most mapmakers will just steal these things from Cubic which leads to a map that people will less likely finish as it's just dull and boring.

In short, any map should be as short as possible (without losing quality of course), short in a way that you look at your map, think: "This stuff is just unnecessairy, boring or doesn't make my map better and you cut that out if after doing that you still have an 80 height map, feel free to post it.

[thepenguin]

we can just leave this with "agreeing to disagree"

[Ebon Heart]

I wish you could make maps a bit wider... With my map making style, a lot of my maps will likely be tightly packed into a 80 high map.

[thepenguin]

I wish you could make maps a bit wider... With my map making style, a lot of my maps will likely be tightly packed into a 80 high map.

or at least one column thinner (odd center = happy TP)

[Ebon Heart]

lmao, why not a column thicker? If you want it a colum thinner, just make a column of solid terrain. Besides that... I love how in the cw2 map editor, you can have several ideas in one map. Some of my maps admittably should be two maps... lol. Take the super colldier for instance. :P

[Grabarz]

The fact that LS doesnt fit symethrically into the map is really annoying if someone wants to make a symethrical map. And putting a column of solid terrain - it wastes the precious space and just looks ugly.
But maybe it's just that I love symmetry, and would look forward to making symethrical maps if only that LS could fit the map.

[Lord_Farin]

The fact that LS doesnt fit symethrically into the map is really annoying if someone wants to make a symethrical map. And putting a column of solid terrain - it wastes the precious space and just looks ugly.
But maybe it's just that I love symmetry, and would look forward to making symethrical maps if only that LS could fit the map.

How about a custom background with a LS image on it  ;)

[Grabarz]

The fact that LS doesnt fit symethrically into the map is really annoying if someone wants to make a symethrical map. And putting a column of solid terrain - it wastes the precious space and just looks ugly.
But maybe it's just that I love symmetry, and would look forward to making symethrical maps if only that LS could fit the map.

How about a custom background with a LS image on it  ;)

Then what do with the existing LS then? Kinda pointless if the original LS isn't invisible :P