Master Mapping Thread: (Formerly "Build-pads: how many...")

[nightraven1901]

***EDIT***
This thread now updated to span all mapping concerns and thoughts. If it pertains to mapping, I want to hear about it!
***EDIT***

Last one for the day. What can I say; I had a bunch of feedback to provide

I see your work on the maps continues, and very shiny work it is at that. However, it seems the build-pad population, which did have a very-much-appreciated spike a version or three back, has declined back to the almost saddening pre-mod levels on some maps. Now, I appreciate the AI loves to spam turrets (so do I, come to that) but I am fairly sure I found one ground map with legitimately no build-pads at all on it, and certainly plenty with two to four scattered over the whole map. Heck, one of the reasons I re-installed the newer version was to see if more maps had finally achieved a reasonable build-pad population density. While we're on this topic, I don't remember seeing a single, solitary spatial build-pad in the mod at all, much to my disappointment (I think they could serve well as ancillary defences, especially over poor border worlds). My poor build-pads; endangered, they have become...

I love to dig in (getting me off Nal Hutta in vanilla is literally impossible) and I love top customise. One of the joys of playing strategy games to me is to sim-city yourself a base that simply repels any assault. But I can't really secure myself as well without the generous allotment of build-pads there used to be. I also find that back-and-forth fights over the same territory are less engaging now as there's less chance to find an abandoned defensive bastion left over from the previous occupation that remains standing despite being in enemy hands for a while, which adds some real depth to the strategic use of build-pads; locking down the rebel training camps so they don't screw you over during the next invasion, securing vulnerable landing zones at least long enough to pull some units to it without needing to have all ten ground slots filled first, providing you anti-air without the dedicated AT-AA unit (absolutely necessary to the other factions as the air units are difficult to counter with little on the ground unless you use AA turrets), and even sometimes winning the fight for you if you were diligent enough in sprinkling them around last time. Build-pads are good things and I wish there were more of them on most maps, preferably positioned with some occasional walls, and preferably bunched around bases (as they seem to be now, which is nice. Don't forget the power-plants and secondary base structure locations, though! I'd like a minimum of one, preferably three to five at my power plant site!)

Thoughts, angry complaints about my noobish tactics, etcetera; post below please. Cheers,

[carpemark]

Just voicing that I as well am a fan of build pads. Great for anti-aircraft support and more logistical movements. I also think the AI needs them to keep users from just surging all over the map. If anything the maps need to be tweeked to make it harder to move large number of units, and build pads placed in areas they can take down units better (AKA higher elevations, covering entryways).

[Roachbugg]

I find build pads to make the already tedious ground combat even more tedious as the AI has a tendency to run around the made in circles building crap behind them. This is ever so much fun when all the AI has is that single infantry squad and you have to invest far more resources than should be necessary killing turrets as you try and find it. EAW land battles are annoying enough having to play constant hide and seek build pads add to that. If the AI didn't want to pinwheel around the map building turrets and I dunno actually defend their bases with them I wouldn't mind them. Honestly, I'd love a GC in ICW that was space only. 

[nightraven1901]

Thanks Carpemark, and fair point Roachbug, but I honestly don't think that's so much a build-pad problem as an AI using scouting AI script in ground combat coupled with no intel on the ground problem. I'd like to see a half-hour timer until the ships you have in orbit establish direct sensor coverage over the entire battlefield (or less than half an hour. Probably less, now I think on it) to help prevent that exact tedium. That said, the AI will use the buildpads if added- though I kinda have to agree with Carpemark about the AI not being able to hold a base worth a damn without them. Maybe just focusing them. Of course, if you had the ability to see the damned things and the infantry squad spawning them, maybe the problem would be sufficiently alleviated, seeing as you don't need to actually kill turrets to win and bombing runs are normally good enough at nailing lone infantry squads once you can see them. A counter strategy is to employ more buildpads, with the much improved sensors, so you can scan them down without needing to remove the advantage from the defending AI. Not really my call, but I want to see more of the map considering I have a bunch of warships in orbit.

Trying to find a non-steam copy of the perceptionfunction.dll file from a CD copy of the game so I can run the mapmaker (or other assistance to get the bloody thing working) any help would be much appreciated, I would like to submit ground maps for the purposes of reducing duplicates and making this mod as awesome as possible. Happy posting folks!

[briG]

I'd prefer some around choke points on the map, but some maps just are quite large and have far too many. They always give me a bit of pause when I am at the point where I can drop massed ground Starfighters and destroy everything that isn't a turbolaser tower or another AA unit without taking losses. Which is a good thing.

[nightraven1901]

I'll keep that in mind, thank-you briG. I'm actually trying to make my first map for the mod now; I'll be sure to focus more buildpads into the natural choke-points for efficient turret manufacture. While I have everyone here anyway, what are thoughts on buildpads near power generators? I personally would bury the things under six of them if I wan't aiming to make the maps appealing to other people too; seeing as that is now a design priority how many do people want to see around the average power generator? I'm thinking minimum one, up to four, but I can be swayed by good arguments. Also; in an effort to end the f***ing tedium that is chasing one bastard pack of stormtroopers around, I was thinking of doubling or even tripling up on abandoned sensor arrays, thoughts and comments both welcomed and requested. Might not do it everytime; don't want to try to fix an issue that Corey is planning to fix with buildable sensor nodes and such, but, still- I'd like to hear your thoughts.

You know what? Screw it. Let's call this the master mapping thread, and we can all dump mapping thoughts and suggestions or complaints here. It'll help me collate your ideas. Cheers!

[Roachbugg]

I don't mind build pads around the power generator and id say 2-4 so you can have 2aa turrets and one each AV and AI. What I don't want anywhere near the power gen is the shield generator or any of the turbolaser towers. Not being able to bombard or bombing run the power gen to keep from suffering losses to Turbolaser towers is always annoying. Honestly, i never understood why there is fog of war on ground maps. I have ships in orbit with sensors that should be reylaing realtime enemy troop movements to my boys on the ground. So I'm all for Sensor arrays, in fact, place them right behind the Initial LZ. Shouldn't be FoW on ground maps anyway.

Some other things I would avoid. Don't scatter base structures all over the map group them in a centralized base. It's supposed to be a base not a smattering of military facilities spread over a kilometer of ground with no way to efficiently provide support for each other. No sensible commander would lay out a base like that anyway but some of the vanilla maps especially are really bad about that. Also, try and keep from making enormous maps. That's ok for a skirmish map where you may have multiple players throwing down. But for a GC map where you already have to fight potentially hundreds of tedious ground battles chasing that final infantry squad around the map with the benny hill theme playing in your head is even worse when the map Is huge. Small straightforward maps with a couple different angles to attack a base from being ideal.

Any way that's my two cents on map design.

[nightraven1901]

Thanks Roachbugg!It's my pleasure to report that my initial efforts are already following your requests to the letter. Most base structures are located in a single base, covered by the base shield generator, and they even have walls (which takes an age to place cell-by-cell, but it's worth the effort) around them and build-pads walled into each entrance- like a real military base might have . The base power generator is very nearby, but not covered by shields or the turbolaser towers themselves, so a decent commander should have no issue finding the back door and sending some stormtroopers to sort it out (as much as my general's sensibilities tell me not to do that. Bury it right under the shield... Right next to the forward turbolaser towers... NO!!! Bad brain!!! Do not succumb to the dark side!!!) As for those sensor arrays- one for the defender, easily reached from base, and one in neutral territory, was my plan. I did not wish to hand it over at mission commencement for fear of cheating those defensively-minded players like myself- so I was going to situate it between both sides, so there was at least a hope of keeping it from the AI if you'd dug in enough troops- but do we want them literally next to the spawn point? I mean, the old mechanics can be damned; I agree I should have full sensor coverage from my ring of conveniently-sensor-equipped warships- but my fear is weakening the defensive aspect if they are a stone's throw from the attacker spawn marker.

Best be quick if you want it to affect the first map though. I've laid in a lot of groundwork- another day and moving things is going to start getting tricky.

[Roachbugg]

Pretty sure the AI having the sensor node doesn't actually affect the way they behave. Pretty sure they can always see your stuff FoW be damned, but that bears testing.  I know in most Strategy games the AI simply cheats such things like scouting are just something they pretend to be doing. You'd have to ask Corey or one of the Mod team if the AI had the sensor relay affects their behavior. I haven't noticed them acting any differently when they have it.

[nightraven1901]

Ahh, but it does affect one very noticeable thing. The AI is constrained to calling in bombing runs and bombardments to areas they can presently see (as of vanilla; unless the logic has been changed) and seeing as I'm building a very obvious bombing run target zone with the base power generator in it, and a dedicated artillery overwatch position which would also react badly to a well-placed volley of proton bombs, I don't want to give them the capacity for an instant strike without seeing how people feel on the matter. I personally would like to place the sensor array further away, but I will bow to a consensus of the many if they want it next to the initial landing zone. I don't worry too hard about the base structures, they're covered by the shield generator; but the power plant being visible would limit any defence to the time necessary to cooldown two bombing runs.  A difficult decision...

I gotta sleep anyway; no more mapping tonight. While I sleep I shall leave all you to ponder: where do you want your sensors? Also, I must refer people to the original query too; the second I figure out which buildpad object to place for galactic conquest maps there will be some buildpad procreation and I'd like to know where to reign it in. I am currently thinking dual walled turret emplacements either side of each main path to the base, backed up by a heavier checkpoint bearing the same configuration and flanked by twin turbolaser towers (don't worry, real generals shouldn't need to fight their way through this), with the general access pathways being guarded by single buildpads either side at regular intervals. This allows the attacker to bunker in at any point during the attack, holding the pads they've claimed, and the defender to establish multiple lines of retreat and resume the defence from whichever the tactical situation calls for. Again, I will be swayed by good arguments and/or a general consensus.

[TonPhanan]

Biggest question to me: How do I create 'platforms', meaning a texturizable level floating in the air? I've seen it before, like with the base on the Bastion map, but I really can't wrap my head around how it's done :|.

[nightraven1901]

Y'know, good question Tom. I'm actually not familiar with how that's done myself, but I imagine Corey will tell me about the things I'm missing when I give him the first map and prove I'm not talking a bigger game than I have. I'll remember to tell you once I figure it out. That bridge mechanic would be very useful for me on urban maps; bridges let me do cool stuff like have more verticality in battles. This editor is just a little new to me (but surprisingly user-friendly. She even auto-saves, much to my aggravation) so I'm not exactly flush with all its tricks yet. Give me time and I'll learn

[Slornie]

As I recall it's clever perspective and use of props. Your "texturable level" is actually the ground level, and you create a "hole" in the terrain (essentially a form of null texture, I think) beneath which you dress props to make it look like your bridge/whatever.

[nightraven1901]

Ohhhh; I see... That'd be tough to use for maps where the actual ground was visible, but still. Hmmm.  More food for thought; cheers Slornie!

[Slornie]

One way to get a handle on things like which props and markers are used and how someone achieved a particular effect is to just open up said map as an example.  The Bastion map was made by Corey, and one of our previous resident mappers wrote this tutorial for making GC-suitable maps.

[nightraven1901]

I did look over a couple of them at first, yes; just didn't think to check Bastion. I'm going to look up Khomm/Pantolomin; I am going to find out why my mortars and tanks insist on getting stuck after being called down (I think the issue is the reinforcements will be placed in terrain cells the unit can't move in, so it doesn't move at all in compromise) and make absolutely bloody sure that it isn't a thing on my map. I'm also smoothing the hell out of terrain around reinforcement pads, just to be safe. OHHHH; right. The existing maps will have the correctly-set buildpads, too. I know what I'm doing next! Cheers Slornie!

[Corey]

Yeah, platforms like that are all done using the terrain, then you paint a hole texture on any walls you're not going to use and build in new props to fill in the hole. It's incredibly tedious, but you can get some good effects. I did some okay ones, but I think the best looking one in the mod was Qui's on Kuat, the bridge leading up to the base, since he used rock props and river particles to make a ravine under it. even on a map like Bespin, where you're texturing a lot as holes, you should do it by loading a heitmap made in Photoshop with the platforms at one height and the null areas at another, so the minimap registers properly (if you look at our old Corellia map I think it was, the minimap was useless)

[TonPhanan]

Thanks for the replies, guys. Yeah, figured that much, I was just holding on to the hope that there was a better workaround that I somehow overlooked . For the beginning, I'll stick to some 'simpler' concepts like Dagobah, but at one point I'd love to remake something like Coruscant, maybe using custom props to fill in some of the blanks... but before that I need to get a hold of 3dsmax9, which is nigh impossible nowadays, hehe. Fingers crossed that Petroglyph will have some mercy and re-release the ALO-tools for a more modern version or make it a standalone converter, one can dream ;>. The most impressive use of creating the illusion of multiple 'terrain levels' I've seen so far must've been on one of the maps coming with AotR, UTAP. How they've missed to make the engine capable of doing so in a game which literally plays in space still eludes me though . For the moment, I'll stick to study some of the maps and - hopefully soon - will be able to produce some nice looking results.

I don't wanna squeeze you guys that much, but if I'm allowed I'd like to ask another question: Is there an easier way to create, let's say, 45° slopes or ramps, than fiddling around with the height tool until I'm tempted to punch my monitor?

This editor is just a little new to me (but surprisingly user-friendly. She even auto-saves, much to my aggravation) so I'm not exactly flush with all its tricks yet.

More like this editor is limited af .
 

[Corey]

The most impressive use of creating the illusion of multiple 'terrain levels' I've seen so far must've been on one of the maps coming with AotR, UTAP

UTAP?

Is there an easier way to create, let's say, 45° slopes or ramps, than fiddling around with the height tool until I'm tempted to punch my monitor?

You can create the entire heightmap for a map in Photoshop, then import it into the map editor if you wanna avoid using the height tool, but that's it.

[tlmiller]

Maybe meant Utapau?