Maps in Rebellion

from Sins Forums

Rebellion with its new matchmaking options offers an opportunity to rationalise the Sins multiplayer map catalogue.  One of the most popular online games staged an entire championship recently using only one map.  There was nothing random about it either, all the neutral spawns were entirely predictable, even the respawns.  The gameplay took place on the map, rather than being driven by it.

By comparison, the Sins map situation is a mess.  One of the issues most frequently brought up is the difficulty of organising the use of community-created custom maps because there is no straightforward means of loading a map into the database.  However this ignores another aspect of the problem, which is that even if you do manage to create a unified community map download, as we did, that players with foreknowledge of the map layouts have a vast advantage over players who do not have.  This is even true of the maps included with the game.  Players prefer the random maps, for all their quirks, because they are familiar with them and because they can be confident that their opponents have only the same level of familiarity with them.

A further problem with the maps presented with the game is that to put it bluntly not many of them are very good.  There is an absurd proliferation of tiny 1 vs 1 maps that no-one ever uses online and a distinct absence of maps for 4s and 5s which are popular online.  Plus, the few good 2s and 3s maps that do exist are buried amid the dross, known only to experienced online players, with newer players given absolutely no indication which maps it might be valuable to practice at least once or twice.

I believe that the random maps have been very detrimental to the development of Sins as a game.  What I'd like to see is the use of just five pre-created maps- one for competitive 1s, another for 2s, another for 3s etc.  If, and only if, Sins ever got to the stage where you could have Bo3 games- which I find extremely doubtful for 4s and 5s and is why I don't consider that size of game to be capable of a decent competitive standard in Sins- then you might want three maps for each type of play, fifteen in all.  These maps and only these would be available for MP and marked as MP maps, the rest would be SP maps to lark around on.   

22,677 views 16 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top

Totally agree about the quality of maps.

 

Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top

What I'd like to see is the use of just five pre-created maps- one for competitive 1s, another for 2s, another for 3s etc.
End of quote

This would get too repetitive quickly.

One of the reasons I like random maps is because you can't do the same thing every time and expect it to work to your advantage, instead you need to scout come up with a workable strategy and execute it, if there was only one map per match size most players would end up doing the same thing every game.

While some maps giving you a dissadvantage you can at least take comfort in the fact that just as often your postions will be reversed and you will be the one with the better postion.

That being said i wouldn't mind a few maps that are even for tournament matches.

Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top

I'd agree there too.  Good maps and the more the merrier.  What we have now is a surplus of  very similar maps in concept that don't use the full capabilities of the game.

I'd love to see more thought and effort go into maps.

I think if we had a steady influx of them we would end up with more genuinely "classic" maps.  Maybe a map challenge competition?  The winner gets everyone's karma?

Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top

Solution--enable auto-download for custom (Galaxy Forge made) maps and let the "free market" decide which ones are worthwhile.

Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting DirtySanchezz, reply 4
Solution--enable auto-download for custom (Galaxy Forge made) maps and let the "free market" decide which ones are worthwhile.
End of DirtySanchezz's quote

Yes--this is a "must have" for Rebellion.

Perhaps when you join a game the map is then downloaded if it isn't in your bin.  I'll pretend there are no security ramifications here.

Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Sinperium, reply 5

I'll pretend there are no security ramifications here.
End of Sinperium's quote

Pay no attention to that virus behind your Sins map. ;)

Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top

Shhh.  It's not a virus darn it...it's a rootkit.

Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top

No, I can't agree with a 'free market.'  While auto-download for 'approved' Sins maps- those submitted to this site- might be a useful feature, are there any RTS games where users can submit their own maps for 'ranked' games?  The issues with a 'free market ' are too obvious.  Incidentally, have we manged to submit a community pack to this site yet?

Having a single map or at most three for each of the game types makes it easier for new players to join in and also helps with game balance, making issues more obvious.  How many guides for maps has the Sins community produced?  Yet map guides are an extremely common feature of RTS games.

I'd also urge that there be a separate ranking for 1s 2s 3s 4s and 5s.  The smurf 'phenomenon' seemed to me to develop along with the move to PUGs and 5s.  It isn't only just because of a desire to stack teams, who would want to build up a strong record in 1s and 2s only to have it reduced to 50% by PUGs, if the teams were perfectly balanced.  A separate rating for each category would counter this.  Plus some players are stronger at either 1s/2s or 4s/5s, the larger games tend to favour both the stronger rushers and the ace eco-only styles,while the smaller games demand more of a balanced style. 

Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top

I think that, at the moment, the scene is too small to be worrying about map download restrictions for what you call "ranked games". If players want to play on some map, let them do so with minimal hassle, regardless of rank or number of players. It may still be quite simple for anyone to forge a record with any number of wins or losses anyway.

While having preset and known maps would help balance, it would also make the first few minutes of a game much more boring than they are now. I find that the scouting requirements and the need to change expansion strategies depending on what planets are found where is one of the most interesting parts of the game. It heightens the learning curve.

It would be possible to increase map balance while keeping the unpredictability of random maps by tweaking the random-map designer, ensuring that every HW always has either 2 or 3 phase lanes (the same for both players) (never 4 or 1), that 2 are always connected to an asteroid and an ice/volc, and that the distribution of planets/resources isn't extremely one-sided.

Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top

I often find that people who disagree with me are just plain wrong, unless they are like Leisure Suit Vasari and have a string of hot chicks subject to their every whim.  After all, it is difficult a man with two mistresses to be wrong about anything.

If you could still forge a record then the entire purpose of matchmaking would be redundant, as you say.

I disagree strongly about random maps.  Players should scout the opposition not the map.  How it can be rationalised that space-faring societies do not have access to telescopes is beyond me, and I can justify a great deal if I want to.

Also, the concept that random maps are somehow more interesting than maps designed specifically for a game has to be wrong.  There are no other RTS games where random maps are better than custom maps.  The neutrals and wormholes and the organisation of the planets add a great deal to maps.  Simply ensuring the players aren't roided isn't on the same level of gameplay- and players with a volcanic planet near them almost always dodge it anyway, only the ice would be valuable enough to justify the civics labs. 

How about a map where the economy spot and defence spot were assigned to particular slots in a team, so that you could put specialists in those roles, rather than just have them filled randomly?  Would that improve gameplay?  With other RTS games having specialists able to play their game is normally considered an advantage, rather than the 'unpredictability' of not knowing how you will have to play before you start.

Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
I often find that people who disagree with me are just plain wrong...
End of DesConnor's quote

Extreme arrogance is not generally a positive trait.

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
If you could still forge a record then the entire purpose of matchmaking would be redundant, as you say.
End of DesConnor's quote

Those who choose to forge their records would of course have their matchmaking broken, but for the other 98% of players, there wouldn't be a problem.

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
I disagree strongly about random maps.  Players should scout the opposition not the map.  How it can be rationalised that space-faring societies do not have access to telescopes is beyond me, and I can justify a great deal if I want to.
End of DesConnor's quote

I play Sins for the tactics and the strategy, not for realism. Those who play a space RTS and find that some things aren't realistic shouldn't be surprised in the least. If realism is sacrificed in exchange for a more skill-oriented and interesting early-game, that's fine with me.

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
Also, the concept that random maps are somehow more interesting than maps designed specifically for a game has to be wrong.  There are no other RTS games where random maps are better than custom maps.  The neutrals and wormholes and the organisation of the planets add a great deal to maps.  Simply ensuring the players aren't roided isn't on the same level of gameplay- and players with a volcanic planet near them almost always dodge it anyway, only the ice would be valuable enough to justify the civics labs.

How about a map where the economy spot and defence spot were assigned to particular slots in a team, so that you could put specialists in those roles, rather than just have them filled randomly?  Would that improve gameplay?  With other RTS games having specialists able to play their game is normally considered an advantage, rather than the 'unpredictability' of not knowing how you will have to play before you start.

End of DesConnor's quote

In large team games where players like to play different roles (and to actually know their roles beforehand), I fully agree that that situation can be much better when players want to know how exactly they'll be playing for their team on the map. But sometimes players prefer the random element - if they're playing in a smaller game with less expectation for specialization, for instance, or if they don't want commonly-known rote optimized expansion strategies to completely dominate the early game. One possibility to fix this sort of thing would be for map creators to create, say, 15 or 20 balanced maps for each common scenario (1v1, 2v2, etc) (or, if that's too much work, to generate random maps and to save the ones which are "balanced" enough). Then, when "random map" is selected, one of the preset and balanced 15 or 20 maps is used. This way people couldn't just memorize exact strategies for early expansion, but are still guaranteed that the map they play will be pretty balanced.

Of course, this would have to be built into Sins, which is probably way too much to hope for, given how much the devs seem to care about multiplayer.

Random maps have their advantages, as do preset maps. I guess since I prefer 1v1 I like random maps better.

I definitely agree that rankings would be much better if they were separated into the number of wins/losses for each particular type of game (3v3, etc).

Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
I often find that people who disagree with me are just plain wrong,
End of DesConnor's quote

Agreed people who dissagree with me are almost always wrong.

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
If you could still forge a record then the entire purpose of matchmaking would be redundant, as you say.
End of DesConnor's quote

Not necessarily, you can use matchmaking simply as a faster, simpler, way of finding a game. There will always be people trying to beat the system but some systems are better then others.

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
Players should scout the opposition not the map.
End of DesConnor's quote

Last I checked sins was, in theory, a 4X game; I think the explore aspect is in regards to space/map not keeping your opponents scouted.

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
How it can be rationalised that space-faring societies do not have access to telescopes is beyond me, and I can justify a great deal if I want to.
End of DesConnor's quote

Most games are designed to be fun not realistic (i.e. "game" not "simulation").

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
Also, the concept that random maps are somehow more interesting than maps designed specifically for a game has to be wrong.
End of DesConnor's quote

Is it more interesting to play the same map 500 times or not know what to expect?

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
There are no other RTS games where random maps are better than custom maps.
End of DesConnor's quote

The way sins is built makes random maps more viable then most rts games.

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
Simply ensuring the players aren't roided isn't on the same level of gameplay- and players with a volcanic planet near them almost always dodge it anyway, only the ice would be valuable enough to justify the civics labs.
End of DesConnor's quote

Some strategies will almost always be better then others.

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
How about a map where the economy spot and defence spot were assigned to particular slots in a team, so that you could put specialists in those roles, rather than just have them filled randomly? Would that improve gameplay?
End of DesConnor's quote

I don't think an option for this would be a bad thing.

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
With other RTS games having specialists able to play their game is normally considered an advantage, rather than the 'unpredictability' of not knowing how you will have to play before you start.
End of DesConnor's quote

I don't mind sins taking some features from other games but simply because its in another games doesn't mean that they should copy it.  We don't yet know what type of specializations the faction splits in rebellion will have but they could very well be economic or militant splits.

Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting DesConnor, reply 10
How it can be rationalised that space-faring societies do not have access to telescopes is beyond me, and I can justify a great deal if I want to.
End of DesConnor's quote

That's a good point.  In all my time of having played this game, I don't think I've ever wondered about that.

Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting DirtySanchezz, reply 4
Solution--enable auto-download for custom (Galaxy Forge made) maps and let the "free market" decide which ones are worthwhile.
End of DirtySanchezz's quote

 

^----- QFT.

Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top

maybe use steamworks to get maps?