We hardly have any big maps right now. This causes a problem with auto host giving the same maps over and over again. I propose that large maps should included all maps 20 and over. Right now 20 is considered a medium map.
+0 / -0
|
It should simply take surface into account, not just either height or width.
+0 / -0
|
Rule takes into account width+ height .. propose new border values.
+0 / -0
|
Well 20 x 20 maps like Tempest and Moon Quartet Remake should be big for sure. You also have maps like Supreme Lake with are only 20 x 10 but feel massive.
+0 / -0
|
Waddabowd width * height? Exact values could use some map stats. Like the number of maps with a total surface >= 400, <=200, etc. I'm only talking about the map-tag by the way, not Springie picking maps based on player number. That's just a bug which needs fixing.
+0 / -0
|
Why is dead reef 22 x 12 a big map, while Tempest 20 x 20 is medium?
+0 / -0
|
Simply allow manual tags would solve all problems.
+0 / -0
|
Yeah, Tempest, Tempest Dry, Moon Quartet Remake and all variants of Supreme Lake feel pretty big. Certainly big enough to support 10 v 10 games (although the Supreme Lake series starts to feel a little cramped for 10 v 10). DSD Dry, one of the maps featuring in big games these days probably has less metal than any of the ones above.
+0 / -0
|
TalenFortB1 Emain Macha Small Supreme Battlefield V2 Small Supreme Islands V2 TheRockFinal Tropical DigSite Coastlines_Dry_V1 Deadlock-v1 FrozenFortress_v2 all feel big
+0 / -0
|
Still, just 'cause a map supports a number of player (and they all support any number of player you can think of), doesn't mean it's big. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Personally I think 10x10 (or any two factors of 100) to 16x18 (or any two factors of ~300) is your average map size. Right now it considers 8x8 maps as well as 20x20 maps as medium, which is just wrong. If nobody complains I'll fix fix fix.
+0 / -0
|
I agree with Skasi. 20x20 is big no matter what. 18x18 probably feels like a big map too. 8x8 on the other way is a small map. At the moment map selection for big games is too narrow. It repeats same maps over and over: Dead Reef, hotlips01, DSD Remake, Real Mars and Blindside. We need much more maps categorized as suitable for big games. Some examples to add to the list Jasper posted: -Kappa Basin -Koom Valey
+0 / -0
|
DesertSiege_v2b (biggish) Grts_DesertValley_012 Grts_Rocky_Glacier_009 (dont like it, but feels big) Lost_v2 (biggish) ScorpioBattleground Wide Pass (one of them, dont recall which is the good one)
+0 / -0
|
Well 8 x 8 should be small and 20 x 20 should be large. Just that would fix alot of the problems.
+0 / -0
|
We had 3v3 game on 18x12 if I m right lost v2 as suggested map even in description it says 8x8. Map size is not solution to determine how much players it handles. Map size thing could be used only on maps which are not manually taged.
+0 / -0
|
We do not currently have manually tagging.
+0 / -0
|
That was proposal how should things work.
+0 / -0
|
Jasper, "20x20" and "8x8" means nothing. The code only looks at width OR height, whichever is bigger. Should 8x8 really be considered small while 10x4 is medium?
+0 / -0
|
Rule can change in any way you suggest - but i dont want manual tagging - too unreliable.
+0 / -0
|
Ok then calculate all mexes and all metal output on the map + analyze heightmap since even if map is big hills makes it kinda feel small (apophis). And I guess good folks will add more criteries since manual taging is so unreliable.
+0 / -0
|
Like I said, I'd simply use the surface (x*y) instead of math.max(x, y), Licho. Just trying to remember who opposed to that back when it was added, so I can find out whether they changed their mind or not.
+0 / -0
|
