Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Back to List

Mearth_v4 Featured

By JRRT
Rating:

Mearth v4, for 16 players free for all. Flagships and subs can pass shallows, made by [teh]Beherith (mysterme[at]gmail.com) concept by JRRT
Size: 20 x 30

PLAY ON THIS MAP


Downloads: 12969
Manual downloads:
http://spring1.admin-box.com/downloads/spring/spring-maps/Mearth_v4.sd7
http://api.springfiles.com/files/maps/mearth_v4.sd7
http://zero-k.info/content/maps/Mearth_v4.sd7


Preview
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (23 records)
sort



CArankTheMooseIsLoose
4 years ago
A version of this without wierd unit speed hax would be so much better.
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
4 years ago
Speedhax? Doesn't ZK ruthlessly exterminate typemaps?
+0 / -0


PLrankRafalpluk
4 years ago
ZK only eliminates typemaps that give unequal bonuses to unit classes (for example 150% speed bonus only to vehicles). If it is 150% for all units, then ZK keeps it.
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
4 years ago
That sounds like "worst of both worlds" :(
+0 / -0


FIranksprang
4 years ago
quote:
A version of this without wierd unit speed hax would be so much better.

Or maybe a version of ZK that disables all the typemaps on all maps!
+0 / -0



CArankTheMooseIsLoose
4 years ago
I didn't know that actually, that also explains why the typemap in Albion (also by beherith) is still applied, which keeps all units from traversing the mountains.

Units move at 1.6x speed on the roads in this map.
+0 / -0



AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
4 years ago
You can change all typemaps to be disabled through modoptions. We could even change the default settings to remove all typemaps if there isn't any objection.
+0 / -0



AUrankSaktoth
4 years ago
Only movement typemaps should be removed, but yeah they're never used well.
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
4 years ago
(edited 4 years ago)

quote:
but yeah they're never used well

Some fail-deadly backdoor should be left to allow "legit" maps to use those maybe?

I'm semi-itching to make an "integrated land/water river-type map", which would need typemaps (or bridges, but you get the idea) for allowing land units to cross a few special "fords".
+0 / -0



AUrankSaktoth
4 years ago
Use the heightmap to create fords. Using typemaps to do this is totally wrong. If you're trying to speed units up in the rivers, then your fords are too long, scatter them with sand bars at least. Look at Aquarius Crossing and Scorpio Battleground. Yes, a ford will slow down units and create a chokepoint, but just incorporate this into your design. Even Tropical demonstrates some good design herfe, though it's shallow regions are much too large.

If we really think this is a problem with the design on fords and crossings, that they slow units down too much, we should address this modside, never mapside. I think it's fine though.
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
4 years ago
(edited 4 years ago)

By saying "ford" i use the wesnoth parlance here. In wesnoth, there are four basic types of water tiles:

- deep water - impassable by anything that can't swim
- shallow water - impassable by heavy land units, but passable by the rest at cost of significant defense and speed penalty. without typemaps, this is what you can get in zk.
- swamp - passable by all, slowdown for all, defense malus for most. I think this is what your 'interleave' suggestion could achieve.
- ford/bridge - allows units to use best of both worlds, so both land and sea units move at full speed, and fight on almost equal terms. This allows for some pretty interesting interactions i think.

Removing depthmod for all units except amphs would be better somewhat, but it's an either-or solution that exclusively removes one's ability to differ between "ford" and "shallow" type terrain, which i find useful.

Bridges would be best of course, but they're nowhere on horizon really, especially if you count in ease-of-use.

The approach that you suggested - interleaving water with land - might work to some extent, but i don't feel that it is capable of creating the passable-by-all type of terrain that i crave - mostly because of required resoluton of the alternated tiles, which will likely, at current state of the engine, cause ships to get stuck (as it would with drylanders, if they weren't capable of tolerating water a bit).

Your examples - Scorpio, Tropical, Aquarius - go around the resolution issue simply by being large teamgame maps. I wanna duelmap or small-teams map.
+0 / -0



AUrankSaktoth
4 years ago
It is not through virtue of being large team game maps that they get around these issues, you can use these features just as easily in a smaller map. The major trick is to follow the resolution of the large-scale pathfinder. If your rivers are along the paths the large-scale pathfinder takes, your ships won't get stuck. The paths on Aquarius are quite narrow and can easily be fit into a 1v1 map.

The small slowdown from shallow water you get in zk is really nothing like the huge penalties to defense and movement you get in wesnoth.
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
4 years ago
(edited 4 years ago)

quote:
The small slowdown from shallow water you get in zk is really nothing like the huge penalties to defense and movement you get in wesnoth.

but it's enough to make thugs hit glaives 100% of time mostly. But i guess at this stage it's time to experiment.

How would i go around making nonterraformable areas?
+0 / -0


PLrankRafalpluk
4 years ago
By setting Hardness of the specific type of terrain to 0.
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
4 years ago
(edited 4 years ago)

Hardness doesn't prevent terraforming, it only prevents weapon-based cratering AFAIK.

Example: Castles. You can sketch with starlight on sand, you can't scratch the castle terrain; but you can terraform both freely.

Completely forbidding map deforms via cratering and terraforming (there's a modoption, so i assume a map can force it) would work, but that removes a whole layer from the game.
+0 / -0

GBrankTheEloIsALie
4 years ago
Well if you allow weapon deform you have to allow terraform, or everybody will dirtbag cheese each other (or only go jump stuff :D).
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
4 years ago
Exactly. That's why in my post it reads as "cratering and terraforming". (with implicit accusation that dirtbag mound is but a negative crater)
+0 / -0

GBrankTheEloIsALie
4 years ago
(edited 4 years ago)

Well it sounds like you want to forbid terraforming only...

quote:
How would i go around making nonterraformable areas?

Although i now figure you only want special areas without ground deformation, right?
+0 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
4 years ago
(edited 4 years ago)

quote:
Although i now figure you only want special areas without ground deformation, right?

Exactly. Like feature cliffs (think starcraft) or maybe bridges.
+0 / -0

USrankAdminJasper
4 years ago
Azure Rampart does not allow terraforming.
+0 / -0
Page of 2 (23 records)
Back to List