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

Dales River V2

By DavetheBrave, heavily derivative of RiverDale V2 originally by SecurE
Rating:

1v1 or Teams. Start positions are either on each end of the river or at opposing corners.
Size: 12 x 16

PLAY ON THIS MAP


Downloads: 8
Manual downloads:
http://zero-k.info/content/maps/DalesRiverV2.sd7


Preview
Filter:    Player:  
sort
14 days ago
I always liked the map "River Dale", with its moguls and simple green but pleasing texture. It reminded me a bit of a well manicured golf course.

Here is "Dale's River", my take on that nostalgia. I've taken the heightmap and textures directly from the original SecurE version of the map, and flipped them to make a smaller 12 x 16 symmetric map centered around the river.

It's intended to be a 1v1 or small teams map. The battle will be fought along the river or far across it. This is decided by a coinflip at the beginning of each match.

This is my first map (or some% of it is mine atleast) so any feedback is appreciated!
+4 / -0
quote:
It's intended to be a 1v1 or small teams map. The battle will be fought along the river or far across it. This is decided by a coinflip at the beginning of each match.

IMO, better to settle on one of these options. By feedback if enough is presented; by decree otherwise :P
+0 / -0
14 days ago
My thought was to have a 2-maps-in-1 effect, as games on the same map can start to feel rather samey.

If you get East vs West, it would play like a smaller map albeit with room to expand on the sides. If instead, North vs South would be picked, it would play like a large map.

In East vs West, there is a short line to a knife fight between you, but your base is difficult to defend and radar must be placed thoughtfully.

In North vs South, the base is more easily defended, but contains less resources. You have a few expansion paths to choose from.

This feature, if preserved, would be mainly intended for 1v1 or small teams. Large teams is a different dynamic, and games should be likely be N vs S which I can add to the logic. Does this make sense or would you like to me to still settle on one?
+2 / -0


14 days ago
I don't think 2 maps in 1 is a great idea. It didn't really work out for Rogues, and it has issues such as that if i mapban one of the two maps, then the other one is also banned.
+0 / -0
Rogues River was also trying to be a FFA map. A two-in-one map that is not trying to be a FFA map at the same time has more options. I think it's probably harder to achieve a good result this way than a normal map but it seems like it should be achievable.
+1 / -0
One annoying thing about the 2 maps in 1 approach is for testing, I got East v West four times :D It'd be nice to provide an option to force the spawn point set if that's trivial. (A similar concern is for replays, it would be useful if there was a way to tell which version of the map a game was played on so they can be analyzed separately)

There seems to be a problem with the rock features on the river and area reclaim commands, some reclaim attempts got ignored. Making the rocks a little bigger may help for visualization too since they look a little small for 50m.

Too early for detailed feedback but initial games were interesting, I'd keep an eye on Amph in East v West given the mex layout (it's hard to secure mexes and the river is deep enough to power water regen). North v South is very low economy and the more complicated of the two versions to play I think.
+1 / -0
13 days ago
Thanks for testing it!

I agree on the rocks, I will replace those. I'm not sure what to do about area reclaim, I will see if I can replicate it.

In future for testing, it probably makes sense to have two different versions of the map. I suppose there might be some otherwise meaningless option that the host could check off that would also decide the starting position paradigm, but I'm not sure which that would be.
+0 / -0
Back to List