Author Topic: Another New MA map idea. (Read 1636 times)

Flayed1 · « **on:** April 05, 2006, 07:28:45 PM »

I see HT is responding sooooo.......

I started working on a map a few months ago that actually looks kinda similar to the one in the other thread.

This is what I have done so far. It consists of 3 paddles and a center round island (hence NUKEMA) with 2 large islands between each large landmass.
Most of the bases are high. This is much different than anything we have currently in hopes that it might encourage more mid to hi alt encounters.

The terrain is actually chunks cut and pasted from Oregon

with a slight exageration on the alt. Lots of canyons and large flat valleys between.
The center island is naturally set up as a TT/FT but the tank spawns are at about 10K if I remeber right and the air fields are around the outside at 0K, loads of canyons to fight in here also.

I am trying to leave some space between the dar circles so that every NOE mission wont make an entire trail of dars go off on the way to target but they are still close enough that you shouldn't have to hunt much to find the NME.

I have also been working hard on the edges of the land so that it's not such an abrupt edge jutting right out of the water to 6K

Anyway here is a shot of the clipboard showing what I have done.

and this is the original picture I loaded into the editor but without the islands between the large land masses so I have drawn them in. Note the little islands are not drawn to the actual shape they will be.

Here is a link to a download of what I have done so you can fly around on it.
I haven't really worked on the GV spawns.
http://www.bops.us/bops/bin/site/ftp/bops/J1.res

Masherbrum · « **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2006, 07:31:39 PM »

Looks great! Good job!

viper215 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2006, 09:18:37 PM »

yayyyyyyyyyy

Waffle · « **Reply #3 on:** April 06, 2006, 12:33:44 AM »

I have to do this, so I apoligize in advance...

I dub the.........

"NOOOOOOOK"!!!!!!!!

BigR · « **Reply #4 on:** April 06, 2006, 12:37:40 AM »

I have one too!

Flayed1 · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2006, 01:11:14 AM »

LOL well if you have 3 sides almost all maps come out looking something like this

or at the very least zoom out on them and the counries look like that.
At first I was thinking of a 3 sided nerf boomerang then the Nuke symbol stood out to me. Besides NOOK MA sounds better than NERF MA

But on a more serious note I hope HT takes a look. I have been on hold trying to get a response from HTC, I don't think they check the Email or mine got lost somewhere

And imput from the rest of you guys wouldn't hurt.

thehares · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2006, 02:39:43 AM »

In my opinion, any new map creation that makes it into the game is good for the game. Gamers criticize map design but through constructive criticism maps can be improved. It’s up to HTC Admin to support gamers that want to contribute to the game this way.
So go for it

Schatzi · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2006, 03:54:25 AM »

I second that! I have made a small (64x64) map with fully functional strat etc in the past. Its a f***** hassle and tons and hours of work. I salute everyone that has the time and patience to go for a new MA map!

If you need help with thoses water edges.... heres what I did: Use the SHIFT/CTRL right click to change terrain alt by 100 or 50 feet, more or less clicking "randomly" on the corners.... that way the hills will look smooth.
Also, i only put two or three "take off and look at what youve done" fileds on the map, untill the WHOLE terrain layout was completely finished. Changing any altitude after adding fields, strats and roads will only lead to chaos

.

Anyway, Good luck and thanks in advance

.

Flayed1 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2006, 08:03:07 AM »

Thanx Schatzi for the tip I will try it. What I have found works fairly well is taking the gray scale image and smudging/bluring the black(water) back into the lighter(land). This makes a nice smooth transition from one to the other when you load it back into the editor. The only problem is you have to do this several times to get it right witout over doing it. This also works well for adding canyons /gullys by doing the same thing, just in a line.

I'm also hoping the higher altitude map would encourage the use of the SPIT-14 , TA-152 and other high alt type planes. As the maps are now I only see these when I fly 20 to 30K in my B-17's. maybe being almost half way to 20K would ecourage more High alt bombers and interceptors.

Dux · « **Reply #9 on:** April 06, 2006, 09:07:42 AM »

Just FYI... using pre-shaded elevation data does not give you accurate elevations.
Just in case you wanted a real Oregonian landscape.

Looks good, Flayed.

Flayed1 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 06, 2006, 10:24:44 AM »

Actually this would have been real close but I told the editor to raise it a bit so in stead of the highest peaks being only around 12K like Oregon actually has, the highest is around 17K on the southern mass.

mars01 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 06, 2006, 10:57:15 AM »

Looks like Pizza to me.

As with any map the most important part is the field spacing. All bases a sector or more apart = VERY BORING. If you follow the spacing as in the first two rings on Fester you will have a great map. If you follow the spacing as we see on the other maps you will have a map that most people hate.

You want your map to have a lot of action, give the enemy a lot of options to defend and attack each field. Closer bases makes both happen.

I would move FT/TT out from the middle and bury it in a corner some where well away from the actual WAR map.

Dux · « **Reply #12 on:** April 06, 2006, 11:17:42 AM »

Understand that because that elevation image has a highlight/shadow effect to it, all of your peaks are now split in half... with the highlighted side becoming higher (because in the elevation data, lighter = higher) and the shadowed side is now a deep valley (because darker = lower).

You still get a workable terrain, it's just far from what you might be expecting.

Shaky · « **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2006, 11:20:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by BigR
I have one too!

Wheee! That ones got my field!

thndregg · « **Reply #14 on:** April 06, 2006, 11:48:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mars01
Looks like Pizza to me.

As with any map the most important part is the field spacing. All bases a sector or more apart = VERY BORING. If you follow the spacing as in the first two rings on Fester you will have a great map. If you follow the spacing as we see on the other maps you will have a map that most people hate.

You want your map to have a lot of action, give the enemy a lot of options to defend and attack each field. Closer bases makes both happen.

I would move FT/TT out from the middle and bury it in a corner some where well away from the actual WAR map.

I believe HTC has documentation SOMEWHERE that states requirements in field spacing. I saw it several months ago, but I don't know where.