• Hello and welcome to MSFC. We are a small and close knitted community who specialises in modding the game Star Trek Armada 2 and the Fleet Operations modification, however we have an open field for discussing a number of topics including movies, real life events and everything in-between.

    Being such a close community, we do have some restrictions, including all users required to be registered before being able to post as well as all members requiring to have participated in the community for sometime before being able to download our modding files to name the main ones. This is done for both the protection of our members and to encourage new members to get involved with the community. We also require all new registrations to first be authorised by an Administrator and to also have an active and confirmed email account.

    We have a policy of fairness and a non harassment environment, with the staff quick to act on the rare occasion of when this policy is breached. Feel free to register and join our community.

Enable the Help Files, Please.

T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
Okay, Thanks. Something else just occured to me. I am using the smaller version of FahreS' Compact Dream GUI. Do I need to go back and use the widescreen variant he made?
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
Silly me, I forgot to check the Input.map file to see if there were any in game shortcut which would run the game in a windowed mode. There is. Once you have started the mission, press ALT+ENTER. This will reduce the game to a windowed mode which can be adjusted to the sizes listed in the Graphics Setup Menu ingame. Just tried both 1024X768 32 color and 1280x1024 32 color. They both worked!
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
I wish to move some hardpoints around on a few meshes I have and I also want to add a build hardpoint to a couple more. I have completely forgotten how to do this since it has been a very ong time since I fooled with MS3D. Could someone please explain how to do this in a step by step manner so that even a hardheaded old man like myself could undrstand and accomplish these tasks successfully? Thanks in advance!
 

Majestic

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Seraphim Build Team
Joined
17 Apr 2006
Messages
18,321
Age
39
I would assume you already have a hardpoint map on the model?

Basically all you need to do is select the hardpoint joint in the joint menu, then in the model menu select the joint option and click on the model in one of the view planes. It will created a new joint which, going back to the joint menu you can rename to h_build.

You'll need to select move in the model menu to move it. If you wish to add more hardpoints, make sure you select the hardpoint joint in the joint menu each time. Just remember when naming them to have something like this h_hp01 etc.

I hope this has helped you out.
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
Thank you. I could not remember how to do this.
 

Majestic

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Seraphim Build Team
Joined
17 Apr 2006
Messages
18,321
Age
39
You're welcome mate. :thumbsup:
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
Alrighty then! I need some guidance here, please. I have begun re hardpointing the Rommie ships I added to my personal install lately. I have some questions and would some ideas from others whom are smarter than I about this stuff.

1) I have always been kinda bugged about how few hardpoints exist in the Stock models whenever I looked at them. To me, it is a clear case of too little being asked to do entirely too much. Yet, having a hardpoint for every nut blot and plasma conduit on the ship being modelled seems to be no good in the opposite direction.

- How many hardpoints should each class of ship really have? I began with the Ael Hatham class battleship and simply began writing down all the things I thought a ship of the line should have and where they should be. Currently, I have a potential 84 hardpoints, not counting the ones required for scene root, damage, etc.

- Do I really need to model all of the systems as closely as A2 will allow? Or should I go for effects over accuracy?

- If I do decide to go for completeness over effect, how much heavier will this make the meshes? The current filesize for this vessel in MS3D is 194kb. When I convert it over to SOD format, will it become a lag monster?

Attached is a pic of how I've spent my weekend. This wasn't as complicated as I remembered, but it did seem tedious at times. Usually right after I made mistakes. I would greatly appreciate some input from those of you here who are far more familiar with this aspect of A2 modding than I am.

Please note these absolutely will not, under any circumstances, be publicly released anywhere. This is something I am doing for myself only. I've done so very much to the mesh, I am no longer sure where Atolm's work ends and mine begins. It would be highly unfair to him for me to release this. So before you ask, the answer is not no, but frakkin' no!
 

Attachments

  • Ael'Hatham rehardpointing progress.png
    Ael'Hatham rehardpointing progress.png
    361.7 KB · Views: 7

Majestic

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Seraphim Build Team
Joined
17 Apr 2006
Messages
18,321
Age
39
Alrighty then! I need some guidance here, please. I have begun re hardpointing the Rommie ships I added to my personal install lately. I have some questions and would some ideas from others whom are smarter than I about this stuff.

1) I have always been kinda bugged about how few hardpoints exist in the Stock models whenever I looked at them. To me, it is a clear case of too little being asked to do entirely too much. Yet, having a hardpoint for every nut blot and plasma conduit on the ship being modelled seems to be no good in the opposite direction.

- How many hardpoints should each class of ship really have? I began with the Ael Hatham class battleship and simply began writing down all the things I thought a ship of the line should have and where they should be. Currently, I have a potential 84 hardpoints, not counting the ones required for scene root, damage, etc.

- Do I really need to model all of the systems as closely as A2 will allow? Or should I go for effects over accuracy?

- If I do decide to go for completeness over effect, how much heavier will this make the meshes? The current filesize for this vessel in MS3D is 194kb. When I convert it over to SOD format, will it become a lag monster?

Attached is a pic of how I've spent my weekend. This wasn't as complicated as I remembered, but it did seem tedious at times. Usually right after I made mistakes. I would greatly appreciate some input from those of you here who are far more familiar with this aspect of A2 modding than I am.

Please note these absolutely will not, under any circumstances, be publicly released anywhere. This is something I am doing for myself only. I've done so very much to the mesh, I am no longer sure where Atolm's work ends and mine begins. It would be highly unfair to him for me to release this. So before you ask, the answer is not no, but frakkin' no!

I'm not necessary smarter than you in this area, just a bit more experience since I started hardpointing models back in 2006.

The amount of hardpoints (ie, h_hp01 onwards) I normally feel a good 30-36 is really all you need. I usually have around 5 for each sub-system and then as many as the weapons actually require, one hardpoint per weapon port.

The amount of hardpoints per model really doesn't increase the file-size of the sod that much, unless you are going for extremes like 150 joints per model, which is really unnecessary. I would personally aim for the middle, as A2 is an older game and really didn't introduce everything they were planning. I remember reading when A2 was in production when we were modding A1, that they were going to introduce selective targeting of sub-systems, were you could set your ships to disable enemy shields or life support etc. Sadly they just simplified it and made it all very random.
 

Starfox1701

Master of the Arwing
Warrant Officer
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Messages
2,560
Age
47
My thought is that it deepends on 2 things.

1) how long will the ship last in battle? The longer it lives the more it has please the eye with veriation.

2) How cannon you want it? The closer to "real" you push for the more points you will need.

Milkshape can't really handel many more joints then 240. I think it crashes out at 250.
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
I'm thinking along the following lines

Battleship and Battleship2 ~ 60 - 80 hp

Science ~ 50 - 70 hp

Cruise1 ~ 30 - 50

Cruise2 and 3 ~ 20 - 35 hp

Destroyers ~ 15 - 25 hp

Frigates ~ 10 - 20 hp

Scouts ~ 8 - 10 hp

Construction and mining ships ~ 25 or so, with lots of hull because they are supposed to be tougher due to the tasks they perform.

It should work a little better like this and it ought to make battles between groups of three or four ships last a bit longer.
 

Starfox1701

Master of the Arwing
Warrant Officer
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Messages
2,560
Age
47
If that does what you need done; but don't be afraid to go higher:cool:
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
Thank you, guys! Much appreciated!
 

Majestic

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Seraphim Build Team
Joined
17 Apr 2006
Messages
18,321
Age
39
That's why we are here, well that and look good. :lol2:
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
Decided to go with a smaller number of HPs. Mostly just changed around the locations and deleted the ones I was no longer using. Also had a devil of a time trying to avoid the "alphas show up but rest of ship is invisible" fault. Finally gave up and changed the !noalpha materials tag to !opaque. From past experience with the hex editor, I know these two would work together and achieve a result similar to !phong. On my monitor, these two give just the tiniest bit of metallic sheen to the non alpha parts of a texture. Add this to adjusting the gamma and bump mapping the textures by one pixel and the Ael'Hatham class is now an essential part of the Praetor's Grand Wings.

Thanks for the help, people!
 

Attachments

  • rahathamfinal000.jpg
    rahathamfinal000.jpg
    275.3 KB · Views: 3
  • rahathamfinal001.jpg
    rahathamfinal001.jpg
    161.8 KB · Views: 2
  • rahathamfinal002.png
    rahathamfinal002.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 11

Starfox1701

Master of the Arwing
Warrant Officer
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Messages
2,560
Age
47
In versions 1.8.3 and up there is a drop down menu in the materials section with the options default, sphere map, combine alpha, and ignore alpha. Set it to ignore alpha and you will be able to see everything. It won'r effect exporting at all but it makes working allot easier:thumbsup:
 

Majestic

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Seraphim Build Team
Joined
17 Apr 2006
Messages
18,321
Age
39
In versions 1.8.3 and up there is a drop down menu in the materials section with the options default, sphere map, combine alpha, and ignore alpha. Set it to ignore alpha and you will be able to see everything. It won'r effect exporting at all but it makes working allot easier:thumbsup:

Oh that was a god send wasn't it? :)
 

Starfox1701

Master of the Arwing
Warrant Officer
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Messages
2,560
Age
47
Oh ya no more ribing the light maps out of textures for a "working" set:p
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
Map Lighting

The map lighting system is one of the best features of A2. And one of the few where problems are caused by the user or map maker rather than the game. As most of you are aware of, I like making maps. According to all of you who've downloaded them, my maps are pretty good. I'll concede you may have a point, but like most modders, all I can see in my public releases are the flaws and mistakes and things I left undone or did poorly. But we come to bury Caesar, not praise him. Onwards to the lighting setups I use. The way I use it, Lighting is broken into three areas: Ambient, Upward Directional, and Downward Directional. One can have as many Directional lights as one desires. Several of the Stock maps come with three or more. However, every single visible pixel must e processed through every light source on the map and this can cause lag.

"Lag is BAD and must be avoided." -CABAL, attributed

Ambient lighting is the easiest to set. It is part of the map properties. Simply click on the Ambient button in the lower left corner of the Map Properties window. This brings up the RGB panel. The light can be set by using the Lightness, Hue, and Saturation values or the more common RGB values. There is no way to set the lighting by using a hexadecimal value. These can be difficult to work with any way due to unfamiliarity with the values themselves. When you are done editing the light values, click on the Okay button and this returns you to the Map Properties window. Directional Lights are Map Object and can be placed and edited using the Map Objects menu. They can be set for Roll, Pitch and Yaw. They also have a color button for setting the color. Clicking on this button will open an RGB Panel which is identical to the one for Ambient lighting and functions the same way.

Ambient lighting provides a uniform light throughout the map. The Directional lights provide highlights and shadow. By adjusting the pitch and Yaw of the Directional Lights, it is possible to light a map showing early dawn, high noon or evening twilight without changing the colors of the lights. The first thing I do when lighting a map is think about what kind of mood I am trying to set. An example of this is my seven player map, 'Disquietude'. I was deliberately attempting to establish a sense of unease within the player by using the color red as the dominating shade of the map. According to my LAN group, I did too good a job. One of the maps I worked the longest on to get just right and no one plays it willingly because it sets them on edge to do so. Ah well, live and learn I suppose.

For those of you who have the Map Editor Tutorial and have seen or used the settings therein, these are fine but they tend towards being overly bright and harsh, emphasizing colors associated with factions and they also tend to wash out shadows. Shadows and darkened areas on and around an object are what fools the eye and brain into perceiving a two dimensional object as a three dimensional one. Shadows give an object mass or, 'gravitas', if you prefer. The lighting settings for the three player factions in the SP Campaign are a good place to start however. But if they are adjusted downwards by 15-20%, the lighting now brings out all of the amazing details in something like Dan1025's Intrepid class or Aad Moerman's Klinks or Majestic's Maquis. Ah, the Maquis! Maj did a great job on those did he not? Beautiful little ships which you ought to go and put into your install right this instant!

Go on. I'll wait. And when you're done with all the, 'Oooh!' and 'Aaaah!', we'll pick up right here where we left off.
 

CABAL

<< â–  II â–¶ >>
Staff member
Administrator
Star Navigator
Rogue AI technocrat
Joined
15 Aug 2009
Messages
3,511
Age
33
Very helpful. Light is one of the most important things when trying to get the atmosphere right in any game.

"Lag is BAD and must be avoided." -CABAL, attributed
When did I say that?:confused: I remember saying "low power" and "unable to comply, construction in progress" a lot (stupid Nod generals), but not that.
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
Map Lighting II

Good! You're back. Those little Maquis ships are really something aren't they? Lots of fun to spam them and give a Cardie player fits by using hit and fade tactics.

Back on topic.

For directional lighting I use the following Pitch and Yaw values. These are thoe ones I start with and then make adjustments from.

Pitch = 22.5 to 35 degrees upwards or downwards and I use the same integer for both positive and negative vlaues.

Yaw = 155 to 120 degrees. Traditional paper maps showing terrain details are all drawn as if the light is coming from the northwest corner of the map. So lighting maps in A2 this way looks natural to most people. The lighting values I use as a baseline are as follows.

Ambient: Red Green and Blue are all set at 67
Downwards: Red Green and Blue are all set at 205
Upwards: Red is 0 Green is 59 and Blue is 120.

I also have a set of values I use for when the map has a very dark background and the ships and stations are similarly dark

Ambient: Red is 98 Green is 128 and Blue is 100
Downwards: Red is 123 Green is 156 and Blue is 118
Upwards: Red is 249 Both Green and Blue are 0

The second set of values works particularly well with a dark background and Aad's Klingons on the map. Makes 'em look more Klinky I think. There is a set of values for the map lighting which will look absolutely perfect on your monitor. It may not look as good on someone else's. This is matter of experimentation and taste. As with tweaking textures, restraint should be exercised. When you get to the point where you're thinking, "...maybe just one more slight little tweak..." STOP!! The very next thing you adjust will wreck whatever effect you're trying for.

A final note. Darkening the map to pitch black with a minimal sprinkling of stars surely does show off the beautifully detailed lightmaps on something like a texture set done by Jetfreak. Such a map is also a royal pain in the butt to play on because it is difficult if not impossible to find anything. If there is a reason to portray the topography as being in the middle of a mass of dark matter, then find another way to show it is "night time" besides setting all the RGB values to 0.

I am unsure so far about how this advice will apply to FO. I have been considering converting all the maps I have made over to FO specs. Particularly the ones with asymetrical starting positions. Not too many of those available for FO and such maps are always fun for a comp stomp, but playing them online against other humans can be problematical and could lead to rude language in a loud voice and much shaking of fists at each other.

Why did I post this? It is a little embarrassing to be the only guy in the map section, people.
 

Majestic

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Seraphim Build Team
Joined
17 Apr 2006
Messages
18,321
Age
39
"Lag is BAD and must be avoided." -CABAL, attributed

That is a Amateur saying actually I believe.

Why did I post this? It is a little embarrassing to be the only guy in the map section, people.

The last few days I have made a couple maps for FO myself, two 3 player maps. I don't think that they are all that good. One of them is made more for the AI in mind.
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
So put 'em in there. That way, there will be two of us. And when someone snipes a map, we can point and say, "Nope. The other guy did that one. Not me." rofl
 

Majestic

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Seraphim Build Team
Joined
17 Apr 2006
Messages
18,321
Age
39
:lol2: When I refine them I will certainly upload them here. I am focusing on 3 player maps as there are far too few of them. Often I play with three players whether it's two AI's or two other players online.
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
Map Lighting III

Okay, now that you've practiced with the lights a bit, we're ready for the next part. Google "COLOURlovers" and Bookmark it. Lots of excellent colours which will save you some time when you are trying for a certain shade which exactly matches your very most favorite episode of TAS. It has been said before but it is worth repeating. The lighting in A2 is probably one of the best features of the game. All of my maps prominently feature the lighting system. Several of them, such as High Noon, are all about the lighting. Good lighting can make an average map into a good one all by itself. No, I most certainly am not exaggerating here.

Most people start making a map by sitting down in front of the monitor with no more thought than, "I think I'll try making a map." Good maps come from having a little more prep than this. You may not need to go to the lengths I do and sketch out things beforehand. However, not even having an idea to base the map on means it is doomed to mediocrity from the beginning. It will never look like you want and you'll never be satisfied with it because you've set no goals for successful completion. Bad way to mod is it not? I had an idea last weekend about doing a map based on a rain forest. Saw a similar one years ago. Don't remember where. The novelty of the idea appealed to me. How can I simulate a rain forest in space? So I let the idea roll around the background of my mind all week. This is how I do every mod I've ever released. I work out the ideas and concepts until I get them about right. I only actually start modding/coding when I am sure I can get the game to do what I want. This is, ahem, 'the secret', I use which makes it appear like I'm some sort of "speed modder", lol. The Physics Project took months of thinking and trying stuff out to see what it did. Only after I had done the prep work did I start putting things together so they could be placed into A2. All Y'all saw was me announcing something publicly and then BAM! The end result wasn't too shabby either, was it?

Back to the prep work for the map. We'll start with some basic questions about our baseline idea. What kind of things does a rain forest have in it which would translate successfully to the Greater Dark? What kind of challenges do those who live or work in a rain forest normally face? Are there things which are in A2 which will cause problems? The first thing I am starting with is the lighting. Well, this seems easy enough. It is a rain forest. Full of plants and the like. So everything is green, correct? Okay, sure. But what shades of green? Is there a specific shade of green which says, "Now we're in a rain forest!" instantly to everyone? Does this shade of green have complementary colours which enhance and support it? What are they? Do I need a lot of these additional colours or will the occasional splash of them do? While making maps for CnC: Generals for online play once, I got the best map making advice ever from a member of the EA dev team for the game. He told me when he is making maps, he models for effect over realism. If planting three trees alongside a road creates the effect of driving through a forest for the player then why waste system resources placing an actual forest? Good lighting, well done, can add to effect and make an average map into a spectacular one.
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
More about Maps...

Now that we've drawn up our idea for the map and lit it up correctly, it is time to think about object placement. The first part of this is placing resources. Most people place far too many resources on the map the first time they make one. Too many planets and too many moons lead to a tech race/ spam fest. While it might be really cool to have two entire fleets of Warbirds swooping in after that hapless Borg Cube, this leads to boring games which require nothing more than clicking on a shipyard somewhere and then pressing one of the FKeys over and over and over. Yawn. The next map someone makes goes too far in the opposite direction. It is an eight player map with one Inexhaustible Moon smack in the middle and one planet right next to it. Our heroic admirals are reduced to building one destroyer and one scout and calling this a fleet. Which then spends most of its time avoiding any kind of fight because there are not enough resources to build a second fleet. Oh Boy. Another snooze fest which might get D/L'd and played about three times before the word gets out about this stinker.

How do I know these things? Easy. I've done and released both types of maps plenty of times for plenty of games, A2 included. But I am here to tell you this does not have to be so! It is quite possible to make a fun map which has the right amount of resources. What is the right amount? Enough so the player has what he needs to build a decent fleet, yet not so many he can willingly throw away said fleet because he can build another in about two seconds. It is about balance. And not just for the player, for the AI as well. Balance does not means everyone starts with an equal amount of metal, dilithium and latinum. Balance means the player and the AI both have access to such. We don't need to park a start point right over a Class M planet and just to the right of a latinum nebula to make sure the players are balanced. We do need to place resources around the start points in such a fashion the player can get to them by accepting risk.

This is the concept one must keep in mind when placing resources on the map. The best way I know to state this simply is, "Always leave them wanting more". Too many resources makes a player fat and lazy. Not enough and the players starve. There are as many different answers to how much is enough as there are players of both A2 and FO. And no sure way to satisfy them all. Somebody somewhere will hate your map. This is one of the Essential Truths of the Universe. If this bugs you, then do not release your maps publicly. You should be making them for yourself in the first place. And if you make them so you like them a lot then there are others out there with similar tastes to yours who will like them also. Balancing a map should be the next thing right after lighting it. A poorly balanced map with too many or too few resources can be a real drag to play on. No matter that everything else is perfect. It takes time for practice and experience to become proficient with this. It cannot be rushed. No one makes a perfect map first time out. But the imperfect maps are good practice. The more maps you make, the better the balance will become. I prefer the type of map where the outcome is undecided until the last second or someone makes a slight mistake. And I do mean slight. These are the sorts of maps which get played over and over again and earn everyone who uses them a "GG all!" from the other players time and again.
 

Majestic

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Seraphim Build Team
Joined
17 Apr 2006
Messages
18,321
Age
39
I agree about resources, having played online with FO I can say the best maps are ones that have a pair of moons at your base, a expnasion with a moon pair near your base, but not so close that you can have ships come from your main base and be at your expansion quickly, about a 30 sec travel time is a good distance.

Plus have a 3rd expansion further away, even if it's one expansion per two starting points, so players will fight over it.

Having hords of moons/resources actually makes the game far less fun both against players and against the AI.
 
T

thunderfoot

Deleted Due to Inactivity
Former MSFC Member
More About Maps II

We'll call this one - Terrain

A1 and A2 are based upon a game engine which was developed for a ground combat RTS. If you decompile the exe file you will see references to things like grenades and such. A1 does not have the additional resources and the 3D aspects A2 does. FO is a very high quality refinement and improvement of A2, but it is still largely based upon A2 when it comes to building and pathing issues. IMV, they are pretty much identical as far as map making goes. I fully realize some are now sharpening knives and shrieking, "Heresy! Burn him!" towards me but this is the way I see it. Can't be helped and isn't really all that important. What is important here is the fact this leads us into a discussion about terrain.

Terrain are all the other objects besides resources and player objects one can place on a map. They make up the bulk of the objects and really are of two types. Nebulae and asteroids. Sure there is more than one type of nebulae but all of them do the same thing. They slow a ship down which tries to move through them. Asteroids block movement for players completely. How many of and where these two objects are placed upon the map decides a lot of things. Such as where most of the battles are fought and which start points are easily defended and the like. Good placement of terrain around resources can make acquiring and holding them highly challenging and fun. Poorly placed terrain will cause a map to create AIs which do nothing and players who sit still without trying anything at all.

In the map which I've sent in which is based on the rain forest idea, I decided to think about placing objects thusly.

- No straight paths from a start point to additional resources on the map.

- No straight paths between start points.

- No straight paths from one edge of the map to another.

I also used two additional ideas which are always found in maps I make for any game. These are again something I learned from the devs of EA Game's CnC:Generals.

- Always give the AI about two and a half times the base area size a human player requires. If all the start points are oversized, then the AI will be able to easily use any of them as well as the limits coded into it will allow. This is because the AI movement processes need more room than a Human player does to move units into and through and around a base area.

- Always have three paths into and out of a start point. Only two of these need be obvious or direct. The third one can be as circuitous as one desires, but there should be three paths for the AI to function as well as the limits coded into it will allow.

Placing nebulae can be quite difficult to do well on an A2 map. Too may too close together can be very restrictive to movement. Too few too far apart makes them eye candy instead of a tactical challenge. Think of the nebulae as forests. This is what I do. Where does one find forests or groups of trees? This is where nebulae go on your map. Restraint should be exercised. Just because one can sprinkle nebulae all across the map evenly does not mean one should do so at every opportunity. Nebulae placed on a part of the map players do not send their ships to are merely a drain on system resources. We have reached the point with A2 where the primary drawback is the game engine itself rather than the hardware it is played on. Anything which does not have an immediate impact on game play probably should not be placed on the map. Nor left on the map after play test shows players or the AI move there infrequently if at all. Unless that nebulae way off in the corner is serving to mask an Inexhaustible Moon, it has no function and will only take processor time away from the map which can be used more efficiently elsewhere.

Asteroids are pretty much solid objects. They are more effective at preventing a player from going in a certain direction than nebulae because players cannot move through them. If you want a player to go the long way around to the pair of Class M's you've placed in the center of the map, then drop an asteroid path in between his start point and the center. Asteroids have the same caveats as nebulae but they also have a few additional ones. Asteroid paths or fields are really really good at snaring and holding resource gatherers. Especially ones which are AI controlled. The game engine will always try to make a resource gatherer take the shortest path time wise between a resource collection point and a resource storage point. After placing everything on a map you are working up, run a game with as many AI players as possible. Watch for places where resource gathers are required to go around the edges of an asteroid field or path. If a resource gatherer is snared by the field or path, remove the individual asteroid fields one at time until this is no longer a problem. The individual fields do not have to be deleted, just moved off the path the AI controlled resource gatherers take most often.

The other thing asteroids are good at is allowing a player to turtle. Turtling is the procedure where a player is thinking too defensively. He builds massive base defenses and refuses to move or engage other players. This is not the vile thing a great many players view it as. It is a useful tactic and a legitimate one. It becomes problematical when it is the only tactic a player uses. This is not the map maker's fault although he did contribute significantly to it. Having an asteroid field too near to a start point allows a player to have an anchor point for a line of turrets and sensor platforms. which allows a player to survive without much effort and frustrates the other players because they've not spent much time trying to develop effective counters to this tactic. Some players will always turtle no matter the conditions. This does not make a map bad nor does it make the tactic so either. But whenever the word, "turtle", is mentioned, players will reflexively avoid the map in question while badmouthing it to high heavens. Especially if they've never played on it. By placing objects on a map in the ways I've described here, with three paths leading to and from a start point, turtling can be reduced to the level of importance it should be at: equal to all the other tactics a player uses.

Please note these are guidelines, not rules. If you have a legitimate reason for asteroids being all throughout a map then by all means place them wherever you want. Just remember to play test the map so things which you do not want to occur do not do so. One more thing. Using the Path tool in the Editor is the best way to place large numbers of objects quickly and effectively. Using the ALT and Keypad + key allows a map maker to ensure the terrains are spread evenly top to bottom on a map. This is important for aesthetics as well as game play. Be advised the pathing tools tend to 'stack' terrain one atop the other. For a more 'natural' look, the individual objects should be moved by hand to spread them out a little more. Takes time yes, but the end results are worth it. When you are done with the pathing tools remember to go back into the Objects menu and delete the paths. Delete only the paths. Players will not be able to see these in game and if they are still there, the game engine has to use system resources it should be using elsewhere.
 
Top