Four Mesas V1.1

[dave_erald]

This would be a another 4player Last One Standing map update

Each Mesa (the grey raised area) would be opened up for a proper base, path ways would be enlarged opening to the middle of the map and off the sides of each base. The idea behind the pathway enlargement is to reduce some of the choke-points encountered on this map and promote a little bit faster or easier unit movement.

And then a standard base setup and ore placement that all four opponents would have in common.

Should the second common mine be outside that mesa or closer? And same question for rare ore.
One idea I have in mind is to place several Three bar High Yield mines dead center of the map. This would be a high risk area but the reward in ore could make it worth it.


I have attached a small pic of the map to show what I have currently cleared out and how it could look.

[Hooman]

I like the idea. I assume this is a stock map you are modifying?

Will you try to make the mesas more uniform, or preserve some of the irregularity? The positioning of the mesas, along with the fixed location of docks on buildings will imply some degree of irregularity.


Edit: Not sure about the ore placements. Perhaps some of the more active multi-players would have more useful input there.

[dave_erald]

Yes this is an adjustment of the original Four Mesas Map that came with OP2.

http://wiki.outpost2.net/doku.php?id=outpost_2:maps:multiplayer_maps



I've whittled away at the center section of each base getting rid of cliffs and anything else that would be in the way and allow for placement of uniform bases. It still offers each player defensible positions, they would just have to move out from their own base to reach them. I have tried to create some wider paths that can still be considered choke points which would be the side entrances especially, the entrance towards the center of the base being the distinction.

The idea here is to create points that can be choked off, but not create a ridiculous bottleneck that only a few units are required to defend it, and also slow down game-play (whether anyone wants to admit it or not, putting up guard posts to fill in gaps now becomes an option) and if at all possible it could help to reduce the base size allotment to only for one or two spaceports (wild optimism I know)


I most definitely would like to keep a lot of the irregularity of the map intact, but try my best to make things like base entrances the same number and width for each, ore locations the same number of tiles away from the center of each base etc etc etc.



Secondly, I think more than anything that the main purpose of all this work would be to just slightly alter OP2 multiplayer maps and make them more balanced/even for all players, and to keep the original feel of Outpost 2 intact. Just make maps more accessible and a little less random so as to make it a fair fight across the board (I can't count how many times ore deposits have caused a disadvantage to an already mediocre player (( and lets face it, the initial resource selection is bullshit because everyone puts it too High and trying to adjust it as a handicap to benefit slow or novice players never happens)) but I digress...)

Lastly, as far as mine types and locations, yield etc etc I think I have come across a simple solution to that but it will require testing.

I'll attach a crude mockup of what I had in mind

Base is the Blue Star, Red marks are Common ore, Yellow marks are Rare ore sites. Basically the further from Base/Center you get the higher the yield. So the mine closest to your own base would be a 2 bar reg yield mine that outputs 300 ore to start, and from there out mines start low to very high yield with the locations dead center of the map being highest yield. Being as there are only two rare ore locations that you would consider part of your base the mine off of the side entrance would be a 2-bar regular yield, and the center location would be a 3-bar high yield.

Or so it would go

EDIT => Looking over the map again I will probably program it so the base is a bit closer to each entrance (stretch out the base so that it can reach both sites with out having to make 5 kilometers of tube to reach more ore locations (( that's 3.1 miles for everyone else)) I'm getting side tracked again)

[Highlander]

Personally, I've always enjoyed squeezing my base in on the Mesas - but in all regards the eastern Mesa is best both in terms of defensive setup, space allocation and Ore placement.
It also enjoys the freedom of being able to expand outside of it's mesa securely on the norther side as it can be sealed off with a defensive wall.
Defense wise it has only "2" entries as the middle one can be sealed off, both defensive wise or permanently if you do it a bit shady.
It also has (In my mind only maybe) a better natural shape allowing the player there to nestle his buildings away from enemy fire from outside the mesa, and still reasonably well fit all buildings needed.
A few of the ore placements are a bit tough, but you can build enough smelters, relatively sheltered around most of them.


The Northern, Southern & Western Mesas I haven't explored that well.
Western Mesa ore location is not very good, neither is it's natural shape, making it hard to settle on it.
The Southern Mesa is probably second best.
Northern I'd place on 3 place. It has a bit easy access (Difficult to defend) from middle if I remember correctly


As you mention this is a LoS map, the middle ore could very well be high yield, compared to lower yields on the mesas - just to encourage some offensive expansion (and a reward for holding middle. I'd suggest enough ore for 2 players on 4 player map (so that a team would benefit, not just 1 player).
If you make it available as a 2 player map as well, then enough ore for 1 player in middle is enough.
If it is a LR map, I'd only place high yield Rare in the middle, to avoid players settling in the middle early - as it leads to crowding and quick games. Initial 3 bar vs initial 2 bar is tough odds to beat, even in a defensive position.


Other ore locations could be dependent on their location according to the Mesa. Closest mines could be 1 bars, middle of open areas 2 bars, then a 3 bar in the very corner.
(Or one 3 bar in the middle of the open areas which would be hard to defend and a 2 bar in the corner which is easier to defend).

You will also need to either expand or shorten each mesa a bit, so that they are all freely passable on the far side (furthest away from middle) or make the Mesa expand far enough so that players will actually have to enter the mesa in order to pass it. (Like Southern Mesa you cannot get around without going through that players defenses, while the Northern one can be passed in most cases as a player situated there will prefer to draw in on his defenses).


The corner mountain formations should also be somewhat similar in terms of passing then on the outskirts and the amoun + size of "openings" they present. (NE formation is far easier to hold than the others since there is several potentials for bottle necks - NW, SE & SW suffer from larger entrances which are harder to defend)
One thing which can be considered is to allow access to the corner mountain formations from the "inside" of the formation.

[dave_erald]

So it as it stands it may not be a bad idea to do a little more map adjustments. All 4 of the grey tabletops should have the outer most section nipped back to allow unit movement, and adjust 3 of the mesa corners to allow even choke points.

That being said, is it worth making two different base profiles? Two variants and one is randomly selected at game start, either all four players are on the tabletops or everyone is in the dirt.

I'm game for that

[Hooman]

That being said, is it worth making two different base profiles? Two variants and one is randomly selected at game start, either all four players are on the tabletops or everyone is in the dirt.

I'm game for that

I like that idea.