To each his own I guess. If they were to make one that didn't consist of 4 huge rooms with connecting hallways I might play them. Fade vs Jetpack in a room that is the same size as a whole normal NS map is just retarded.
<!--QuoteBegin-SDJASON+Sep 29 2004, 08:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SDJASON @ Sep 29 2004, 08:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its funny how ppl say siege maps have no strategy... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well... lol <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> They kinda don't. Especially when compared to a well designed ns_ map with boatloads of high entropy to spare.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Siege maps are simply the NS variant of Starcrafts Shared Base maps <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ermh... sorta. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Wow a lot of posts already, thats great to see <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Here's my take on siege maps, and what I like about them and what I don't ....
I've often equated siege maps with Tower Defense maps from Warcraft 3. They are not the same, but they do share similarities in how they are played:
- Simple - Defense Driven (holding a position becomes critical) - less dependant on "teching-up"
While they generally require less strategy to play, I feel they can still have elements of strategy. Now this is largerly dependant on the map layout, as I've played many siege maps that were so horrendously laid out that one side couldnt help but win. Placement of defenses, protecting rts, providing support for your fellow teammates, all of these things can add up to a good, tactically relevant game. Yes I know thats what NS classic is supposed to do, but ask yourself this: how often can you turn the tide of a game when the entire other side is fully teched up in Classic NS? I RARELY see two fully teched teams going at it in NS (at least in pubs, I dont know about clan or pug matches). I've seen far more siege games where the tide of the match has shifted multiple times than I have with regular NS (Beta 4/5). So siege maps focus on one aspect of NS strategy - positioning or turf wars. NS classic also has this, but it seems that far more often games are decided on who has more upgrades then on who held their ground better. Just a different type of strategy; it doesnt necessarily mean classic = strategy and siege = idiocy.
I do generally agree that Siege maps are better for practice or fun than serious play. Since this is the case, it seems mappers don't take these maps seriously and we have a plethora of really shoddy maps because of it. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't usually play them because the majority is crappy and the lack of entropy gets irritating.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've seen maybe one siege map that actually looked as if some effort was put into it<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> x5 and BtJ are both spot on concerning the quality of these maps. Does that mean this STYLE of play is bad? Not necessarily IMHO, but I don think there needs to be a bit more time and effort spent on making these at least approach NS-quality.
I'll post more thoughts later. Now my brain needs a break....
I always assumed that they were made solely for the pain of those on servers, so admins could relish in the pain of players as they bumbled about the map.
<!--emo&::tsa::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tsa.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tsa.gif' /><!--endemo--> They are simple. ^^
Edit: Okay more specifically, siege maps were designed like Big Game Hunter maps sorta. You know those Starcraft money maps (e.g. $$Big mony seoul$$). Each team is given time (the gate timer) to max out tech so people can get what they want. With combat whats the friggin point anymore??
Combat, while silmilar to NS Siege, is less focused on RTS elements of NS. Combat is sorta RPG like, focusing mainly on individual performance/upgrades over team elements (although team aspects still have their place). Siege retains a few more of the RTS components of Classic NS, albiet in a more Combat-like setting (yes, the spam is deliscious <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
I think one of the biggest problems right now for siege maps (this has been said before) is their lack of all-around quality. They just don't feel real, they feel slapped together and ususally make no sense. There have been a few that have attempted to make at least a mildly interesting siege map, but gameplay is usally sacrificed for aesthetics.
I'd like to see a siege map without a seperating door for once. Just a lot of res on both teams, a short jaunt to a central battleground, and then your standard X minute timer to the siege room opening. At least then there would be an element of strategy and some effort towards slowing down the other team's advance, while still giving people the mass res and high powered battles they want. That might hold my interest for a few more plays, at least, over the standard siege map.
Of course the natural evolution of a map of this type, would be a map of the standard type, with spread out res, equidistance from hives and MS, and a strategic layout. So... maybe I should just go play ns. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Especially as comm it is great to have a team screaming: "comm we need turrets we are going to loose". (I dont build any turrets(except for siegeturrets))
40 Sec before the door opens i drop an hmg for everyone and make my squads attack. Most alien teams are overwhelmed by this massive onslaught and then i relocate in their hive room.
It's just so funny when a single fade gets through, attacking your rt/ms just to suddenly realise that his hives are gone and he is going to die to POD.
Sieges fall with the quality of the comm: If the comm spamms massive turrets it will be probarly a siege room victory for rines(as long as the server doesnt crash). If the rines get up from their defending role and start attacking it is normally a nice game for both sides.
They're a fun change once in a great while, but they get old really, really fast.
Detail would be nice in a siege map, but the amount of gameplay entities that are used in the undetailed siege maps bring servers to their knees as is, add in more entities for looks and the server won't last long. :/
Something else that would be nice if you must make a siege map, as noted by a couple other people, would be something that kept the same general gameplay, but didn't use the cliche door/siege room methods.
Case in point: the orginal dustbowl for TFC <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 100% agreed and I was going to mention that. In fact there is/was an A/D TFC Dustbowl league.
sige is for fun. no more no less. I like to play a siege map form time to time. its a break form normal ns maps and it isnt co_. well if i want to play NS, not to thing "take dbl take that blabla...". i just like to concentrate on "normal" fights. In co you get a jp with ex 2/2 upgs and a sg vs a fade with 6 upgs. not my style... siege maps are fun and both sides can win. even with a big tfarm aliens can win. They are only to make them advance slower. I see marines often rush with ha/hmg thats hard to beat, but not impossible. tbh i think the strat are easy. MARINES 1. tfarm everything. wait for siege room, get in there and siege. 2. rush with ha/hmg and sieg ethe hive from "aliens halls" (like siege007) 3. rush ha/hmg, make the aliens stay in the halls and wait for siege room
Aliens 1. fade rushes to kill rts/waits to rush siege room (siege wall dcs needed) 2. fade waits for the rush, waiting for an onos, countering the ha/hmg rush after the rush see #1
AND that what i like. A v. good fade can stop a few rines from using the sige room correctly, giving the other aliens to kill the rest of the undestroyed rines rts. Having a siege wall isnt too normal to have in a normal game, but mastering a "1 fade siege room defense" can help you to get skill in using the fade (ex. the blink/swipe/blink strat) just my 2c <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Case in point: the orginal dustbowl for TFC <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 100% agreed and I was going to mention that. In fact there is/was an A/D TFC Dustbowl league. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh you know it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I used to engy or demo on defense and gawd did I get a lot of kills. In fact Dustbowl was the only map the old |-eTK-| clan won against as decent clan. And most of that was due to my superior nade tossing skills. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> (sorry to gloat but it is true, I pwn with EMP nades; kamakazi engy x5! run!!!)
Anyways I remember there was an art to timing the waves of firey explosions when on offense and defense always had a lot of teamwork, even on pubs with newbies. I weaked a lot of havoc as sniper on offense. I was almost always the person who brought down the SG. Dunno why. I think maybe it was because I have never cared abotu how many time I die as long as I'm making the team win.
Suppose its a bit like a mix between combat and ns. They are fun to play once in a while, but not over and over again. To be honest, I think there are enough siege maps around already, and no one will really care how pretty a siege map looks, the best ones are the simple ones.
If I were you, I would make simple combat maps instead (some good new combat maps are in dire need right now). Will give you much better experience with lighting and layout that you can then carry on to ns maps should you wish to.
Comments
Well... lol <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> They kinda don't. Especially when compared to a well designed ns_ map with boatloads of high entropy to spare.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Siege maps are simply the NS variant of Starcrafts Shared Base maps
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ermh... sorta. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Here's my take on siege maps, and what I like about them and what I don't ....
I've often equated siege maps with Tower Defense maps from Warcraft 3. They are not the same, but they do share similarities in how they are played:
- Simple
- Defense Driven (holding a position becomes critical)
- less dependant on "teching-up"
While they generally require less strategy to play, I feel they can still have elements of strategy. Now this is largerly dependant on the map layout, as I've played many siege maps that were so horrendously laid out that one side couldnt help but win. Placement of defenses, protecting rts, providing support for your fellow teammates, all of these things can add up to a good, tactically relevant game. Yes I know thats what NS classic is supposed to do, but ask yourself this: how often can you turn the tide of a game when the entire other side is fully teched up in Classic NS? I RARELY see two fully teched teams going at it in NS (at least in pubs, I dont know about clan or pug matches). I've seen far more siege games where the tide of the match has shifted multiple times than I have with regular NS (Beta 4/5). So siege maps focus on one aspect of NS strategy - positioning or turf wars. NS classic also has this, but it seems that far more often games are decided on who has more upgrades then on who held their ground better. Just a different type of strategy; it doesnt necessarily mean classic = strategy and siege = idiocy.
I do generally agree that Siege maps are better for practice or fun than serious play.
Since this is the case, it seems mappers don't take these maps seriously and we have a plethora of really shoddy maps because of it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't usually play them because the majority is crappy and the lack of entropy gets irritating.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I've seen maybe one siege map that actually looked as if some effort was put into it<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
x5 and BtJ are both spot on concerning the quality of these maps. Does that mean this STYLE of play is bad? Not necessarily IMHO, but I don think there needs to be a bit more time and effort spent on making these at least approach NS-quality.
I'll post more thoughts later. Now my brain needs a break....
<span style='color:orange'>Edit: spelling pwns me</span>
I always assumed that they were made solely for the pain of those on servers, so admins could relish in the pain of players as they bumbled about the map.
They are basically Combat, but with marines having the default win instead of aliens after a timelimit has expired.
Case in point: the orginal dustbowl for TFC
Edit: Okay more specifically, siege maps were designed like Big Game Hunter maps sorta. You know those Starcraft money maps (e.g. $$Big mony seoul$$). Each team is given time (the gate timer) to max out tech so people can get what they want. With combat whats the friggin point anymore??
I think one of the biggest problems right now for siege maps (this has been said before) is their lack of all-around quality. They just don't feel real, they feel slapped together and ususally make no sense. There have been a few that have attempted to make at least a mildly interesting siege map, but gameplay is usally sacrificed for aesthetics.
Of course the natural evolution of a map of this type, would be a map of the standard type, with spread out res, equidistance from hives and MS, and a strategic layout. So... maybe I should just go play ns. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Especially as comm it is great to have a team screaming: "comm we need turrets we are going to loose". (I dont build any turrets(except for siegeturrets))
40 Sec before the door opens i drop an hmg for everyone and make my squads attack. Most alien teams are overwhelmed by this massive onslaught and then i relocate in their hive room.
It's just so funny when a single fade gets through, attacking your rt/ms just to suddenly realise that his hives are gone and he is going to die to POD.
Sieges fall with the quality of the comm: If the comm spamms massive turrets it will be probarly a siege room victory for rines(as long as the server doesnt crash).
If the rines get up from their defending role and start attacking it is normally a nice game for both sides.
Detail would be nice in a siege map, but the amount of gameplay entities that are used in the undetailed siege maps bring servers to their knees as is, add in more entities for looks and the server won't last long. :/
Something else that would be nice if you must make a siege map, as noted by a couple other people, would be something that kept the same general gameplay, but didn't use the cliche door/siege room methods.
Case in point: the orginal dustbowl for TFC <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
100% agreed and I was going to mention that. In fact there is/was an A/D TFC Dustbowl league.
In co you get a jp with ex 2/2 upgs and a sg vs a fade with 6 upgs. not my style...
siege maps are fun and both sides can win. even with a big tfarm aliens can win. They are only to make them advance slower. I see marines often rush with ha/hmg thats hard to beat, but not impossible. tbh i think the strat are easy.
MARINES
1. tfarm everything. wait for siege room, get in there and siege.
2. rush with ha/hmg and sieg ethe hive from "aliens halls" (like siege007)
3. rush ha/hmg, make the aliens stay in the halls and wait for siege room
Aliens
1. fade rushes to kill rts/waits to rush siege room (siege wall dcs needed)
2. fade waits for the rush, waiting for an onos, countering the ha/hmg rush
after the rush see #1
AND that what i like. A v. good fade can stop a few rines from using the sige room correctly, giving the other aliens to kill the rest of the undestroyed rines rts.
Having a siege wall isnt too normal to have in a normal game, but mastering a "1 fade siege room defense" can help you to get skill in using the fade (ex. the blink/swipe/blink strat)
just my 2c <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Case in point: the orginal dustbowl for TFC <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
100% agreed and I was going to mention that. In fact there is/was an A/D TFC Dustbowl league. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh you know it <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> I used to engy or demo on defense and gawd did I get a lot of kills. In fact Dustbowl was the only map the old |-eTK-| clan won against as decent clan. And most of that was due to my superior nade tossing skills. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> (sorry to gloat but it is true, I pwn with EMP nades; kamakazi engy x5! run!!!)
Anyways I remember there was an art to timing the waves of firey explosions when on offense and defense always had a lot of teamwork, even on pubs with newbies. I weaked a lot of havoc as sniper on offense. I was almost always the person who brought down the SG. Dunno why. I think maybe it was because I have never cared abotu how many time I die as long as I'm making the team win.
If I were you, I would make simple combat maps instead (some good new combat maps are in dire need right now). Will give you much better experience with lighting and layout that you can then carry on to ns maps should you wish to.