M-Player. Please do not start the game unless you have time.

[muxec]

On multiplayer server many players start their games even without having enough time to complete the game. People, please, if you do not have 2 hours of spare time do not start games on medium and large maps. OK?

[SaintDust]

The best thing to remember is this.


1. Never play more then a 2v2 unless all players are totally comitted
2. Never play on large maps, more then 35x35.

[Elvish_Pillager]

2. Never play on large maps, more then 35x35.

Do you realize how nonsensical this is?

[Dragonking]

2. Never play on large maps, more then 35x35.

Do you realize how nonsensical this is?

I would say "don't start game on big map and with many players if you don't have whole day". 3v3 Hexcake with balanced teams can be really nice 10-hours game if you just have time...

[pg]

2. Never play on large maps, more then 35x35.

Do you realize how nonsensical this is?

How is that nonsensical? Most 1v1/2v2 maps that come with Wesnoth are that size or smaller. Probably about 70% of the games I see now are played on near that size or smaller.

[Gafgarion]

Do you realize how nonsensical this is?

How is that nonsensical? Most 1v1/2v2 maps that come with Wesnoth are that size or smaller. Probably about 70% of the games I see now are played on near that size or smaller.

It's nonsensical because it says that just because some people can't commit to longer games, you shouldn't play larger maps at all. Just because the "fast-food Starcraft culture" is dominant on MP doesn't mean that people should stop playing a very fun type of game.

[pg]

It's nonsensical because it says that just because some people can't commit to longer games, you shouldn't play larger maps at all. Just because the "fast-food Starcraft culture" is dominant on MP doesn't mean that people should stop playing a very fun type of game.

Ok. Personally I know few games which benefit from having huge maps in multiplayer. Almost every RTS, TBS, and FPS have their gameplay suffer from large maps. It's like soccer. You decrease the field and indoor soccer still is fun, but if you were to increase the field size much in outdoor soccer it'd suck. 1v1 on a 20x20 hex map is 200 hexes a player, but 2v2 on a 40x40 is 400 hexes a player. I like to play maps probably 400 hexes per player or much lower. Even some of the super small maps with only 10s of hexes per player are very good compared to a large map. It is kind of a balance though too. The more players you have the smaller area each player should have to make the game flow faster IMO.

I'm pretty sure I've argued this on here before. I just don't really see any benefits of large maps. Unless you want to play undead and win.

[Squig]

the time factor is indeed an important element for the choice of maps in MP.

Large maps, though, have indeniable interests. On the smaller maps, what is important is a good tactic. which unit is good against which one, which unit will level up...

on big maps, this aspect is kept, while adding a strategy dimension in the form of where you will launch attacks, how you plan your reinforcements (which take a longer time to arrive to destination)...

so, small maps are fun and quick. but with big maps, you can bring the game to a whole new dimension.

[pg]

on big maps, this aspect is kept, while adding a strategy dimension in the form of where you will launch attacks, how you plan your reinforcements (which take a longer time to arrive to destination)...

These elements are not on small maps? I think they are still there and more complex. Due to the maps being smaller you are offered more choices and an ability to adapt faster.

[Pentalis]

on big maps, this aspect is kept, while adding a strategy dimension in the form of where you will launch attacks, how you plan your reinforcements (which take a longer time to arrive to destination)...

These elements are not on small maps? I think they are still there and more complex. Due to the maps being smaller you are offered more choices and an ability to adapt faster.

I'm affraid strategy cannot be taken too far in a too small map. Do you say you are offered more choices?, I don't see where are those choices; in a small map the fight starts early and many styles of play are left aside in favour of a small handful of strategies that can work in small maps.

The most fun I get in the game is in 2v2 or 3v3 games, in 28x28 maps or near that size. Teamplay, coordination, unit merging, bizarre strategies, a whole new dimension comes into the game (plus the social bonus, you can talk whilst you play, with your teammate), something that's not possible (or would lead you to lose) in small maps.

Death to small maps, I dislike them. I prefer 1 good 3 hours game, than 3 awkward 1 hour games, that leave me unhappy and lacking fun.

Just my 2 cents.
Soulice Pentalis.

[Rhuvaen]

I think complexity goes up non-linearly with the size of a map, both the complexity of creating good, balanced maps, and of appreciating and using workable strategies. I don't think I've seen a well-made medium-size to big map yet, and the ones that come with the game range from terrible (battleworld) to just poor (An Island).

I can see the art of map design improving now for MP maps on the small scale maps as pg said. There are a whole range of small maps with different virtues: some play quickly and enjoyably, some allow for surprises, some are balanced.

Creating a big map however takes the demands on the skilled map designer to a new level. Symmetry becomes less important as a guarantee for "balance" than on smaller maps, and becomes much less interesting on bigger maps. The mid- to long-term dynamics of a game have to be taken into account. Gameplay cannot be hinged on a few choke-points like in smaller maps anymore, although there will be areas of focus.

The problem with bigger maps IMO is that the casual player will not be able to focus his strategy as well as on a small map. Most popular MP maps have a visual cue as to where the focal areas are (concentric symmetries around a "bullseye" center, or roads to indicate possible lines of advance), and this helps players work out a strategy for their game in an instant. Not so on a bigger map. Large patches of one type of terrain make a clearer map, but will be hard to balance for different factions and playing styles and make tactical play less rewarding. A lot of attention to small details will quickly make a map confusing.

The problem of anticipating a working strategy and that the factions perform so differently in scouting and village capturing is a deterrent to playing on bigger maps, even if you have the time. The game might already be decided before opposing forces meet .

[pg]

I'm affraid strategy cannot be taken too far in a too small map. Do you say you are offered more choices?, I don't see where are those choices; in a small map the fight starts early and many styles of play are left aside in favour of a small handful of strategies that can work in small maps.

Small maps which are designed well let players quickly build up map knowledge. Small maps usually have a few choices to go about winning and players have to choose which to use. If you took a good small 1v1 map and made it into a huge map repeating itself, it would be ruined and offer less strategic choice. I don't even think it would be more complex then either except in micromanagement.

The most fun I get in the game is in 2v2 or 3v3 games, in 28x28 maps or near that size. Death to small maps, I dislike them.

I would call that size map small.

I think complexity goes up non-linearly with the size of a map, both the complexity of creating good, balanced maps, and of appreciating and using workable strategies.

Complexity is not good gameplay though. You have to be able to balance and understand your options. Really how would you design a big map that would make it different than a small map? You could make a big version of Blitz and make every hex as it is now 10 hexes or something. Would that make it more complex? Would that make it better? The basic design would still be intact but Wesnoth gameplay doesn't scale to it. When I talk about complexity I mean in a designed sense which balances choices you have to make(risk and return).

I don't think I've seen a well-made medium-size to big map yet, and the ones that come with the game range from terrible (battleworld) to just poor (An Island).

I don't think big maps can be designed well at all. Wesnoth gameplay in multiplayer seems to break down once you get too large IMO. Slow units become nearly impossible to use and it usually becomes more about economics, not tactics/strategy, giving undead huge advantage.

The problem of anticipating a working strategy and that the factions perform so differently in scouting and village capturing is a deterrent to playing on bigger maps, even if you have the time. The game might already be decided before opposing forces meet .

I'd say it usually is decided well before hand. I've watched some large map replays on the server. Usually the game is over before the armies even start fighting.

[Elvish_Pillager]

The game might already be decided before opposing forces meet .

Sun Tzu says you shouldn't fight unless you've already achieved victory.

[Rhuvaen]

I think complexity goes up non-linearly with the size of a map, both the complexity of creating good, balanced maps, and of appreciating and using workable strategies.

Complexity is not good gameplay though.

That's what I was trying to say. Complexity is a neutral thing by itself, and usually you need players that are more involved or experienced to appreciate more complex situations. Note that those are hard to come by, on the MP server .

Really how would you design a big map that would make it different than a small map? You could make a big version of Blitz and make every hex as it is now 10 hexes or something. Would that make it more complex? Would that make it better? The basic design would still be intact but Wesnoth gameplay doesn't scale to it. When I talk about complexity I mean in a designed sense which balances choices you have to make(risk and return).

No, it wouldn't just be Blitz scaled by a factor of six to ten . What I'd try on a bigger map would be to create several 'territories of interest' where the villages are concentrated that have about the same level of detail as the smaller maps. These main battle theaters would be separated by areas of wilderness (with maybe one village in-between) that consist of one terrain mostly with roads and rivers traversing and/or other terrain hotspots spreckled over them.
The idea is that a player needs to judge the situation in several locations and allocate and move his forces in-between them. The 'territories of interest' don't need to be balanced for all factions individually, but overall the territories should be balanced - in other words, you might have one forested territory and one desert oasis...

Concentrating the villages would ensure that with a small garrison, bats can be repelled and undead don't win by default, and also the action doesn't get so dispersed into scouting skirmishes that there's no real sense of progress.

Some territories might also have recruitment possibilities, giving slower units a chance as garrison forces.

Sun Tzu says you shouldn't fight unless you've already achieved victory.

Heh, I thought he was dead . Anyway, I guess it must be mostly an error of judgement then that I lose at all!