Across the Desert fix

[Leeuwgie]

Hi people,

Since a long time I wanted to rebalance this map. The best locations are 2 (top right) 5 (bottom left) and 4 (bottom right) and needed no real changes. I personally prefer 2 because its the only loc with more then enough starting trees and you only need to defend the bridge. 4 and 5 are also pretty nice locations to play on. The unbalanced locs on this map are 1 (not enough space, only one small coalfield (with some annoying trees on it) and pretty hard to defend) but mainly 3 (almost no space to build your town, not enough farmland in particular, really too few starting trees and some land can't be build at all because the tiles are too steep) and certainly 6 (no trees near stone which is in opposite direction of the few trees you start with so the player on this loc has about 10 mins disadvantage compared to other players and way to much entrances to defend). Besides the problem locations all locs have too less coal and gold in general, I've added 100 more goldore for each player on the map. And more starting trees, except loc 2.

Changes:

Loc 1:

Little more building/farming space (and removed the 2 stones so building won't be blocked anymore)
Relocated the few trees right from the storehouse to the south so you can place some buildings without cutting those few trees.
More coal and removed trees from coal on northern section of the coalfield
Closed the entrance on the topleft so it's easier to defend your town.
Has now a bridge to quickly send help to player on loc 5

Loc 2:

Nothing has changed except a little more coal

Loc 3:

More coal
More space in general (also removed useless 2nd rock between loc 2 and 3)
More farmland
Way more trees
Entrance to the base little wider
River is now larger so enemy archers can't shoot over it.

Loc 4:

Nothing has changed except some more coal (on 2nd coalfield) and some more trees.
Fixed some ugly sharp-edged tiles below the storehouse.

Loc 5:

Nothing has changed except some more coal (on 1st coalfield) and some more trees to the south.
Also removed 2 stones so you don't have to place building around it.

Loc 6:

Closed 2/5 entrances so you don't need to spend 10 mins building towers.
Trees near your stone for a fair start just like the others locs.
Added some more farmland.
Removed 2nd rock and placed trees there.
Some extra layers of coal at edge of coalfield so your 1st coalmines last longer.

Most people I tested this map with agreed that the starting horse should be deleted so I left it out
10 extra wine and 10 extra loaves added.
Possibility to build woodcutter's hut and quarry from start for quicker start.
More sight.

I had advice from Mully, Matt, Thunder, Fu, Romek and Bludmaster while testing, thanks. If you have any suggestions or think more (or less) things need to change let me know here please.
I will put here a link to the latest version I worked on, version 0.3: http://www.mediafire.com/?93bt733z0sm14f1

To

[Lewin]

The changes look good to me, the map was never well balanced IMO. If people like this version we'll probably use it in the next release. Does anybody object to that?

[ChrisEggII]

Yup, that's great idea. I always hated this map for positions 2 and 3.
Will old version be available?

[The Dark Lord]

I object (surprise! ). Don't touch the original maps.
On the other hand I admit that Across the Desert isn't the most balanced map out there. But despite that it is still really popular. I especially dislike the changes made to location 1. It used to be possible to build woodcutters in the north as you expanded towards the coal, now it seems that you have to build all the way down AND all the way up. I don't like the bridge either, it seems really out of place there. And I don't see why it should be possible to skip building the inn.
Just as with Wilderness, I would hate to see the original replaced by this. Maybe we can add it as 'Across the Desert Rebalanced'?

[sado1]

Don't touch the original maps.

I usually say "that's a crap argument, if map is imbalanced then we shouldn't act like 'but it's a saint cow, we shall not touch it' ". But on the other hand, I think that making quarry+cutter available at start is too much. Across was always a slow map and I liked it how it was. To, you were supposed to fix it, not to change it I must say I love almost all the other changes though, especially loc6.

I especially dislike the changes made to location 1. It used to be possible to build woodcutters in the north as you expanded towards the coal, now it seems that you have to build all the way down AND all the way up. I don't like the bridge either, it seems really out of place there.

Bridge is out of place but it's needed for the balance. I'd advise changing it to a ford. (ford? ferry? what's the English word for sort-of natural passage through a river?). About woodcutters... why not use right side instead?

On the other hand I admit that Across the Desert isn't the most balanced map out there. But despite that it is still really popular.

That's not an argument. It's not the only map which is very popular among newbies, even if it's imbalanced and needs serious fixes. The fact that it's so popular makes rebalancing even more important. We don't want all the people playing it, to play unfair games, right?

[The Dark Lord]

Don't touch the original maps.

I usually say "that's a crap argument, if map is imbalanced then we shouldn't act like 'but it's a saint cow, we shall not touch it' "

It wasn't even an argument, it was my personal opinion. We mustn't touch what isn't ours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItVsOakOhgA

On the other hand I admit that Across the Desert isn't the most balanced map out there. But despite that it is still really popular.

That's not an argument. It's not the only map which is very popular among newbies, even if it's imbalanced and needs serious fixes. The fact that it's so popular makes rebalancing even more important. We don't want all the people playing it, to play unfair games, right?

I don't see a problem there, if people want to play on an imbalanced (but great!) map, let them do so. And I don't mind if people want to play a balanced version either, I fully understand that. But I don't think we should replace the original with this version. We should have both or only the original.

[koczis12]

I totally agree with The Dark Lord. This map can't be changed, it will only ruin it. It won't be the same map anymore. This is my favorite map in the KaM and I like it just the way it is.
No offense To, I'm not saying that your changes are wrong but it will also change this map into another, different one.

[Mulberry]

I totally agree with The Dark Lord. This map can't be changed, it will only ruin it. It won't be the same map anymore. This is my favorite map in the KaM and I like it just the way it is.
No offense To, I'm not saying that your changes are wrong but it will also change this map into another, different one.

Exactly what i was talking about starting topic "KaM Remake gameplay balance". The old maps can not stand encounter with new changes. The answer from Lewin and some other people was: add more trees, add more space, rebalance the map. I was arguing, trying to protect these maps from changes. Now you are saying we should not change original maps? Then tel me, how can we play it? Locations are way more unbalanced than they have ever been before. Food changes and wood supply importance took over itself all the players attention. Wherever you look you see "shortage", playing original maps. So now face it! It came! It will eat you. And koczis, this problem touched Golden Cliffs too. You know what people talking about locations 1 and 2

I am supporting To in his work. Althought I think bridge between locations 1 and 6 should not exist. We need to test different versions, but in my opinion the things which really needs changes here is space(more grass) for 1,3 and wood supply for all locs.

Btw Thunder made a gorgeus rebalanced Border Rivers 8p. I suggest to look over this map as a perfect example how to change the original map without demaging its nature. You can download it from TeamSpeak file browser.

[Lewin]

Exactly what i was talking about starting topic "KaM Remake gameplay balance". The old maps can not stand encounter with new changes. The answer from Lewin and some other people was: add more trees, add more space, rebalance the map. I was arguing, trying to protect these maps from changes. Now you are saying we should not change original maps? Then tel me, how can we play it? Locations are way more unbalanced than they have ever been before. Food changes and wood supply importance took over itself all the players attention. Wherever you look you see "shortage", playing original maps.

I don't think we can design the game around working well on maps that are not well balanced. Sure, we could make food not important so it doesn't matter if your location has less space for farms, we could make it super easy to trade coal to wood so it doesn't matter if you don't have many trees, stone/iron/gold could be unlimited in case your mountain is smaller than another location, etc., but then what's the point of the game? In order to achieve complex gameplay and tactics I think it is necessary to have well balanced maps (this is a strong requirement in most RTS games). I really disagree with balancing the game around a few old maps. We're trying to make the Remake something new, for example we don't implement all of the bugs from TPR in the Remake, so I'm not sure we should be so opposed to changing the original maps.

Please keep in mind that the original game was almost certainly not well balanced for multiplayer. In the original game food was just as important as in the Remake (since we've now matched it to TPR exactly) and there was no market for easy wood production so trees would have been very important. The original game had plenty of problems/limitations: bugs, crashes, no online multiplayer, inefficient deliveries, poor AI, no editor, no custom campaign support, no high resolutions, etc. etc. And I think we can add to that list that multiplayer maps were not well balanced, although few people noticed until the Remake made multiplayer widely possible. So if we've fixed the bugs, improved the AI, improved the deliveries, and so on, then why shouldn't we improve the maps too?

That said, I think we can consider the idea of having the original version of the map and the rebalanced version if the changes are major (e.g. new bridges). It seems quite a lot of people are opposed to changing the original maps.

On another note I don't want KaM to be balanced such that every location must be the same on each map for it to be balanced, I think it's good to have different locations which can decide the tactics you use. But there must be limits to this, there needs to be some balance between locations in order for the match to be balanced. For example if one location has 3x as many trees, then it's not going to be balanced.

[Leeuwgie]

Thanks for the feedback. I don't like changing maps too but the fact is there are not enough 6p maps available atm so when we are bored playing the same maps over and over again we sometimes end up on Across the Desert. Only to find out how unbalanced it really is. The first thing I worked on was placing 100 extra goldore on the map. Now that the market is not that usefull anymore it's very annoying to see your gold and coal being depleted that soon, in other words if you want to play this map you can only try rush tactics because when the 60 mins are over your resources are also depleted soon. That is a problem in general. You can say that if all players have the same disadavantage it is still balanced. My main concern is that some locations are way better then others. Loc 2 has an unfair advantage compared to lets say loc 3. I personally dislike 1 because of the coal, no space and it's too hard to defend but the real problem are 6 and 3. Lets start with 3. There is really no space at all to build a normal town. Too much sand where you can't place farms, atleast to the south so you are forced to place them to the northwest only to find out that the ground is to steep to place a few farms. And if you want to place your weapon production it has to be half on the coal to the north because there is not enough space. Besides this 3 has not enough trees so this player will most of the time ask to cut trees from the player in the north. Another problem is that the river is too narrow so enemy archers can kill your citizens in your city shooting over it. So loc 3 is one of the worst locs to build. Still I think that loc 6 is even more worse. I've seen 99% of the good players screw up there. The main problem is that you are forced to put your stonemasons in the north but there are no trees available so you are need to build all the way south for some trees causing you to have a major disadvantage compared to the other players. You can't build a small base here so you need many serfs to keep it running. Another problem is that this loc needs to defend 5 entrances.

All these ideas are not mine like some changes to loc 3 and the bridge for instance. Here is a list of what I think needs to be changed.

Critical changes:
- more gold and coal
- more starting trees
- more space for loc 3
- removal of stones that block buildings
- delete trees from coal

Preferred changes:
- little more food
- closing entrances for 6 and 1
- prevent archers from shooting over the river for loc 3

Optional changes:
- bridge between 1 and 5
- unlock quarry/woodcutter
- delete starting horse

It would be helpfull for me to know what things you want to see changed (looking at my suggestions above). Or what needs to be restored to what it was in the original.

To

[The Dark Lord]

I don't like changing maps too but the fact is there are not enough 6p maps available atm so when we are bored playing the same maps over and over again we sometimes end up on Across the Desert.

I don't find that a good reason to be honest. But imo you can change whatever you want (although I still won't like it ) as long as the original map doesn't get replaced.

[Leeuwgie]

hehe I know your opinions TDL. Your eagle eyes would probably see if only 1 tiles of the map was changed. We had this discussion before when Wilderness was polished. Once again, I don't like to touch original map but for me it's more important if locations are balanced. No balance = no fun in the end.

[Jeronimo]

Mmh... I like making maps better. My first map editing experiment was making "Lake Wololo rebalanced" (adding 1 passage above and 1 below the central bridge, besides adding extra gold mines, etc).

Respect To's version, I think he made "too many" changes to original... some unnecessary.

Stone mountains: Between each 2 players there is 1 big stone mountain, this is seen in each "land portion" shared by 2 players.
Now To removed the left and right "extra stone mountains", leaving only the one near location 4 (which should have been moved slightly to left).

I don't like their removal since means "early after PT" market stone trading for players 1-2-3-5?-6.
Another solution is increasing the number of stone from 900 to 1200 (you will still have to trade, but 20 minutes later).

Respect the bridge below (locs 1-5): I agree about a passage, but not a bridge -> looks out of place.
I recommend "ford passage" (water+green plants), this way fishes course won't be affected and will look more natural.

Respect Location 6: I totally dislike how To closed the big lake and Iron mountain... 2-3 big stone objects? Looks really ugly, and unnatural again.
I recommend lake/mountain fusion, there are tiles for concreting the connection... perhaps the mountain will do a small curve towards up to connect with the lake, and block the passage in proper way.

I could point more "mistakes", but I don't want to extend too much. Better consider the few I stated above.

[Leeuwgie]

Respect the bridge below (locs 5-6): I agree about a passage, but not a bridge -> looks out of place.
I recommend "ford passage" (water+green plants), this way fishes course won't be affected and will look more natural.

Respect Location 1: I totally dislike how To closed the big lake and Iron mountain... 2-3 big stone objects?

I'm not sure what you mean about closing the big lake and iron moutain. I only made a bridge there because someone said it could be handy to have a connection between 1 and 5. I played loc 1 today and it all works nice imo, I cleared some sand so multiple farms can be placed now. I had no problem with this loc today. I agree that the bridge doesn't look top notch for some reason so I consider removing it and make another connection between 1 and 5. It doesn't really have to be a bridge. The only reason I didn't removed the 2nd rock between 4 and 5 yet is because it's also a natural defense. But there are more recourses on the map that are never used, but why remove all that is never used? Like I said I want minimum change on the map itself. Someone advised me to also make another connection above the bridge of loc 2, so it's a little easier to attack that loc, what do you guys think?

[koczis12]

Someone advised me to also make another connection above the bridge of loc 2, so it's a little easier to attack that loc, what do you guys think?

Add another passage above the bridge of loc 2? In my opinion this is very stupid idea and I hope that such change will never be made. If it comes to another entrence between the loc 1 and 5 I also think that there is no need for it. What if the game will be top versus bottom, then the player from loc 5 will make a lot of towers there and player on loc 1 will make towers in his base ( pointless ) so it will be camp war, leave it just the way it is. I do agree for adding more tress for some locs and delete the sand on loc 1 but IMO To added them too much ( on each loc ), now there is no fear of wood lack, but that wasn't the point of it I guess. Closing passage on loc 6, this is another thing that this map don't need at all IMO. Like I said If this all changes will get through it won't be the same map anymore it will definitely ruin its magic and climate. Ok, this is my opinion, no offense please, I really like this map so I want to say what I think.