Knights and Merchants.net Forum

Hey! Let please make a not campy maps list. I would like to know how do those maps look out. What is it necessary for that kind of map. Thank you!:)

Place all mountains with resources on the sides and none in the mid. Don't use any obstacles in the mid area either. Done.

why not the resources in the center?
the people that don't camp have a advantage then

It's not easy to determine how the gameplay of a new map will be like (since before testing you simply don't know for sure how it will work out). In fact it's one of the hardest things to learn as a mapmaker. It's about planning the right combination of space, distance (from bases), overall balance (of locs, not players), object placement and flanking possibilities. Most maps don't have a real center for instance (where the players can decide to go attack in multiple directions). Examples of this are Dead of Winter, Majestic Waters and Cursed Ravine to name a few. Some maps have such a small center that right after PT players just take position there and wait for the enemy to attack them first (otherwise they probably lose). Good examples of this are Border Rivers and New Horizon. More open (and better) maps with a more intelligent fighting zone where players have the possibility to attack where they want require more skill to be succesfull. In other words where the fighting skill is more important than the amount of troops. Besides that the element of surprise is more important on such maps. Good examples are Golden Cliffs and Back in the Desert but also Across the Desert or The Final Frontier. In particular the last two require a decent skill level from both teams and that's probably why these maps are not very popular among random players. Making a map open enough without making it too easy to rush is most fun to play I'd say. I hope this is more helpfull for you than placing a list of maps

Resources in the center hardly makes a difference. Making a 100-tile long road is totally inefficient; it would be better to focus your attention (by "attention" I mean your actual physical attention, and the attention of your economy) on attacking your opponent.

To has provided a more practical look on "not-campy-maps." (or aggressive) For me, the shortest way to explain how to make an aggressive map is to give importance to map control. Make a map where you have to defend a spot in the center(ish) in order to defend a weak link in the team. Rich Land and Golden CLiffs are key examples of this. Players must push and hold the center in order to defend the lone location.

Yeah. Basically, imbalance is the key to balance the map. One of the locations has to be somehow weaker - it could be like with maps that Ben mentions, when one of the locations is alone. I'd add Across to that list, and partially The Final Frontier. TFF is an interesting case, since the key of this map is map control but in a more... campy way? You need to fool your enemy into bringing more troops on one of the fronts (top/bottom) then attack on the other one (so you can have an advantage there). So, you can also try to make a TFF-styled map where there's a very long frontline. New Horizon is quite close to TFF in that matter, but as To pointed out, the center is closed enough to let people just block it off with their PT armies. Back in the Desert is also interesting, because of location 2 being so weak after PT.

Back in the desert is very easy to play on, and the center is incredibly small. For these reasons, the map is a little campy. The saving grace is that it is impossibly to quickly and efficiently move an army from location 1 to locations 3+4 via location 2 (and vice versa). For this reason, it is important for the top to control the center of the map, relieving the campiness a little.

Talking about Rich Land, there is the discusion about "is the map or the players campy" again because I would say what I have seen in the last weeks(when I was spectator) 2 of 5 games on Rich Land were really boring and just a campish game

Of course any map can be campy if nobody attacks. If played correctly; though, the aggressors will have an advantage on Rich Land (especially the right-side locations).

Well that´s true. However you can take like every single map and it´s like "sometimes it´s campy, sometimes not"

Thunder you have seen this game as weel, because you were spectating, pls tell me was this a "campy map" or a "campy team" XD ?

Yes i watched the game and was interesting and i liked how each team read the other. For example left side went down to attacking at the bottom bridge and the right side immediately reacted on that. Maybetop side of the map was forgettable in this game .



Personally just for answering your question. Each side had campy situation. Yes each side! This wasn't huge camps, always happened something there.
I don't think camp is fault of the maps.
The Final Frontier has the one of the openest figthing zone without lots of details(i mean on unwalkable tiles), just some larger hills are there.
As also happened already on New Horizon (50minutes camping to the first killed unit!!! oO) i don't think the camps are depending from the map. Yes depending(10%), but depending from the players(30%), from the PT army(20%) and the actual situations(40%) also.
Maps(10%)
I think to the maps can give chances for this kind of games. If a location is small then the campers has problem with units in the city. If a location is huge then the problem is the towers and between the soldiers.
And as i ve seen after the PT the game is like in the first round in the box. Just scouting and searching well placements for the units, and after the second round is the camping what can be longer and hold until the first shot.
Players(30%)
If a lobby has 8 pro players then they can make huge camps almost on every map! Still on the modified Cursed Ravine which has the Largest battle field! I think to groups of the pro players know each other very well. They already know what the enemy will play, what kind of army will have etc... And maybe this one is the largest CAMPY FACTOR in the game. Not the unit balance, not the maps, not the communications. The knowledge of the other players. This community is a small group, yet. Almost all the time playing with the same players, i'm not wondering sometimes players afraid of the attacking the enemy.
Always need 1-2 players who has unknow style or unknow factor and that can make interesting game. Of course this is not guarantee the game withouth camps.
PT army(20%)
Evident if a player has less and not as good quality army than the enemy, then won't attack. Best if stay on his a__.
the actual situations(40%)
sharp eyes on the battle field. Sometimes just need a shot and after a huge infinity battle start and the camps over.
towers, unfinished cities...

Okay we are discussing about camping, but which map is campy clean? (yet?):)
;P

You want to hear a 100% campy clean map? Ok, I only know one map where camping isn't possible totaly : Gorges maybe a script like from gorges, that your troops get faster hungry when you camp, could make more maps uncampy hahaha

As I said before... because while campy situations happen on this map a lot (the entrances of some locations are easy to defend, but the middle is quite open), it is possible to make macro manouvers between top and bottom, forcing enemy to disrupt his armies and send them all around the map.

I kinda agree with Thunder's point about having an 8 pro player lobby, but having 1-2 worse players doesn't solve the problem - if one or two of those players screw up, their teams are often more likely to camp even more. Although this presents an opportunity to attack said players, it's a mixed bag. Generally, for a good and not campy game, you actually need good communication in both teams, I think the game mentioned above might be an exception. There's one more thing that I find important and that is having a good general in your team. I had many games where one of the teams was better on paper but the other team had, let's say, Romek; and the "better" team didn't know how to attack/wasn't offensive enough; while Romek's team had too few troops to make an attack - which overall resulted in a campy game...

So, Lake Wololo is not campy at all?
For me it's simple. More entrances to base = less campy map.
When player doesn't attack because he has no army to do it then why call him camper? It's his choice to attack or not. If map allows him to do so it is map's fault that there is a campy game not his. He is just choosing a strategy which is the best for win. Why should he attack if he is not sure of win? Waiting for better occasion to attack is sometimes better than attacking just because others will call him camper .

You mean that map which is removed already from the game?
Anyway as i wrote Maps give reason of the 10% of the campings. But this one is personal or subjective.