How to mark multiplayer maps?

[titi]

Maps designed for multiplayer are often very boring in singleplayer. Anyone has a good idea how to seperate those multiplayer maps from singleplayer ones?  I like it simple and would suggest the following naming convetion:
Map names starting with "mp_" are meant for multiplayer. All others are "normal" singleplayer maps. What do you think of this? Other suggestions ?

Once we have a criteria to seperate single and multiplayer maps a new filter criteria can be introduced to select maps.

[Omega]

Why not just categorize them with folders (similar to GAE's scenarios)?

[MuwuM]

I like Titis Idea, so it's clear for User whether it's a multiplayer-map or not. And you have the possibility to play multiplayer maps in singleplayer mode and singleplayer maps in multiplayer mode. And if you want you can add a filter in the starting game menu. ;-) (i think i will suggest this for MG)...

[Gabbe]

Map description.

[Omega]

Change my answer to what Gabbe said! GBM already has map descriptions, they are unobtrusive and unused, and can not only show if a map is multiplayer or not, but do far, far more.

[Coldfusionstorm]

Interesting, so by useing MGM format you can use map descriptions were are this showed ingame?.

[Omega]

Interesting, so by useing MGM format you can use map descriptions were are this showed ingame?.

Not yet. I think this would be the best way to not only sort maps into multiplayer, single player, etc, but to give a description (the map editor picture, which is vastly inferior to an ingame picture, is not always very clear) of the map to come, so we aren't charging blindly into it. This also makes it easy to know how the map is meant to be played (ever start a 1v1v1v1 game on a map meant for 2v2 by accident?).

Plus, this has been a lost feature request that's been here for eons (even since people noticed that the map editor can store description and author tags, but were not used in game).

[titi]

I still thing a naming convention is much more comfortable then using this description inside the map.
This inside description should be reserved for the Author of the map and he can give details about the map there.
Beside of this maps can be separated without the need to launch a tool.

[Omega]

I see your point, but that has the critical flaw that map names go from cool to cheesy. I tend to rename maps I get that aren't standardized, have version numbers, etc; For example, if a techtree is distributed as "my_tech_3.23", I rename that to "my_tech". If a scenario is named "mp_amazon", I'd rename that to "amazon". If a map is named "multiplayer_dark_forest", I'd rename that to "dark_forest" (this is along with the removal of spaces and capital letters that occasionally crop up). Why? Because looks mean stuff too. I see no reason why we can't implement a description of the map and those used. And even make another tag stored with the GBM/MGM formats that's a simple boolean yes or no for multiplayer that could be displayed underneath the description (with, say, a checkbox).

[silnarm]

I'm planning to hijack the description field for this, seeing as no-one uses it anyway...

Our map file header is now defined as such,

Code: [Select]

struct MapFileHeader {
int32 version;
int32 maxPlayers;
int32 width;
int32 height;
int32 altFactor;
int32 waterLevel;
int8 title[128];
int8 author[128];
union {
int8 description[256];
struct {
int8 short_desc[128];
int32 magic; // 0x01020304 for meta
int8 meta[124];
};
};
};

This is backward compatible, still allows a description (but reduces it's size to 128 bytes), and gives 124 bytes for us to stuff meta information in.

[Ishmaru]

Since MegaGlest Already have a map filter to filter by number of players couldn't you add a field for "multi-player" or "special" for maps that either wouldn't work AI or not fully utilized by AI, or even special maps made specifically for Scenarios. As for how one could define a special map not sure perhaps a checkbox when saving?

[Omega]

Support for silnarm. 128 bytes is plenty for a short description anyway.

Since MegaGlest Already have a map filter to filter by number of players couldn't you add a field for "multi-player" or "special" for maps that either wouldn't work AI or not fully utilized by AI, or even special maps made specifically for Scenarios. As for how one could define a special map not sure perhaps a checkbox when saving?

The GAE approach for "special" maps is more useful. All scenario maps are placed in the same folder as the scenario, and do not appear in the new game menu.

[titi]

I think maps in scenarios are possible in MG too  

[Ishmaru]

Yea guess it does make more sense to have it in the scenario folder. I'm all for map description, just where would it show up in custom game setup? Its pretty congested as is...

[Psychedelic_hands]

Maybe if menu space is an issue we could have the descriptions on the loading page?

[Omega]

What's the point of having it on the loading page? By that time, it's too late and useless. It has to be on the same screen as you choose the map.

Options:

Split the new game screen into two parts, for example, start by choosing the players and their factions, then click continue, and choose the game's settings, like the map (since we previously chose the number of players, we can automatically filter out maps that use less players than we have chosen), fog of war, etc etc. This gives optimal space, but probably more difficult to program.

Use scroll boxes to bunch some of the controls together in one small space, having to scroll down in that space to access all options. This is far more cramped, and not necessarily any easier to program than splitting the screen.

Stuff it in. This is the simplest option, but then things become more crowded than ever. I think controls should be spaced out a bit, lest the new player be overwhelmed by all the options.

[silnarm]

Options:

I'm going to remove the drop-list and replace it with a 'change map' button, which will open a new window/dialog-box in which to select the map.

[Psychedelic_hands]

Options:

I'm going to remove the drop-list and replace it with a 'change map' button, which will open a new window/dialog-box in which to select the map.

That sounds perfect

I don't really know what I was thinking... Getting the info out there without crowding stuff... haha, I see your point. But sometimes finding out how a map is yourself is fun.

[hailstone]

Options:

I'm going to remove the drop-list and replace it with a 'change map' button, which will open a new window/dialog-box in which to select the map.

Sounds good. Several RTS games do it this way.

[Ishmaru]

Options:

I'm going to remove the drop-list and replace it with a 'change map' button, which will open a new window/dialog-box in which to select the map.

Seems the most logical solution. Hope its implemented on both engines!

[titi]

At the moment I don't see which benefits we have with a new dialog ? I like it the way we have it now, all in one big overview!
And these settings are also distributed and shown to all connected clients.

What else can be in an extra menu?
- bigger detailed map preview? --- you loose all the fun to explore a map! Thats why it is so small and less detailed in MG!
- describing text for the map?--- of course if someone really writes these things into maps! From what we learned now, noone does!
- author/credits? --- well yes ....

So for me this feature is not really a must have thing!