Map Comments Field

[AT]

When you're setting up a multiplayer game, it often would be very helpful to see comments by the maker of the map you are using. For instance, in Weslin Bridge, Players 1 and 3 should be on a team. If someone didn't know this, they could be in for a very short and pointless game. So, I propose a small text feild for mappers to deliver their comments. It would appear on the "Create Game" screen and possibly could be stored simply as a comment at the end of a map file.

As one who hosts alot of MP games with newly created maps, it would be indespenciable, as I have started games on even my own maps (for instance Weslin) and forgetten how to structure the teams.

Good idea? Devs: Hard to code?

Code: Select all

Thisiswherethempagoes
Thisiswherethemapgoes
Thisiswherethemapgoes
Thisiswherethemapgoes
Thisiswherethemapgoes

//This is where I thought you could stick a short comment that would show up as you created at game.

[Dacyn]

The mapmaker could put a message at the beginning of the scenario explaining how it works....
But anyway I don't see the use for this. If sides 1 and 3 are supposed to be on a team in Weslin Bridge, why aren't they allied?

[turin]

The mapmaker could put a message at the beginning of the scenario explaining how it works....
But anyway I don't see the use for this. If sides 1 and 3 are supposed to be on a team in Weslin Bridge, why aren't they allied?

because you can't specify allies in multiplayer scenario files, IIRC.

[AT]

They are; but to the best of my knowlege you can't force it in multiplayer... can you?

But thats not the only example. It would be good to allow maps specifically made for low XP or EDIT: Gold/house > 1.

Or for maps with NPCs (The Islands of the Lost Orbs) you have to have P3 and 4 CPU... a comment field would be an eisier solution than adding a bunch of WML commands for the CFG files.

[AT]

The mapmaker could put a message at the beginning of the scenario explaining how it works....

Thats what alot do, but here's the problem: Once you see that, you've already created a game, filled it with players, and now you have to start over if you've done it wrong?

[Dacyn]

because you can't specify allies in multiplayer scenario files, IIRC.

Isn't that a bug?

But thats not the only example. It would be good to allow maps specifically made for Gold = >1 or low XP.

Or for maps with NPCs (The Islands of the Lost Orbs) you have to have P3 and 4 CPU...

I see... maybe allow a map to have different default settings which are set when it is selected. This would be better since most people would be annoyed at having to change settings manually...
(BTW I think you mean "gold =<1", most scenarios are meant for gold=100.)

[Shade]

I would generally endorse this idea. . . Albeit, I have no authority here

[Jetrel]

I would generally endorse this idea. . . Albeit, I have no authority here

Agreed. Good idea.

[MadMax]

If you want to force teams 1 and 3 to be allied, you could do:

Code: Select all

[event]
name=prestart
[modify_side]
side=3
team_name=red
[/modify_side]
[/event]

I'm not sure if that works, however.

[Dave]

Yeah it'd be good to have a scenario description.

It'd also be good to allow default settings to be set for multiplayer scenarios.

because you can't specify allies in multiplayer scenario files, IIRC.

Isn't that a bug?

No, it's the lack of a feature. Currently almost all settings for multiplayer scenarios are set by the player creating the game.

David

[Jetrel]

Good warcraft III feature: In team games, where you have a map designed for players who should be allied - have different areas of control/defensible positions, etc -

the game automatically puts the people in appropriate places.

allied guys get put back to back in forts. If so few people are in a game that there as many/more forts than there are people, the non-allied teams get put in different ones.


Methinks this could be implemented by specifying groups of starting places.

Like, if you had a four-person map of two "forts". places one and two could be specified as group 1, places three and four could be specified as group 2.


The game would be willing to ignore the order the players were listed in the multiplayer screen in the interests of a better game.

[Shundread]

I think multiplayers scenarios still need some work on some functionalities.

I'd like to have them as flexible as the single player scenarios

-Shundread