There is a stock map, I can;t remember the name of ATM, but I recall that its an 8player map in which each player has 1 neutral attached to their HW and nothing else, and there are four neutrals surrounding the star. Though the neutrals have a random number of extractors ranging from 0-3, i still find its pretty fair since each players HW is at least 6 jumps from any others and around 4 jumps to the next nearest neutral. I remember I played as Vasari last time i was on the map, and even though my personal neutral had no extractors I was able to sneak in and take the ones from the center and a few other peoples personal ones who werent paying much attention to them. So ideally maybe give everyone at least one neutral close to the HW that can be defended easily, and maybe half the number of players in neutrals towards the middle, forcing Vasari players to fight over them early game, and give everyone a good chance ot fight over them later in the game.

That's really something we'll have to discuss. My gut feeling is that it's going to depend on the map layout, but that 2 neutral wells per player is probably a safe number.  The problem is those neutral wells could end up empty anyways...

You would have to have it per planet rather than per player though...?

However it is very difficult to estimate at the moment, as the illuminator rush fest with +25% damage goes on and on... this patch promised so much and I can't believe that one already known bug has caused it to fail.  LRF were dangerous to caps as it was, and illuminators were too strong. 

If anyone's having problems with this, they could try placing the map files in the standard "program files/...soase/galaxy" folder with all the other maps.  That's where they are on my install, and they function correctly there.  I'm not sure that having them in "documents and settings/..." works for everyone.      

I made a TinyURL to the map download here:

http://tinyurl.com/Sins6

It's easy to remember and you can give it to people on ICO.

Now I feel silly for not having gotten around to doing that after you suggested it

Oh well, thanks for setting that up, DS.

I should note that my maps may not have been set up for Quickstart, as I'm not keen on it and they haven't been Quickstart tested by me.  I've started to test the maps in the pack, after removing the ones that were noted as not working.  Some don't seem to have pirates on... shouldn't this be a player choice..?

I'd alter my maps if necessary, but to me Quickstart just encourages early spam and rushes, reducing choice at the start and allowing less time for scouting before a decision has to be made on a cap.  It also means less time for ally chat at the start, when its most important.   Another feature is that if you have two badly placed factories, that's more of a handicap than just one, and might further reduce options.

If the number of neutrals were to be set per player, I'd have 3 to 3.5.  I consider 'deep space' to be integral to the game, nearly as much as planets.  A high proportion of space without planets helps add variation, and if there aren't enough neutrals the game can become very static, as the attacker is always at a disadvantage.  Navigators might capture neutrals more easily but later in the game this often costs the ship, if the well is defended- though if Navigators were made stronger I'd also alter this ratio.  Why the set maps have so many without neutrals, or with only one or two, is a mystery...?  There are four gas giants in our own home system.. I suppose I should put four that we are aware of, out of respect to the devs!

Unfortunately the default settings in GalaxyForge for quickstart are wrong.  This is actually one of the big problems that will probably require a "2.0" release of most of the maps.

I don't think it's that big a deal.  Most people don't play with pirates on, and we do have enough maps with pirates to give a fair selection.

I'd say 2-4 is probably the right range.  The exact number could well depend on how the map is laid out, which is why I give such a large range.

Actually neutrals can just as easily give a defender advantage, forcing the attacker to trudge back an extra jump to get to the nearest repair bays, greatly limiting his ability to fall back and reorganize.  However, I do agree that neutrals are good for gameplay.

I didn't enforce any stringent restrictions on map submissions.  I left it up to people to decide what they wanted to submit.  Even the ones without neutrals are generally very good maps, but some of them were early creations of their creators.  An example would be Standard Lattice, one of my earliest creations that has no neutrals.  I've been meaning to do a remix with neutrals, in any case...

I was able to get two custom map games going last night.  We played a 4v4 and a 5v5.  Darvin's auto-install files made it very easy to help people install the map files properly.  It really does make a huge difference in the ease with which someone can host a custom.

Nice!  Wish I'd been there, would have loved a 5v5 or 4v4 on a galaxyforge creation.

What maps did you play on?

Maybe you could you post up the replays?  I'd love to see some multiplayer games on custom maps?

We played two of my maps:  Asteroid Belt (4v4) and Red Crush-2 (5v5).

It does motivate me to get off my butt and finish the five new 5v5 maps that I have in the hopper.

dawh... i wish i was there... but i was too busy in another very epic game... which minidumped on me

Okay, I'm thinking of creating the second iteration of the map pack.  So, I'd like to open some discussion:  what maps should be added and what should be removed?  I've had a chance to play a lot of these in multiplayer, and so far my impressions have been very good.  Any comments on what should stay/go will be appreciated.

I'm looking at DirtySanchez' latest map pack for additions.  I also have a few new maps of my own that I'd love to add in.  If you have any maps you'd like to add, I'd definitely like to see them.  I'm also open to mappers creating newer versions of older works.

1v1 Maps (7):
Asteroid Belt 1v1 v03 (DirtySanchez)  -> REMOVE reason: virtually no neutrals
Close Encounters OBS (Astax) -> keep
Double-Edge (DesConnor) -> keep
Escalation (Darvin) -> keep
Golden Veil (DesConnor) -> keep
Jagged Maw (Darvin) -> keep
Twisted Space (Darvin) -> keep

3-Way FFA Maps (1):
Lumaran's Folley (Darvin) -> keep

2v2 Maps (12):
Asteroid Belt 2v2 (DirtySanchez) -> REMOVE reason: virtually no neutrals
Cyclone (DesConnor) -> keep
Fallen Paradise (Darvin) -> keep
Harpo99999 (Harpo99999) -> REMOVE reason: no neutrals
Harpo test 3 artifact (Harpo99999) -> REMOVE reason: no neutrals
Preoccupation (DesConnor) -> keep
Rossco2  (Harpo99999) -> REMOVE reason: no neutrals
Rossco2A (Harpo99999) -> REMOVE reason: no neutrals
Spheres of Influence (Darvin) -> REMOVE reason: chokes could randomize magnetic clouds
Thank the Stars (DesConnor) -> REMOVE reason: pocket start position is WAY too isolated
War in Paradise (Darvin) -> REMOVE reason: non-standard starting resources

5-way FFA maps:
The Coronet (DesConnor) -> keep

3v3 Maps (16):
Asteroid Belt 3v3 neutrals (DirtySanchez) -> keep
Asteroid Belt 3v3 (DirtySanchez) -> REMOVE reason: virtually no neutrals
Cast All The Dice (DesConnor) -> keep
Crosshair (Darvin) -> keep
Deus Ex Machina (DesConnor) -> keep
Duke Walk (DesConnor) -> keep
Falconry (DesConnor) -> keep
Gateway to Paradise 3v3 (DirtySanchez) -> keep
Hares and Lions (DesConnor) -> REMOVE reason: imbalance (one side has mag clouds, other has plasma storms)
Odds and Ends (DesConnor) -> keep
Ring of Risk 3v3 (Dirty Sanchez) -> keep
Ring of Risk-2 3v3 (Dirty Sanchez) -> keep
Standard Lattice (Darvin) -> REMOVE reason: no neutrals
Structural Integrity (Darvin) -> keep
Sun of the Joneses (DesConnor) -> keep

4v4 Maps (7):
Asteroid Belt 4v4 (DirtySanchez) -> keep
Diamond 4v4 far (DirtySanchez) ->  keep
Diamond 4v4 near (DirtySanchez) -> keep
Diamond 2v2v2v2 (DirtySanchez) -> keep
Pathways (Darvin) -> keep
Solar Conquests (Darvin) -> keep

5v5 Maps (7):
Asteroid Belt 5v5 (DirtySanchez) -> keep
Critical Mass (Darvin) -> keep
Red Crush 5v5 (DirtySanchez) -> keep
Red Crush-2 5v5 (DirtySanchez) -> keep
Solar Dominion (Darvin) -> keep
Supreme Cross (Darvin) -> keep
5v5Imperium (EadTaes) -> keep

Dang I want in on these games.If you guys see me hit me up.I never see you smurfies online.I dont think you should remove maps because they have little neutrals.

Spheres of Influence (Darvin) -> REMOVE reason: chokes could randomize magnetic clouds
You mean chokes have a chance of being mag clouds?

Spheres of Influence is one of my maps, and I've always had mixed feelings about it.  I probably will do a remake of it without those infamous "neutral uncolonizable" gravity wells.  The problem is that neutral uncolonizable randomly selects one of asteroid belt, space junk, plasma storm, gas giant, or magnetic cloud.  There is a possibility that both chokes in the player's starting system could turn out mag cloud.

As for neutrals, I really singled out maps that were significant violators.  As an example of a borderline case that I decided to keep is an 8 player map with 7 neutrals.  In other words, you needed fewer neutrals than players to even be considered for removal on these grounds. 

Finally, this list isn't final, it's my initial thoughts on what should stay and go.  I hope to add some of the new DS maps, as well as seven of my own new creations (I'll post up screenshots later today).

By the way, these are my new maps that I will be adding in the next version:

Breakdown (3v3)

Nightmare (2v2)

Ragnarok (5v5 multistar)

Separation of Powers 1v1

Separation of Powers 2v2

Separation of Powers 3v3

Quagmire (4v4)

I think these are some of my best creations.  And yes, "wtf" is the correct response to quagmire.  it looks like a mess, but if you take the time to count out the planets, you will find every start location is equal.

Those look really nice.  I'll have to check out Quagmire and see how you were able to pull that one off while being even for each starting spot.

Wasn't easy, I'll tell you that.  I was playing around with a new format and got carried away... but it worked marvellously.  Each player has a "local area" consisting of the same number and type of planets.  Counting in jump distance from your homeworld:

1. asteroid, ice/volcanic, plasma, space junk
2. magnetic cloud, asteroid belt, dead roid, desert x2, asteroid, gas giant (equidistant to another player)
   

However, how these "local areas" connect to other players is what is variable.  I'll save you a lengthy explanation and provide you with this diagram:

Each player's local area is connected to three other local areas.  One of those connections is symmetric, and both players have a mirror image scenario with respect to each other.  The other two lanes are not symmetric (much in the same way that a donut map might be different if you go clockwise or counter-clockwise).

The reason the map no longer resembles that nice layout of "local areas" with connections between them is because I scrunched up the middle in order to avoid obscenely long phase lanes around the edges.

By the way, Nightmare is the same style of map, except with 4 players instead of 8.

You seem to have nurtured a secret prejudice against the 2v2s!  I suppose I could rework Hares though the imbalance didn't seem significant- are we restricted to absolutely symmetrical maps?  I've also got a couple more 2v2s available from the 'downloads' section of this site- 'The Truest Taste of Freedom' is the download.  Is the auto-installer compatible with having the downloads available from this site?

I'm not fond of quickstart, so if I had to I'd probably set up quickstart like regular start, so that the only advantage were the scouts, capship factory and extractors.

Though 'Breakdown' is by no means the worst offender, I'm not keen on maps that are extemely regular and present a 'wall of planets'.  I'd also make 6 of the deserts ice/volcanics- the central ones?- otherwise the advantage to civics is very marginal.  On 'Nightmare' Player 1 seems far from the neutrals, perhaps you should take jump distance into consideration?  'Quagmire' another map with a preponderance of deserts, seems to also be a regular map where the outer jump distances aren't compensated for?  'Separation of Powers' is the sort of map far more to my liking than 'Breakdown', though four Gas Giants might be too many.. of the neutrals are Gas Giants the most pro-Vasari?  With the 2v2 and 3v3 versions the pirates might be improved if they were connected to the pair of ice gas giants on each side, rather than or as well as the sun?  

The neutrals you've used are variable, perhaps Separation 3 per player, Quagmire 3, Nightmare 2, Breakdown 1?- though on some maps they are easier to get at than others, 1 neutral per player isn't many?   

Might it not be best to whittle the maps down to a much reduced set that players could get used to, rather than expand further, though...?

Breakdown isn't going to have much emphasis on civics simply by virtue of its highly aggressive layout.  That equidistant desert between you and your opponent is going to be a flashpoint at the very start of the game unless it has a lot of militia.  I guess I could swap that desert with the ice/volcanic... that change might be worth consideration, but I dislike revisiting maps once I'm happy with a finalized version.  That said, if the equidistant desert choke becomes entrenched, the ice/volcanic becomes the alternate approach point and a very valuable asset.

Without actually overlapping phase lanes (it would be virtually impossible to decipher the mesh), I can't keep standard phase lane lengths on this map.  It's the same deal with Quagmire.  I changed the scaling of the map so all phase jumps should be fairly short.  The longer jumps may be three or four times longer, but there's not a huge difference between three seconds and twelve seconds.

I very specifically counted out the planets on Quagmire (how I counted) and I can assure you there are exactly as many ice/volcanics as deserts.  Beyond that I made a lot of effort to ensure that the ice/volcanics were typically of higher strategic value to encourage investing in the civics.

Again, due to its layout I cannot do much about phase jump length of Quagmire.  It's an inequality that will have to be lived with, but I don't think it should be too noticable.

There are three neutral gravity wells per player on these maps. It's on the high side, but still within what is considered acceptable.

I like this suggestion a lot, and I'm going to go back and make that very change (it will be instead of the sun; I don't want the pirate base to be a shortcut.

I'll also add that there was a mistake on the 1v1 version screenshot I posted that has since been corrected.  The gas giant that connects to the volcanic is supposed to connect to the ice, and the other gas giant was supposed to connect to the volcanic (the layout is correct in the 2v2 and 3v3 versions).

I follow the rule of 2 ±1 per player, so they're all within reason.  Breakdown has fewer colonizables per player, so it makes sense that it also has fewer neutrals in total.  Quagmire has more planets per player, and therefor it makes sense to have more neutrals.

This is open for discussion.  I personally have no problems staying around 50 maps total and cycling in new candidates and removing old ones that don't work out.

'Separation of Powers' is definitely the map I like best, it fits more in with what I prefer for 1v1.  The game seems to lack a set map of the same size as the random 1v1 map, most of the set maps are far too close, and the ones that aren't are mostly small.  

I've adapted Separation in the editor, though I haven't tested the result yet.  For a matchplay 1v1 map it still lacks a second star, though I haven't produced a map like that to my satisfaction yet.  With the 2v2, have you considered an alternative multi-system version?  Some other notes on the possible differences between Separation and a 1v1 matchplay map derived from it:

i) The matchplay 1v1 might use a rearward dead-end phase lane from the home planet to present an early strategic choice?   

ii) Separation is 'blocked civics'- you have to go through an ice or volcanic.  If the matchplay map is 'open' with many fronts, rather than choked, how about having at least one non-civic front?

iii) There's no plasma storm or dead asteroid.  The matchplay 1v1 might have all the terrain?  Also, Separation might have too many terran planets and gas giants at four each, obviously it has to be balanced, but would the matchplay 1v1 work best at one extra terran, 3 desert, 3 ice and 3 volcanic, for balance? 

iv) Magnetic Clouds are useful to break up a possible trade route and provide interdiction opportunities.  I like the placement on Quagmire far more than on Separation. 

These aren't intended as criticisms of the map, obviously you have a rationale as to how it might be played- just on its suitability as 'the' standard 1v1 map.  If all the map makers could combine on at least one 1v1 map that might be useful?  How about a thread devoted to a single map?  

On 'Quagmire', having as many deserts as ice and volcanics combined is what I meant by a preponderance!  From the screen there seems to be more ice than volcanics..?

I've updated the map pack.  Same link as before: 

http://www.rtscommunity.com/mw/map.php?itemid=245&game=26

The old map pack is archived in the non-installer download.  I decided to keep a few more maps than are listed as "removed" in the above.

Yeah, I've noticed this as well (though some of the 2v2 maps are about the right size).  Separation of powers was originally designed as a 2v2 map, but I quickly saw that it would make an awesome 1v1 and 2v2 map if scaled appropriately.

The reason there are no "rear" facing or dead-end planets is because the map is already fairly large by 1v1 standards (26 planets) so there's plenty of expansion room.  The reason it has fewer ice/volcanics is because the ice/volcanics it does have are absolutely critical choke points.  I think you'll agree that a two-civic opener is pretty well agiven on this map.  This was a design choice on the map.

I chose not to have plasma storms and dead asteroids on this map because there really was no use for them.  While I think we can agree all maps should have ice/volcanics, desert/terrans, asteroids, and some form of neutrals, anything more can really be left up to the map designer.  The magnetic clouds on this map were placed strictly to add additional distance to that pathway without adding additional neutrals (since the map is already neutral-heavy).  It's a different purpose than on quagmire where they act as you describe.

One thing I did do on that map that you didn't notice was encourage refineries.  The ice and volcanics are awesome locations for refineries, with two neutral wells and two other colonizable wells surrounding them.

Quagmire uses "random ice/volcanic" a lot.  On average there should be exactly the same number of ices as volcanics, but since that's an in-game screenshot there are bound to be more or less of one type.

By the way (as I stated earlier) there was an error in the map when I transcribed it from its 2v2 to its 1v1 rendition.  Along with the pirate base suggestion you gave, this is what it looks like now:

Well whatever reservations I have about it, I prefer that one as is to any of the set 1v1 maps.  Your 'Escalation' has the advantage of being multi-system though, and I suspect that might be a better basis for a standard 1v1- perhaps one of each?  Multi-system makes more sense really....  

As I said I messed around with Separation to produce 'my version'.  This is how it warped, though I haven't tested it yet..

I considered switching the magnetic cloud and the asteroid belts, then adding another junk on the other side of the pirates to keep the same number of neutrals and make it perfectly symmetrical.  Any comments?

I've already finished some maps you could add to the map pack- they're the ones in 'The Truest Taste of Freedom' zip from the downloads section on this site.  The newest version of the multiplayer compilation should really be on this site as well, perhaps? 

Putting the space junk behind the pirate base is like setting up a neon sign that says "Vasari only".  Yes, you CAN get colony frigates through there, but the amount of effort compared to a simple and cheap scout makes it a freebee for Vasari. 

Personally, I don't think it resembles Seperation of Powers at all.  The layout is actually far more reminiscent of your "Double Edge" map.

I actually just created a multistar version of Separation of Powers 1v1.  It's a little weird (6 interstellar phase lanes, not including star or wormhole) but it does work.  I basically cut the map in half and put half the planets in one system and half in the other.  It works mechanically, but the aesthetic is horrible.

I still like having the junk next to the pirates, though...

It is based on your map, Double Edge is a much smaller map.  Perhaps it has the same circular look, you might prefer to stretch your maps?  However the long trade route round the outside is straight from Separation, as are the wormholes- though the trade route in Separation goes right around the outside.  I'd be concerned that with a huge trade route on the outside the internal Terrans wouldn't be valuable enough to occupy..?  I put them on the outside and changed one to a desert.  Also, faster Vasari scouts have less trouble with Gas Giants, though maybe you wouldn't see a neon sign there...

I am concerned about the number of planets- though I prefer bigger maps, this might be too many.  The problem is that with the extra desert and terran I added 2 random ice volcanic as I like to keep the planet types with even numbers.  I've seen random maps with as many planets though.

So you've got a multi with two connected systems with a home planet at one end and the star at the other?  I might borrow from that as well, though the phase lanes would get too long unless you had a couple of planets on the other side of the star..?