This download has the Lumaran's Curse 3v3v3 plus a slightly revised Preoccupation (adds 2 neutrals), and a QS-fixed Double Edge:  http://www.datafilehost.com/download-a282d730.html

Wot no complaints about symmetry?  'The broken record drones on'..??  Is it slightly pedantic of me to point out that it doesn't...?  The frequent mention of 'bloodbath' seems fair though.  I have made some bigger maps in this next batch..  Some of the multis are concepts as well, I'm not as happy with all of them.  I decided against a remake of 'Thank The Stars' after it was dropped, because it didn't work.  Sun of the Joneses might work better with all of a faction on the same side of the map, but there are plenty of maps like that, and its easy for allies to get pressure on the sandwiching players.  Odds and Ends allows more space at the start but less hope of quick reinforcement.

If there was another 'empty' grav well other than magnetic cloud I'd use that also, then the % of colonizable planets would be even lower!  However my small maps have as many planets as most of the set maps at the same level- its the other community pack maps that tend to be bigger.  Maps like Duke's Walk can be played 2v2, or Schismatism also 1v1.

The revised Golden Veil added another desert.  Wormholes are always a high-risk option anyway, but it might be an improvement to offer some reward rather than just the chance of a straight attack?  I have tried the wormholes on Foreign Invasion before, with mixed results, probably I went after them too early.

It might help if we were to try to discern faction bias in the maps.   Obviously low neutrals is problematic for Vasari, and the grid style favours the battleball, especially on single star maps and with smaller grav wells.  Easy trade trade routes hamper Vasari.  TEC prefer multi-front maps to take advantage of having a greater number of units, single chokes are very difficult for TEC with no battleball or mobile starbase.

No; none of the maps had any serious issues. 

Indeed; your maps appear to support very decisive gambits, either because a one-planet swing would be utterly devastating or the distances between the fronts are so great that it would be practically impossible to redeploy if the enemy took you off guard.

Grid style doesn't necessarily favour the battleball at all.  If anything, those wide open spaces give the breathing room you need for more devious approaches.  Low-neutrals can be problematic for Vasari, but there are other ways to make a strong Vasari map.

Datafilehost.com caters for 'user error' as well, here is the revised link for the Lumaran's Curse download.  Must have been cursed...  please add these to the others when you update.

http://www.datafilehost.com/download-04c7a397.html

I meant aesthetic symmetry... I suppose that would amount to declaring 'your maps look ugly'... but then so does the new TEC envoy cruiser.  Wide open spaces aren't very wide open if they're filled with Advent phase inhibitors! 

Phase inhbiitors are overrated.  Ten squads of bombers will clean it up promptly, and if you're feeling dirty you can just move out of range of the PJI.  They don't cover the whole well, you know.

The smaller 4v4 'smurf safari' project- how about this?

A bloodbath, with limited lateral mobility, you reckon?  I wanted to have a restricted number of planets, but also avoid the one player each side pocket/flank/sandwich standard map.  If the map is restricted in size then it also makes a good unlocked FFA map.  Those games are possible in the expansion, but on big maps they last all night.

Oh yes, very much so...

I know alot of these maps are designed to be symetrical and uniformed through out....for fair game play. But personaly Im finding alot of them too structured. I know that more than likely the whole point for 99% of these maps.My point is cant we add some maps with starting points all the same...aka asteroid 1 jump, and a few starting roids or planets then add some elements of unknown..you know add random grav wells. Or phase lanes that change each time the map is played.

Ive been making maps for awhile, most for myself and a few for Distant Stars. I planned to suggest a few maps of mine for this pack, but they dont fit with anything yall have created. For example on pride and joy map features a huge section of asteroid belts that each game change. Its usually never the same twice.

But to be honest Im not sure if that fits with the competitive structured maps and the quality of yall maps also.  I be happy to post a few of my better ones, if yall would thing about adding other styles of maps to this pack.

Some of the maps are like that.  EadTaes' imperium is a good example.  You'd be hard pressed to actually identify and reproduce the pattern in Quagmire.  Some of DesConnor's work has variation in each start position.

In general, however, these are multiplayer-centric maps so a certain degree of uniformity is pursued.  Not everything is quite like Structural Integrity, however (that map just flaunts its "engineered precision" style).

Feel free to suggestion your maps, Carbon.  With about 50 maps in the compilation, it's not like we're an exclusive club or anything.

Though they're not a part of the compilation, I've made maps that are no more than a homeworld, an asteroid and and ice/volcanic, then just random gravwells on a patterned map.  The maps are among my downloads from this site.  I haven't used random phase lanes yet though.  I stopped making that style of map when I began to play the maps that came with the game online.  Not all of them are good, but I far prefer the good ones to the random maps, and I learn more from playing them. 

Darvin took one of his own maps out of the compilation for a possible variation of the random gravwells, but I'd be happy to have it back, I considered it one of the stronger maps.  I dislike the 'chessboard' style grid maps, usually heavy on planets and with few neutrals and fewer specials, but they have a place.  I'm not opposed to advantaged/disadvantaged maps in principle either, it might be good to have at least one or two weaker vs stronger maps?

I looked at methods of adding more phase lanes to my newest map (above), but they seemed to create quicker rushes, which I wanted to avoid.  Any suggestions?  Having tested the new expansion, I'm not sure whether I'll use four pirate planets in a single system again.

With added lateral mobility!

Perhaps not much, but it's as well to please the critic.  Also, I wanted more options for refineries.

Again I want to bring this post to the front for the new members who want some more maps

So, what are the Requirements for sumbitting maps for this? From what I can tell random positions need to be false, anything else? Also do we need the picture that shows when you select the map?

No, there are no requirements.  If random positions work on your map, you certainly can go with them.  You don't need any images or anything, just a solid workable map.  A screenshot of the map for us to see here in the thread would also be nice, too.

As an aside, the download is temporarily unavailable.  I'll set up an alternate download site shortly.

Alright, http://www.sendspace.com/file/ilsbx7">here are four of my maps. They aren't perfectly symetric, but they should be fair.

1v1 -VXA

A small map but with a bit of space to stall rushers a bit. Several major battles are likely to be fought at the star.

2v2/FFA - Cross Swipe

Randomize Positions False. The homeworlds star realitively close together but with pirate bases blocking them from each other. The first battles are likely to start on the outer ring, but eventually the players might start attacking through the pirate bases as well.

3v3 - Axis and Allies

Randomize Positions False. Each team member starts in close proximity and their homeworlds block access to several desert and ice planets. The team who can hold the two Volcanic planets will have an edge, but the other team will still have pleanty of resources at their disposal.

3v3v3 (A new category?) - Triple Entrendre

Randomize Positions False. Three clusters of three players, each with a path of expansion that will lead to confict with at least one of the other teams. This map is a bit more open than the rest, and assaults from multiple players are likely at the junctions of the map.

Another mapmaker who uses dead asteroids on occasion!  Good to have your contributions. 

I'm not that keen on maps with a single choke at the star, but some of the standard multis are set up like that, there seems no reason not to have a single as well.  Angles tend to be more important exiting the star though, and as it is your 1v1 favours the player on the right, who gets a quicker jump from his volcanic to the desert.  Why not have both volcanics at right angles to the desert?

The 2v2 might attract the lateral mobility commission, but it seems fine to me... again, some of the standard maps also have pirates next to the home planet.  The 3v3 has the home planets to the front which is unusual, but another twist is good.  However the 3v3 seems like an attritionfest, I prefer the others.  The 3v3v3 has a similar approach- I made a 3v3v3 a few weeks ago though, it's earlier in this thread!  However my 3v3v3 was a multi, I'd be concerned that with a single star and the players all together you'd just get a 6v3.. also, the map seems easy to choke up with so many players.

The dimensions and variation on all your maps are a strength though, they should be very playable.  No magnetic clouds though...  Uh, the boys, they say they likes da magnetic clouds, see.... I didn't tell you that, ok?  

I'm more worried about the volcanic chokes on either side of the star.  The "middle ground" desert isn't quite enough to prevent this from turning into a long entrenched slug-fest.  My biggest concern is that the desert is closer to the right-hand player due to the angle of the phase lanes.  Otherwise it's solid.

The outer ring does trip my alarm bells, but the aggressive inner area seems to be more of the focus.  Clearly a two-front map, in any case.

I think his 3v3 and 3v3v3 are solid maps.  We need some 9-player maps to fill out our roster, anyways.

He's got some random uncolonizables in there, they're bound to pop up (at least in the back where they're not a strategic liability, just an economic one...)

Thanks for the criticism DesConnor and Darvin.

For the 1v1, I kind of like star chokepoints because you don't have to worry about antimatter, but they can certainly be annoying if both players build starbases there. In practice the angle on the desert didn't turn out too bad though, if they jump directly from the space junk the left player enters the star gravity well at the border of the blue and red, while the right player enters from the green/yellow border. I'll try to avoid that in the future though.

The 3v3 does turn into an attrition war, but with uncolonizable gravity wells as the only shield for the homeworlds starbases are the only defense. Even the AI managed to destroy several of them without hangar/repair bay support.

Players on the 3v3v3 do have to be careful in how they move do to how easily the balance of power can change. The players in the middle on all three teams are especially key as they can choose which of the other two teams they attack. The players on the edges have to hold the random true and the random colonizable before they can start putting preasure on the center without leaving themselves vulnerable, so hopefully that will prevent some of the gang ups. But if not, well I guess that's always a risk with three teams.

Edit: I'm guessing magnetic clouds are some kind of joke on this thread? I certainly can't think of any strategic use for them. Even worse than those dead asteroids!

Those are some nice looking maps, Darvin.

Alrighty here are 2 that I think yall wont pick apart...to bad.

I call Proof in the Past. Each homeworld currently starts with the culture artifact. A 3vs3. I made alot of the neutrals harder to reach. Im sure it a flaw but I do make wierd maps hehehehe.

Called Power of Balance. A 2vs2. Not much to say about it, its straight forward in my opinion.

I have 2 other maps that Im still on the fence showing yall. They are large, random in nature, and Im sure unbalanced.

A couple submissions for ya; DL link: http://www.filefront.com/user/ginzo

1v1:

The phase lines represented are a bit decieving

2v2:

An attempt to recreate the classic ladder map from SC/WC3 SOASE style, intended for faster pace matches.

3v3:

A typical East vs. West map with a middle pocket, with everything symmetrical while having enough randoms to keep things from becoming stale.

Kept it pretty simple, balanced.

I like the concept of having an artifact to start with, it's one we haven't used enough.  We could use more variety in setting up the planets in general- if only GalaxyForge would work for something other than Dirty's 'Schwarzeneggers'...  2-3 neutrals per player is the average for the other maps, though when I hid a neutral behind the pirate base it was frowned on, I'm not sure about three behind each of two pirate bases.

Admiral Lumaran seems to have been about, madly creating desert homeworlds as is his wont.. I'm not sure about mixing them with terran homeworlds, but having a single link to the rest of the map, and that blocked by a volcanic, might be a problem.

It's not an absolute rule, but definitely preferred, that phase lanes should not cross.  The standard maps are a good guide.  It might be objected that space is 3d, but most of our system lies roughly on a 2d plane.  With some layouts they have to cross though- I had a plan for a ten player map with each player having a roid, and one desert, one ice and one volcanic.. almost all the rest of the map would be magnetic clouds, a link of three of them between every player... maybe 40 or more.  That would require phase lanes to cross!

Good magnetic cloud there Juan, though it must be like an artist's signature, as otherwise why would you travel there....?  Magnetic clouds are good for breaking up possible trade routes, or as alternative combat zones, but on their own off a star?  Also, are the worms connected?

One objective of this thread is for the contributors to combine on a classic ladder map, for play balance reasons as well, something we could use for testing.  However, the map might have to be a multi with wormholes, to employ all the advantages of the respective tech trees.. it would almost certainly have to have ice and volcanic planets, and a variety of neutrals.  I had a go earlier in the thread.   

The size of all these maps is to my liking, I'm not fond of having large numbers of planets that greatly increase fleet strengths- and the fighting is more spread out with specials and neutrals among the action, rather than an attrition campaign with maybe the odd neutral on the sidelines.

Who'd have thought a quick couple of sentences would create an endearingly genocidal fan-fic persona

My rule of thumb is that if you can arrange the geometry to avoid overlaps you should.  Only if you're confident there is no feasible way to do it without overlaps should you pursue that route.  I intentionally did this on my "Twisted Space" and "Pathways" maps and only got away with it by having a very predictable pattern.  I still wouldn't do it again.

"Neuromancer" was inspired by a single throwaway line in "Escape From New York", apparently...

With the potential for more contributors, how about a relaunch of the pack?  If we can, I'd like to have all the maps included pictured on the relaunch thread- though this might require a slimmer pack- as well as a community willing to diversify from single random 5v5s! 

Yeah, I'll definitely look towards including as many of these as possible.  I'm not sure how we'll manage the compilation's size, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

A lot of my phase lanes are a bit deceiving due stuff like phase lanes crossing over planets but not actually connecting to them, i.e. 2v2 Lost Temple expansionary terran worlds connect to the dead asteroids and not to the the regular asteroids they cross.  

And yeah, the magnetic cloud is simply to have something opposite the pirate base, it has no function whatsoever, and those wormholes are connected.