[Abandoned] Research & Conquer

Abandoned and Vacationed maps. The final resting place, unless you recycle.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby koontz1973 on Mon May 13, 2013 11:09 pm

isaiah40 wrote:and I took over with his permission.

You took over, so please treat the map like it is yours. Too many cooks now on this one. ;) Go with what you think and we can all debate that.
-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:For the conscription techs, either way it's a 200% bump by the end. My concern is the advanced techs should offer a bigger net bonus than the basic techs, particularly since they cost so much more than they do.

Advanced tech always costs more to do. But the end results may not always provide more. If you look at conscription, secret and open, (why this way, would open be more fitting for the start of the war?) the first set should always provide more as it is the start. Later on, you have less resources to call on. But I agree, the neutrals can come down a tad to make them more pleasing.
isaiah40 wrote:the +3 auto and +6 deployable is the correct way.

Please put onto the map.
isaiah40 wrote:Looking at Propaganda, I think that 20n is going to be way too many for the return of investment. You have to go through 20 neutrals for a max of 10?? If you get all 6 capitals the game is over via the losing condition. Maybe this needs to be lowered down to 5 or 10 neutrals to see a return on it.

Looking at all the neutrals versus all the bonuses, you are right. But when you consider it is +2 per capital, not till mid-late game will any player hold more than 1 capital.

Secret conscription - 30 neutrals - bonus of +1 for every 2 regions held.
Standing army - 15 neutrals - +3
National pride - 20 neutrals - +6 if holding 2 regions (Lab and capital).
Mining - 35 neutrals - +1 for every mine held.
Sabotage - 50 neutrals - no bonus
Propergander - 20 neutrals + 2 per capital.

All of these neutrals are way to high.
Secret conscription - 30
    Still 30 might be too high or it will never get taken but this one we can wait for beta and see how it works.
Standing army - 15
    Again good as is but consider a 10 neutral.
National pride - 20
    This is low. You have only 20 neutrals, 5 more than standing army, but double the bonus. Lower the bonus to a +4 or raise the neutral to 30.
Mining - 10
    Ten is a good number. Remember, you also need to attack the mines and hold them and you only get a +1 for them. So you need to hold one mine for 10 goes to get your investment back.
Sabotage - 30
    10 lower than yours but even at 30, it will only get taken late in esc games or a lucky nukes games. All other games will be ignored.
Propergander - 6
    You only get +2 per capital. lots of neutrals to fight through for no real bonus. How many times does a player in the feudal games attack a neutral castle for the auto deploy? Very rarely and this is going to be the same. You will get you +1 and that is that. The only time this will really come into play is larger games and then only an extra two.

isaiah40 wrote:Advanced Researches
Doomsday Device --> 100
Open Conscription --> 75
Deep Mining --> 55
Mobilized Amy --> 50
Top Secret Facility --> 45

Doubling the bonuses does not mean doubling the neutrals.
Doomsday Device --> 100
Open Conscription --> 50 (80 in total)
Deep Mining --> 20 (30 in total)
Mobilized Amy --> 25 (40 in total)
Top Secret Facility --> 45
(TSF, can any be attacked? So if my homeland is SW, can I attack SE TSF?) If I can doomsday becomes redundant as no one will go for it.)

All neutrals for the bonuses you get seem high. If I can knock a person out of the game by taking their capital away from them, why would I grab even the most basic research?
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (9)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Tue May 14, 2013 11:44 pm

koontz1973 wrote:
-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:For the conscription techs, either way it's a 200% bump by the end. My concern is the advanced techs should offer a bigger net bonus than the basic techs, particularly since they cost so much more than they do.

Advanced tech always costs more to do. But the end results may not always provide more. If you look at conscription, secret and open, (why this way, would open be more fitting for the start of the war?) the first set should always provide more as it is the start. Later on, you have less resources to call on. But I agree, the neutrals can come down a tad to make them more pleasing.

For the naming of the conscription techs, I believe the idea was in the beginning you're secretly trying to conscript troops, hence getting a smaller number without raising alarms too much. Further in the war, as things progress, you start openly conscripting troops to get as many troops as you can without caring who knows.
koontz1973 wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:Looking at Propaganda, I think that 20n is going to be way too many for the return of investment. You have to go through 20 neutrals for a max of 10?? If you get all 6 capitals the game is over via the losing condition. Maybe this needs to be lowered down to 5 or 10 neutrals to see a return on it.

Looking at all the neutrals versus all the bonuses, you are right. But when you consider it is +2 per capital, not till mid-late game will any player hold more than 1 capital.

The entire point behind Propaganda was for it to be a mid-late game boost once you took another capital. The name itself even hints towards it, since normally it's the enemy's population you would use propaganda on to convince them that you're the better leader.

koontz1973 wrote:Secret conscription - 30 neutrals - bonus of +1 for every 2 regions held.
Standing army - 15 neutrals - +3
National pride - 20 neutrals - +6 if holding 2 regions (Lab and capital).
Mining - 35 neutrals - +1 for every mine held.
Sabotage - 50 neutrals - no bonus
Propergander - 20 neutrals + 2 per capital.

All of these neutrals are way to high.
Secret conscription - 30
    Still 30 might be too high or it will never get taken but this one we can wait for beta and see how it works.
Standing army - 15
    Again good as is but consider a 10 neutral.
National pride - 20
    This is low. You have only 20 neutrals, 5 more than standing army, but double the bonus. Lower the bonus to a +4 or raise the neutral to 30.
Mining - 10
    Ten is a good number. Remember, you also need to attack the mines and hold them and you only get a +1 for them. So you need to hold one mine for 10 goes to get your investment back.
Sabotage - 30
    10 lower than yours but even at 30, it will only get taken late in esc games or a lucky nukes games. All other games will be ignored.
Propergander - 6
    You only get +2 per capital. lots of neutrals to fight through for no real bonus. How many times does a player in the feudal games attack a neutral castle for the auto deploy? Very rarely and this is going to be the same. You will get you +1 and that is that. The only time this will really come into play is larger games and then only an extra two.

For secret conscription, I agree it's a bit high if we're using +1 per 2 regions and should be dropped to 20-25. If we're using the newer +2 per 3 regions then I think the 30 should be good. In the end, I think beta will be the only thing that will provide clarity to most of these neutrals though.

Standing army I think would be too small at 10 neutral, since it's a permanent unbreakable bonus. Maybe 12 if you really wanted to encourage people to take it early game? At least then it's a 4 round payback for a permanent bonus

National Pride I think you misunderstood. The bonus is dependent on holding the entire homeland, not just the capital and the laboratory. The neutral value difference between Standing Army and National Pride takes into account that you need to defend the bonus and it can be broken. Breaking the bonus would effectively take away 12 reinforcements from an opponent (+6 regular homeland bonus and +6 national pride bonus). This makes for a reasonably high incentive to at least break a player's homeland if you're fighting them already. I think the +6 for 20 neutral is good as it is all considered. If one does end up getting changed, I think the neutral being raised is the better option, since the +6 bonus is an effective doubling of the regular homeland bonus.

Mining should be +2 per mine held. It's been +2 for a year and a half or more and only since the last update was it changed to +1 out of the blue. I'm not sure if what happened for that change, but that's why the neutral value seems so out of whack. Really at +1 per mine it doesn't make that aspect of the game anywhere near as interesting. There are so many mines around the board that holding 4-5 of them should be relatively easy, providing a +8-10 bonus. I think 35 is reasonable for a neutral given this. If it gets lowered at all, I don't think it should be any lower than 30.

Sabotage I believe I mentioned before that I'm not sure why we had it at 50. I think having it either at 30 or 40 would be reasonable to start beta off with. One thing to consider is that it's purpose is such that it becomes more useful mid game when everybody's probably dropping 20-30 troops per round. Even if it were 40 that's only one or two rounds worth of troops investment for the possibility to easily bring everybody else on the map down by +2 or +4 per mine. Say half the mines are taken on the map, even at basic mining that would give the ability to easily interfere with 40 troops per turn worth of reinforcements. Mid to late game this tech will prove to be very valuable.

Propaganda at 6 is way to low. I agree it may be able to use being brought down to 15 or so to make it a bit more attractive as a potential secondary boost for early'ish game, but it's really going to be more useful later in the game. Considering it's more meant as a mid-late game tech, one possible solution to making it a more viable tech would be to raise the bonus per capital, perhaps as high as +4 per capital. If we set it at +3 per capital, then I think it could stay at 20, and it would effectively be doubling the troops you get from owning a capital. If we had it at +4 per capital, then I think raising it to 25 would be good. Heck, we could even do a +5 per capital for 30 troops, making it an even more attractive mid to late game tech. The intention behind the tech really was to offer a player who's already taken out another player a way of getting extra troops. I've always thought the +2 per capital bonus for a mid to late game tech was pretty small.

koontz1973 wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:Advanced Researches
Doomsday Device --> 100
Open Conscription --> 75
Deep Mining --> 55
Mobilized Amy --> 50
Top Secret Facility --> 45

Doubling the bonuses does not mean doubling the neutrals.
Doomsday Device --> 100
Open Conscription --> 50 (80 in total)
Deep Mining --> 20 (30 in total)
Mobilized Amy --> 25 (40 in total)
Top Secret Facility --> 45
(TSF, can any be attacked? So if my homeland is SW, can I attack SE TSF?) If I can doomsday becomes redundant as no one will go for it.)

All neutrals for the bonuses you get seem high. If I can knock a person out of the game by taking their capital away from them, why would I grab even the most basic research?

Doomsday Device really needs to be more than 100. 100 is crazy low for a +75 bonus. 200 for a bonus that size really is pretty decent as it is already.

Open Conscription, if we're using +1 for 2 regions for Secret Conscription, should be higher than 50. It is a late game tech and the bonus one will get from owning it along with 1/4 of the board (not unreasonable for late game, I'd think) will be quite large. I think 75 is possibly okay, but 50 just seems really small. If we're going with +2 troops per 3 regions for Secret Conscription, then I think 50 is reasonable, since the net gain is less.

Deep Mining, again the original Mining bonus should be +2, for Deep Mining giving a +4 total bonus per mine. I think 20 is waaaay too low for a neutral in this case. Bringing it down a bit from 70 where it's at now may be in order, though I think considering it's a mid-late game tech, a player would likely own 6-8 mines minimum if they're researching this. That's total bonus of 24-32 troops for a total of 105 neutrals, which really isn't too bad.

Mobilized Army for 25 is again way too low. That's a permanent +12 bonus. Granted 60 may be a bit high, so perhaps lower it to 50 like Isaiah was suggesting, but 25 is just way way too low.

Top Secret Facility should be lower than 45, unless we decide to make owning it a requirement for getting advanced techs as I threw out there as a potential suggestion in a previous post. Presuming we don't decide to go that round, TSF should be no higher than 30, presuming we're keeping Standing Army at 15 neutral and Mobilized Army at 60 neutral. If they're getting changed to say 12 neutral and 50 neutral (a 4 round payback), then TSF should possibly be changed to 25 neutral as well.

And no Koontz, TSFs can only be attacked by the matching player. All techs can only be attacked by the matching player ever. There are a couple techs that can bombard out to opposing players territories (Sabotage and Doomsday) but nothing can attack another player's tech.

Regarding your question about why you would research the most basic tech when you can knock a player out by taking out their capital: Because by the time you're able to reach that other player, they've probably already researched a couple basic techs for long enough that they can match your troop count by the time you reach them and then are dropping more than you per turn when they counter attack. In a 2 player game, I could see a player winning by taking out the other player's capital before they could properly build up their research, which would be great to have as a strategy for the map. But really, any 3+ player game I think it would be suicide not to research at least a bit (conscription techs if nothing else) since even if you could reach someone and kill them before they got their investment back, the other players who are researching will have grown to powerful for you to fight.

To date at least, the map has been designed with no cards or flat rate being the ideal card settings. An escalating game with a higher number of players will likely blow all the balancing and make a lot of things not worth taking. But if you consider any other standard map, you run into the same sort of situation where taking bonuses doesn't make any sense. I realize the neutrals seem high at first, but one thing to consider is during a no cards or flat rate game, people will easily be dropping 25-30 troops per turn by round 10-15 and will only go up drastically from there. If you bring the neutral counts down too much, then people will be able to research a new tech every turn, which I don't think should happen. It should take at least 2-3 rounds to research a new tech and at least 3 rounds to see benefit from it. This way everybody won't own the same techs, which adds to the gameplay, and there is a certain level of risk to putting the investment into the research since you leave yourself weaker for a few rounds, which will give opponents a chance to eliminate you before you start becoming all the more stronger than they are.
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Tue May 14, 2013 11:47 pm

Now that I think about it, Sabotage may have been a bit higher since it also offers the strategic advantage of knowing what areas everyone is in. Since it bombards all the mines, during a fog of war game, you would have the benefit of being able to see who owns what mines and hence what direction a player is attacking in when they're taking territories. It also adds the possiblity of a player intentionally avoiding mines if they want to move covertly mid-late game.
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby isaiah40 on Tue May 14, 2013 11:58 pm

Thank you Tanarri!! Now it is all making sense. I think we can leave all the neutrals where they are now, and see how beta goes. The only question now is, how do we allow a player to regain his/her Lab??
User avatar
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (5) General Contribution (6)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby koontz1973 on Wed May 15, 2013 1:15 am

Tanarri, you make a lot of sense and I agree that most, if not all neutrals need to stay as is. But the problem I have is this.
To date at least, the map has been designed with no cards or flat rate being the ideal card settings. An escalating game with a higher number of players will likely blow all the balancing and make a lot of things not worth taking.

And this is a problem. Escalating games are hugely popular. 2 player games may account for 50% of games, but that still leaves 50% not 2 players. So a lowering of the neutrals seems logical to me. How about lowering them to isaiahs levels (lower than yours, higher than mine) now and leave them to beta to change again. The whole point of the map is the tech so to leave out the tech for around half of all games seems silly.
Sergeant 1st Class koontz1973
Cartography Assistant
Cartography Assistant
 
Posts: 7538
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am
Medals: 116
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (2)
Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (10) General Achievement (13) Clan Achievement (5) Map Contribution (12)
Tournament Contribution (31) General Contribution (9)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Wed May 15, 2013 11:36 am

isaiah40 wrote:Thank you Tanarri!! Now it is all making sense. I think we can leave all the neutrals where they are now, and see how beta goes. The only question now is, how do we allow a player to regain his/her Lab??


Personally I like the idea of allowing the researches to attack directly the labs directly. I do think TSFs and Doomsday should not be allowed to attack the labs though. TSFs as the bonus is meant as a freebie bonus for research and should not be allowed to contribute to Sabotage or Doomsday bombardings. Doomsday is meant to be a destructive weapon and the +75 you get from it should not be allowed to be put towards research. Other than those, I think it makes reasonable sense and is the best solution/comprimise gameplay wise to allow the other researches to attack the labs.
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Wed May 15, 2013 11:57 am

koontz1973 wrote:Tanarri, you make a lot of sense and I agree that most, if not all neutrals need to stay as is. But the problem I have is this.
To date at least, the map has been designed with no cards or flat rate being the ideal card settings. An escalating game with a higher number of players will likely blow all the balancing and make a lot of things not worth taking.

And this is a problem. Escalating games are hugely popular. 2 player games may account for 50% of games, but that still leaves 50% not 2 players. So a lowering of the neutrals seems logical to me. How about lowering them to isaiahs levels (lower than yours, higher than mine) now and leave them to beta to change again. The whole point of the map is the tech so to leave out the tech for around half of all games seems silly.


isaiah40 wrote:Advanced Researches
Doomsday Device --> 100
Open Conscription --> 75
Deep Mining --> 55
Mobilized Amy --> 50
Top Secret Facility --> 45
Basic Researches
Sabotage --> 40
Mining --> 30
Secret Conscription --> 30
Propaganda & National Pride --> 20
Standing Army --> 15


Above are the values that Isaiah suggested. I can agree with reducing most of these and think three's a couple that could be reduced even further. Really the only value I wouldn't be happy putting out into Beta that Isaiah suggested is Doomsday, since +75 for 100 neutrals is way too low. Here's the values I'd suggest, keeping those which Isaiah proposed which I think would work and changing those I think could use some tweaking but (aside from Doomsday) would be happy to let out into Beta as is:

Advanced Researches
Doomsday Device --> 200
Open Conscription --> 75
Deep Mining --> 55
Mobilized Amy --> 50
Top Secret Facility --> 30
Basic Researches
Sabotage --> 40
Mining --> 30
Secret Conscription --> 30 -- See below
Propaganda & National Pride --> 20
Standing Army --> 15

As I mentioned in previous posts, for Secret Conscription, if we're going with the original +1 per 2 regions, I think it should be lowered slightly, perhaps to 25, just to make it a bit more attractive to take a bit earlier in the game. If we're going with the newer +2 per 3 regions, then 30 is a good spot for Beta. I still believe in the +1 per 2 region bonus much more than the +2 per 3 region, but if others feel differently, then it's not a point I'll be terribly concerned over.

Again as previously mentioned, I'm not sure why TSFs were placed so high and think it may be from previous outdated gameplay features. It makes no sense for an autodeploy that's stuck in research to be a worth a higher round payback than Standing Army/Mobilized Army which both you can deploy anywhere. Hence the 30 neutral, which is +6 bonus x 5 round payback, which is the same as the army techs.
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby isaiah40 on Wed May 15, 2013 1:45 pm

Now if Oliver could post his thoughts as well since he is the one who originally started this map.
User avatar
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (5) General Contribution (6)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby OliverFA on Thu May 16, 2013 5:40 pm

koontz1973 wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:and I took over with his permission.

You took over, so please treat the map like it is yours. Too many cooks now on this one. ;) Go with what you think and we can all debate that.

I 100% agree about that ;) I am happy to provide my feedback but it's Isaiah's map now.

Ok, about everything that has been said, Tanarri has everything right. He has a very good memory and a very good reasoning. I will comment on all the issues, whith opinions which are almost similar like Tanarri's

- The spirit of the map is making a Civilization-like map. In Civilization you "can't attack" researchs. For this reason the Research part and the Geographic part have to be completely separated. To avoid the nuclear spoils issue let's just allow researches to attack the lab.

- Starting positions: Again the spirit of the map is to mirror a starting civ/nation that grows from almost nothing to fully developed. For that reason it makes a lot more sense to limit starting positions to 1 per player

- Research costs (aka the neutrals in the researches): Exactly as Tanarri said, they are supposed to pay back in 5 turns. We made detailed calculations about those values. I will look for the Excel file with those calculations and post it here again.

- Doomsday Device: This one is probably the more difficult to find the right neutral value, because if it is too low games finish too early and if it's too high players will never research it. I think we nailed the sweet spot like it is now.

- Neutrals in the geographic map: Again the values are what Tanarri said. I think that those values are good even if they seem too high. The way I picture the map at the begining it will be slow to conquer territories but as techs get researched the pace will accelerate. I would leave those values as they are and in case they were about to change I would raise them.

- Autodeploy or not in capitals: I have no opinion about that.

I think I commented all the subjects that have been discussed in the 2 previous pages, but if I forgot something please let me know.

Having said that, it's pretty likely that neutral values will have to be partially adjusted after the first beta games, when we have actual gameplay feedback.

And provided that we are re-discussing rules again: If I may re-open a debate, I have never been very happy with the Sabotage tech (the one that can bombard mines). IMHO is a pretty weird tech. Do you think we can find a better tech for its slot?

PS: I will post the research costs calculations as soon as I have time to search whithin my files.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class OliverFA
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Thu May 16, 2013 11:56 pm

OliverFA wrote:And provided that we are re-discussing rules again: If I may re-open a debate, I have never been very happy with the Sabotage tech (the one that can bombard mines). IMHO is a pretty weird tech. Do you think we can find a better tech for its slot?


I've felt similiarly about Propaganda in the past. It's always seemed like such a minor bonus for a mid game tech and no matter what we tried to think of for it, it never seemed to work out particularly well. At least it's balanced at this point, but a +4 or +6 bonus (owning 2-3 capitals) mid game when you're already dropping 30 guys a turn seems like a pretty minor bonus.

As far as Sabotage goes, I actually thought we found a good way to deal with this tech that added a nice gameplay element to it. Thematically I like to think of the "troops" that get added to the research as recruiting spies to go blow up mines. The tech itself could be seen as researching the appropriate explosives to be able to send out spies to destroy the mines in the first place.

That being said, if anyone can think of any different techs that could be made, I'd be happy to discuss and possibly change either Sabotage or Propaganda for it.

One new thing we could possibly look at is the fact that conditional borders is now available, 3+ years after this map began development. I wonder if there's any way they could be put to use.
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby ender516 on Fri May 17, 2013 7:23 am

I don't have a great thematic justification for this, but it came to mind when it was mentioned that Propaganda is a minor bonus. I'm not even sure something like it isn't already being done.

With the addition of collections to the XML, it is a good deal simpler to award bonuses which vary with the number of territories held. So Propaganda could vary its bonus based on the number of territories in the zones where the capital is held. Of course, the more complex this is, the harder it is to spell it out in the legend.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class ender516
 
Posts: 4452
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:07 pm
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (9)
Map Contribution (5) General Contribution (11)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Fri May 17, 2013 9:48 am

ender516 wrote:I don't have a great thematic justification for this, but it came to mind when it was mentioned that Propaganda is a minor bonus. I'm not even sure something like it isn't already being done.

With the addition of collections to the XML, it is a good deal simpler to award bonuses which vary with the number of territories held. So Propaganda could vary its bonus based on the number of territories in the zones where the capital is held. Of course, the more complex this is, the harder it is to spell it out in the legend.


Thanks for mentioning this Ender. I wonder if having it be +1 per enemy homeland territory would work as a bonus. I think stated as such (or something close) in the description is clear what the bonus is and it would provide the potential for a +8 per complete homeland captured. This wouldn't be the greatest mid-game bonus, but after you've taken out two enemies, +16 bonus is decent enough. The only problem with this (and I think it's already been mentioned/discussed) is that it ends up making an enemy homeland worth more than your homeland w/National Pride, which thematically doesn't make sense. From a gameplay perspective I think it's a good idea though, as it encourages the Conquer part of the map.

Alternatively +6 per enemy homeland would make it equal to the National Pride bonus and thematically could be considered as if you used Propaganda to turn your enemy citizens into fanatical believers in your leadership.

One last idea I had, which I think I like the best, would to be make it +1 per homeland territory. This would solve it making enemy territories be worth more. Thematically it makes sense since you can always use propaganda on your own people to make them firmer believers in your cause and also the more territories you own of a homeland, the more people you can send the propaganda to. It also would provide a sizable bonus for the mid-game. The neutral value would have to be fairly high for a basic tech, but I don't see that as a problem. If it were set at say 50, it would allow it to be a 3 round payback when you've taken an enemy capital and would also provide an alternate tech to research early-mid game to gain a slight advantage by owning your own homeland territories, though it would be a bit limited due to a 6 round payback at that point.

Any thoughts on all these?
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby isaiah40 on Fri May 17, 2013 11:02 am

I think Sabatoge is a good idea. Can we have it also bombard the advanced mining and basic mining?

I'm thinking that we can have the Basic Research can only assault its Advanced Research and own Lab. As for the enemy homelands being worth more than your own homeland, I don't see it because if you also hold your own homeland you would receive +8 with National Pride as well.

I have more thoughts, but I'll post them later.
User avatar
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (5) General Contribution (6)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Fri May 17, 2013 4:39 pm

isaiah40 wrote:I think Sabatoge is a good idea. Can we have it also bombard the advanced mining and basic mining?

I'm thinking that we can have the Basic Research can only assault its Advanced Research and own Lab. As for the enemy homelands being worth more than your own homeland, I don't see it because if you also hold your own homeland you would receive +8 with National Pride as well.

I have more thoughts, but I'll post them later.


I'm not clear what you mean by Sabotage bombarding advanced and basic mining. Are you talking about your own mining techs or the enemy's mining techs? Either way, I don't see how it would make sense from a gameplay or theme point of view. If you mean your own techs, then I don't see how owning or allocating resources towards Sabotage should/could affect the research of mining techs. If you mean enemy techs, then I can see how it could make sense from a theme point of view, but I strongly disagree with allowing anything to affect a person's research once it's been gotten.

I think having it so the basic researches can assault the labs makes sense and is easy to describe. I also wonder if "A basic research borders its advanced one and lab" or something similar may be another way to go. This would allow troops to move from the advanced tech back to the basic tech, in case someone owns an advanced tech and loses their lab and all basic researches through nukes. Wording it like that also automatically excludes TSFs and Doomsday from forting backwards as well, since they don't have basic researches. If we wanted to make things a bit more clear, we could also reword the TSF statement to " A TSF only bombards all its homeland's researches" and "The Doomsday Device only bombards all land regions". This would prevent people from thinking that since the labs assault TSF and Doomsday, that they should be able to assault them back. Having the "Labs assault only its own basic researches, TSF, and Doomsday Device" specify assaults instead of borders also helps with this, since "borders" implies a two way attack.

National Pride is only worth an extra +6 (total of 12) for owning your own homeland. What I had suggested for Propaganda (which is what I'm guessing you're referring to) was +1 per (enemy) homeland territory, which would offer an extra +8 for the full homeland. If you apply this bonus to only an enemy's homeland, that means an enemy homeland would be worth 14 with Propaganda and your own only worth +12 with National Pride. Hence my suggestion that if we were to change Propaganda to +1 per homeland territory in general, instead of specifying enemy homeland, then an enemy homeland would be worth +14 with Propaganda and your own homeland would be worth +20 with National Pride and Propaganda. Personally I like this option the best if the neutral of Propaganda were to be raised to 50, which is a 3 round payback if you own a second homeland.
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby OliverFA on Sat May 18, 2013 6:19 am

I have found the Excel with the calculations. You can download it and play yourselves, or edit it in the Excel webapp

https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=E ... rokB7-g5BU
















Image
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class OliverFA
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Sat May 18, 2013 9:58 am

OliverFA wrote:I have found the Excel with the calculations. You can download it and play yourselves, or edit it in the Excel webapp

https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=E ... rokB7-g5BU


Image


Thanks for posting this Oliver. I think it's worth mentioning that this is a spreadsheet that was created during the middle of gameplay discussions a couple years ago and hence has a few older bonus references in it that have been changed since. Just so people don't get confused about the current bonuses. Things that jump out include:

  • Mining Techs are listed as being +1/+2
  • National Pride is listed as being +1 per 2 territories (4 total)
  • Propaganda is listed as being +4 per enemy homeland
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Sat May 18, 2013 11:08 am

One thing I just noticed is there is now only 36 mines on the map instead of the original 40, which will affect the numbers as well, unless the other 4 mines are put back in. I think one other thing it would be useful to do, once we've got a version of the map with the neutral values for all territories, would be to change the positions around for the mines. The north section of the map has 17 mines, the south east section has 11, and the southwest section has 8. I think having them unbalanced is great, but I think it'll turn out that the north section has all easier territories to get (for conscription techs) and a heavier proportion of mines as well. I think it would be great to arrange it in such a way that pursing different tech trees makes more sense dependent on where you start.

For example, if the north has more territories that are easier to conquer (since they're farther from homelands), then it would be more conducive to the conscription techs. If the southeast has the highest proportion of mines, then it's more conducive to mining techs.

If we wanted to, we could even intentionally make the neutrals higher or lower around certain homelands and areas of the map. If say the north was set up with very low neutrals (mostly 1-2s, maybe 3s around the homelands) then it would encourage the use of conscription techs and since there's minimal protection, it may encourage quicker eliminations between the two north homelands and hence encourage the use of Propaganda.

If another one of the two areas of the map, let's say southeast for arguement sake, had average neutrals (5s around homelands, 2-3s around the others), it would encourage more average expansion. If we stuck a notably higher proportion of mines there, then it would encourage the use of the mining techs.

Then the remaining area, southwest arguably, we could have higher neutral values (10s around homelands, 6-8s for the others), that would encourage the use of army techs, propaganda as a support tech, Doomsday, and possibly Sabotage if they felt like messing with people while sitting.

I don't know how I feel about messing with the neutrals like suggested above, it's just something I thought of that I figured I'd throw out there to see how other people thought. In the end I think it would end up forcing people too much in one direction or another, at least the higher neutrals around one set of homelands, since it would make it prohibitive to do anything other than sit there and research. I do like the idea of maybe slightly decreasing the neutrals around the north to encourage conscription and increasing the number of mines around one or both of the southern areas. I like the idea of encouraging people to go in one direction or another with techs depending on homeland, since I think it adds to the strategy, but forcing seems too much.
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Sun May 19, 2013 10:29 pm

I noticed a while back that there was an uneven number of bridges per area section and I've been looking the bridge positions over here and there. I think we need to remove some of the bridges, to create some chokepoints between the different land areas. I'd like to propose the following bridges be removed:

SG1-WD2
SC11-WD4
EA1-MB2
EC1-MA3

This would leave two bridges per river section, one near the middle of the map to provide central access around the map and another on the outer side of the map, to allow players an opportunity to attack the neighbouring homeland that's across the river and to do so through more of a back entrance or flank to avoid earlier detection to those going through the middle to see where everyone's coming from.

It also provides a situation where there's only four bridges to defend per land section later in the game. This also makes there be a point to having a river/impassable running through the middle of the map between land masses. As it is now, you can cross two of the three river sections at almost any point along them.

Thoughts?
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby isaiah40 on Sun May 19, 2013 11:05 pm

I can work with this idea!.

I'm working on getting all the starting positions, neutrals etc. together and posted in the first post so it will be easier to see.
User avatar
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (5) General Contribution (6)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby RedBaron0 on Sun May 26, 2013 4:35 pm

:pokes isaiah: Since the primary focus seems to have switched back to gameplay, I changed the button to the old simple green button. I don't want to burden you with having to make a GFX update when you are clearly working on gameplay. I won't pull the stamp, but lets just say is provisional, till all parties are satisfied. And we'll poke at ian when you think you're good just to make sure we're all good to focus back on graphical type updates.
ImageImageImage
User avatar
Major RedBaron0
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 83
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3)
Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (2) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (9) General Achievement (8)
Clan Achievement (9) Map Contribution (2) Tournament Contribution (3) General Contribution (12)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Sun May 26, 2013 7:20 pm

RedBaron0 wrote::pokes isaiah: Since the primary focus seems to have switched back to gameplay, I changed the button to the old simple green button. I don't want to burden you with having to make a GFX update when you are clearly working on gameplay. I won't pull the stamp, but lets just say is provisional, till all parties are satisfied. And we'll poke at ian when you think you're good just to make sure we're all good to focus back on graphical type updates.


For what it's worth, seeing as most of the gameplay discussion are points that I've been raising, I'd be happy with the map going to beta with the gameplay it has now, with the exception of the mines being +1/+2 instead of +2/+4, which I think is a point that should be discussed further if Isaiah feels it shouldn't be put back to +2/+4. It's been said many times in the past and it's something I wholeheartedly believe: When it comes to gameplay for this map, it really needs to get into beta play before any serious gameplay discussions/tweaks can really take place. Other than the mines, all of the points I've brought up I feel are minor tweaks that *may* add to the gameplay, but are not worth holding up the map getting to beta.

I could be wrong, but I think other the neutral values getting put down onto the map, I think this map is ready to be put back into Final Forge while Oliver works on finalizing the XML. Personally I think any of the gameplay discussions that have been going on are the types of things that can be considered as tweaks to the beta version of the map if the gameplay ends up needing tweaks, which I'm fully expecting it to need for several weeks of beta.

Anyway, just my 0.02 worth :)
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby isaiah40 on Sun May 26, 2013 11:17 pm

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:
RedBaron0 wrote::pokes isaiah: Since the primary focus seems to have switched back to gameplay, I changed the button to the old simple green button. I don't want to burden you with having to make a GFX update when you are clearly working on gameplay. I won't pull the stamp, but lets just say is provisional, till all parties are satisfied. And we'll poke at ian when you think you're good just to make sure we're all good to focus back on graphical type updates.


For what it's worth, seeing as most of the gameplay discussion are points that I've been raising, I'd be happy with the map going to beta with the gameplay it has now, with the exception of the mines being +1/+2 instead of +2/+4, which I think is a point that should be discussed further if Isaiah feels it shouldn't be put back to +2/+4. It's been said many times in the past and it's something I wholeheartedly believe: When it comes to gameplay for this map, it really needs to get into beta play before any serious gameplay discussions/tweaks can really take place. Other than the mines, all of the points I've brought up I feel are minor tweaks that *may* add to the gameplay, but are not worth holding up the map getting to beta.

I could be wrong, but I think other the neutral values getting put down onto the map, I think this map is ready to be put back into Final Forge while Oliver works on finalizing the XML. Personally I think any of the gameplay discussions that have been going on are the types of things that can be considered as tweaks to the beta version of the map if the gameplay ends up needing tweaks, which I'm fully expecting it to need for several weeks of beta.

Anyway, just my 0.02 worth :)

I'm fine with the values as they are - I'll change the mining bonuses to +1/+2 - I've just been really busy this last couple of weeks.
User avatar
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: To be absent from the body is to be present with Christ
Medals: 37
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (3) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (2) General Achievement (4) Map Contribution (5) General Contribution (6)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Mon May 27, 2013 2:39 am

isaiah40 wrote:
-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:
RedBaron0 wrote::pokes isaiah: Since the primary focus seems to have switched back to gameplay, I changed the button to the old simple green button. I don't want to burden you with having to make a GFX update when you are clearly working on gameplay. I won't pull the stamp, but lets just say is provisional, till all parties are satisfied. And we'll poke at ian when you think you're good just to make sure we're all good to focus back on graphical type updates.


For what it's worth, seeing as most of the gameplay discussion are points that I've been raising, I'd be happy with the map going to beta with the gameplay it has now, with the exception of the mines being +1/+2 instead of +2/+4, which I think is a point that should be discussed further if Isaiah feels it shouldn't be put back to +2/+4. It's been said many times in the past and it's something I wholeheartedly believe: When it comes to gameplay for this map, it really needs to get into beta play before any serious gameplay discussions/tweaks can really take place. Other than the mines, all of the points I've brought up I feel are minor tweaks that *may* add to the gameplay, but are not worth holding up the map getting to beta.

I could be wrong, but I think other the neutral values getting put down onto the map, I think this map is ready to be put back into Final Forge while Oliver works on finalizing the XML. Personally I think any of the gameplay discussions that have been going on are the types of things that can be considered as tweaks to the beta version of the map if the gameplay ends up needing tweaks, which I'm fully expecting it to need for several weeks of beta.

Anyway, just my 0.02 worth :)

I'm fine with the values as they are - I'll change the mining bonuses to +1/+2 - I've just been really busy this last couple of weeks.


Just for clarification sake, the mining bonuses are +1/+2 as of the last revision, prior to that they were +2/+4 which is what I believe they should be. If the bonuses remain +1/+2, then the neutral values should be look at as they're going to be horribly off for such a small bonus. I still think the better option is for them to be +2/+4 though.
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby OliverFA on Mon May 27, 2013 6:01 pm

isaiah40 wrote:I'm fine with the values as they are - I'll change the mining bonuses to +1/+2 - I've just been really busy this last couple of weeks.

Should I start writing the XML for the map? As far as I know, the territory coordinates and the adjacencies won't change. Am I right? That's the big part of the XML work. Changing neutrals or bonuses is not such a big issue.
Welcoming the long awaited Trench Warfare Setting (Previously Adjacent Attacks).

My Maps:
Research and Conquer - Civilization meets Conquer Club

Best score: 2,346 - Best position: #618 - Best percentile: 4.87%
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class OliverFA
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:30 am
Location: Somewhere in Spain
Medals: 32
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (2) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2) Tournament Achievement (1)
Clan Achievement (3) Training Achievement (1) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (5)

Re: Research & Conquer [24 April 2013] v29 Pg 89

Postby -=- Tanarri -=- on Mon May 27, 2013 11:20 pm

OliverFA wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:I'm fine with the values as they are - I'll change the mining bonuses to +1/+2 - I've just been really busy this last couple of weeks.

Should I start writing the XML for the map? As far as I know, the territory coordinates and the adjacencies won't change. Am I right? That's the big part of the XML work. Changing neutrals or bonuses is not such a big issue.


Hi Oliver,

Unfortunately I have a feeling that territory positions and adjacancies are going to be quite different. Isaiah has changed the map to be a hex based map and I'm sure he would have had to move territories around in order for the 888's to fit perfectly into one hex. He also had to remove 3 of the territories, which will also make a difference. I think it would be worth while to get a start on that part of the XML using the current map. I don't see anything changing from a position point of view. Most of what we're discussing are neutral values and maybe a couple bonus changes, but those are pretty easy to change.

As far as the XML goes, are we counting only land territories towards the normal territory count? If so, the minimum reinforcements will need to be set to a flat 0 and then a continent with all of the land territories will need to be formed and then the three different levels of land bonus (standard, secret, and open conscription) can be created from there. The only thing I haven't been clear on is what Isaiah decided to do as far as whether Secret Conscription was going to be +1 per 2 regions or +2 per 3 regions.
User avatar
Captain -=- Tanarri -=-
 
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: The Underworld
Medals: 51
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Battle Royale Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (3) General Contribution (2)

PreviousNext

Return to Recycling Box

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login