WWII Pearl Harbor - [Quenched]

[cairnswk]

love this map but unplayable as is...
when are the changes coming?

When the foundry forman decides to tell me what he wants to do in order to achieve the changes.

[MrBenn]

I have no problem with updating the map.

Have you created an updated set of images and XML? Once I've seen them, then we can formally announce that the change is coming, and send the links for uploading. Does that sound like a plan?

[cairnswk]

I have no problem with updating the map.

Have you created an updated set of images and XML? Once I've seen them, then we can formally announce that the change is coming, and send the links for uploading. Does that sound like a plan?

Excellent.
Thanks MrBenn.
I had waited sometime for this but Andy never got around to it. I'll post something in the next day or so.

[cairnswk]

This is the new Version 45 with the adjustments.

Click image to enlarge.

888 images

Click image to enlarge.

This is the xml file for checking.
Coordinates have been changed only for K6.

http://h1.ripway.com/cairnswk/Pearl_Har ... 040909.xml

Small
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... urV45S.jpg
Large
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... urV45L.jpg

[slowreactor]

HALLELUJAH!!!!!!

[edgarhons]

I suppose it is a good adjustment. Still my favorite level.

[cairnswk]

I suppose it is a good adjustment. Still my favorite level.

Suppose!? Do you have anything better to offer?

[waseemalim]

thank u cairns. This will definitely make me play this map more often -- now that I can apply some real strategy on it.

[troubadour64]

you gotta get that cricket map going !

[cairnswk]

you gotta get that cricket map going !

well. 'twould be helpful if you get over there and give it some support please.

[phantomzero]

This will make this map way better!

[barterer2002]

Thanks Cairns, I really like the map but in smaller games (dubs or 1v1/3 player) there was always too much advantage to going first. This change will take away some of that advantage and make the map play fairer without removing some of the great gameplay issues that you innovated here.

[mkcummins]

probably too late, but an alternative would have been to simply change the amount of the bonus, instead of the composition of the bonus.

+1 for every 2 planes instead of +3.

i do agree that a change was necessary, but were multiple options ever discussed?

[cairnswk]

probably too late, but an alternative would have been to simply change the amount of the bonus, instead of the composition of the bonus.

+1 for every 2 planes instead of +3.

i do agree that a change was necessary, but were multiple options ever discussed?

Multiple options were never discussed.
your suggestion of +1 for every 2 planes would have still given the first player opportunity of gaining a bonus if they got a good drop on the planes group.
The suggestion that i have have put forward makes it much harder to gain the bonus on the drop, possibly practically elminating it altogether.

[shidarin]

Hmm, I personally feel it's too radical of a change- especially since in the actual game (and not just the drop) the planes played such an integral part of the overall strategy.

It seems like it's a big leap from +3 every 2 to +3 every 4.

Why not +3 every 3? It'd still be more difficult to achieve on the initial drop, while not radically changing the strategies currently employed on the map.

[aspalm]

I agree that this is too big a change for one of my favorite boards. while i would agree that in a 1v1 our doubs game, the initial turn has quite the advantage, the current system makes it one of the better maps for trips and quads games. a lot of strategy as far as whether to go for planes or AA's, etc. Now it will be just like any other quads/trips boards, where people often play to take out someone instead of going for bonuses. Disappointing. Why not make both versions available?

[cairnswk]

.....Why not make both versions available?

Now that's a positive suggestion, but i don't know if lackattack would allow it.
and besides, do we really need to have two maps...could set a precendant!

[cairnswk]

Hmm, I personally feel it's too radical of a change- especially since in the actual game (and not just the drop) the planes played such an integral part of the overall strategy.

It seems like it's a big leap from +3 every 2 to +3 every 4.

Why not +3 every 3? It'd still be more difficult to achieve on the initial drop, while not radically changing the strategies currently employed on the map.

Perhaps a vote would be an option?
Or is that going overbaord?
Whichever way we go, i don't think we keep everyone happy.
Now where's those high-faluting strategists when you need them.

[netspyman]

this is one of my faviot maps and i play it a lot. I do agree that it is a clear advantage going first if you have a good drop. I think what would work better and keep the same game statagie is to change the bonus to a lower amount and also increase the planes needed like 2 for +1 3 for +2 that way peps would still go for the planes and aa's. It would also make the drop not so one sided.

Just my thoughts


NETSPYMAN

[iancanton]

this is worth doing properly. bonuses for 4 and 5 planes! no half-hearted measures!

ian.

[a.sub]

im SO confused!
what changed?
from what to what?

[cairnswk]

:?:
im SO confused!
what changed?
from what to what?

Gees a.sub, can't you read on the previous page

From

* Until Group taken, within any Group
+ 3 any 2 aircraft + 4 any 4 aircraft

To

* Until Group taken, within any Group
+ 3 any 4 aircraft + 4 any 5 aircraft

[a.sub]

OOOOOOH
wow that was stupid of me!

[Knight2254]

I play this map quite a bit as well and have had great success. As far as imbalanced -- I'm not so sure it is. Sometimes, but not everytime. I'm 16 for 19 with a rating of "equalitarian." If you exclude the 8 player free for all I just finished I'm 16 for 18 in team games so there must be something I do differently than everybody else because certainly I've had more than 2 "bad drops" yet I maintained a 88+% win percentage.

I could get on board with lessening the bonus, but the way you're doing it you are making the AA guns WAY too valuable. Now it's going to be very difficult to get a bonus aside from the AA guns so whoever gets those will simply reinforce those every turn and be able to shoot down enough planes to eliminate the plane bonuses.

If we do anything I think we should reduce the bonuses as suggested previously -- Something like +1 for 2, +2 for 3, +3 for 3. This would allow you, if you did not get the AA bonuses (then you're probably loaded with planes), to have a fighting chance.

[a.sub]

well i havent counted myself, but why not reduce the number of planes that are starting positions
so if its +1 for 3 and there are 6 planes, in an 8 man one person has a 23.4%* chance of getting 3 planes
but if you reduce it to 5 planes are starting positions then its down to 3.9%*
its an incredibly small change map wise, but a MASSIVE one drop wise.


equation = (probability of getting 1 plane)^(number of planes wanted) * (number of spots)! /(number of planes so 1,2,3 is counted but 2,3,1 etc. arent)!
* (1/8)^(3)*(6)!/(3)!=.234375=23.4375%
* (1/8)^(3)*(5)!/(3)!=.039063=3.9063%