Moderator: Cartographers
koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.
koontz1973 wrote:Just make them starting territs with a cap of 4. Do not underline the territs with neutrals and your drops, while still random in all games will make the drops far better. So in 1v1 games, both sides will recieve 4 in the decay (8) and the remaining 4 with then go into the random drop. So the odds of getting 2 extra over your opponent is very small. Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.
nolefan5311 wrote:koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.
We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.
And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.
koontz1973 wrote:nolefan5311 wrote:koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.
We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.
And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.
That is the foundry of today nole. If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them. Even classic has to have some. When will it all end. Do we really need to go through the process of making all maps even more the same or can we leave some maps that have quirks like this one alone. Considering this map has 77 games waiting for players or playing now, 16 1v1 games, this does not seem to be an unpopular map as it is. If these changes where truly needed, it would of come up a lot sooner considering this map was quenched in 2008.
@MrBenn, read it and it would not work.
koontz1973 wrote:With 212 maps available, not playing some is not really a problem though is it. Would you play it again if the drop had gone the other way? I doubt that this is a popular map but my point is, why have every map the same? Can we not have a little variaty?
koontz1973 wrote:If someone requested it and permission was given, then why ask for opinions about it and just do it. But considering one player in 5 years has seen this as a problem, does this really make it a problem.
chapcrap wrote:pmchugh wrote:Remember Pearl Harbour? It got changed and no one liked it.
No, I don't remember Pearl Harbour. I know the Pearl Harbor map and it's great.pmchugh wrote:I agree with agentcom in that a bad drop is annoying but part of the map.
That's a ridiculous statement. It doesn't have to be part of that map. That's the whole point.pmchugh wrote:I would also be willing to hazard a guess that first turn advantage would be stronger in 1v1 anyway.
You mean like this game? Game 10926098 You went first, but had 5 in the decay area. The other guy only had 1. You lost.nagerous wrote:I like this map the way it is...
You have played 12 games total on it and only 4 1v1. You haven't played since 2010. Do you even remember the map?benga wrote:Don't change!
Why? You've lost 4 of your last 5 on the map. Probably because of drops.
nagerous wrote:Part of the fun of this map is the unpredictability of it.
koontz1973 wrote:If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them.
benga wrote:Don't change!
benga wrote:And it's fun playing it, especially with 4+ players.
nagerous wrote:No need to be a patronising ass.
koontz1973 wrote:But considering one player in 5 years has seen this as a problem, does this really make it a problem.
nolefan5311 wrote:Someone noticed this issue with this one map, requested and received the mapmakers permission to change it, and is in the process of seeing if there is support to change it.
chapcrap wrote:pmchugh wrote:Remember Pearl Harbour? It got changed and no one liked it.
No, I don't remember Pearl Harbour. I know the Pearl Harbor map and it's great.
MrBenn wrote:As cairns has already explained, the map was changed a while back and the bonuses balanced out a bit from the drop. However, there was massive outcry from the rest of CC that changes had been made (despite a number of announcements, and discussion in GD) and the CC community decided to revert to the original version.
pmchugh wrote:I would also be willing to hazard a guess that first turn advantage would be stronger in 1v1 anyway.
You mean like this game? Game 10926098 You went first, but had 5 in the decay area. The other guy only had 1. You lost.
pmchugh wrote:One game means f*ck all. 56/101 games seems to be slightly better but you really need to do a proper statistical analysis to see the weighting given over a larger sample set, it should also be noted that only just over half of the games played seem to suffer from "bad drops" where as all of them suffer from first turn advantage.
Jatekos wrote:Having played 287 1vs1 games on this map, I totally agree that it needs to be more balanced. I have actually stopped playing 1vs1 games on Dust Bowl because of the unbalanced map settings, though I like the map and the idea of the decaying area.
In my opinion, each player should start with 10 or 9 regions in 1vs1 games. The current 12 is the worst option possible.
As for the decaying regions, I do like that it is unpredictable how many of your regions will be there. There can be very uneven drops, though, which is another reason why this map is unbalanced now. I think that the solution would be to keep it random how many starting regions are in the decaying area, but it should be an even number, and both players should start with the same number of decaying regions. Would it be possible to code this with the current XML?
benga wrote:Jatekos wrote:Having played 287 1vs1 games on this map, I totally agree that it needs to be more balanced. I have actually stopped playing 1vs1 games on Dust Bowl because of the unbalanced map settings, though I like the map and the idea of the decaying area.
In my opinion, each player should start with 10 or 9 regions in 1vs1 games. The current 12 is the worst option possible.
As for the decaying regions, I do like that it is unpredictable how many of your regions will be there. There can be very uneven drops, though, which is another reason why this map is unbalanced now. I think that the solution would be to keep it random how many starting regions are in the decaying area, but it should be an even number, and both players should start with the same number of decaying regions. Would it be possible to code this with the current XML?
+42 167 from 288(58%)
that's 4% better of your avg win rate
Chap at this point this looks like your personal crusade,
maybe put it to vote so we see where we stand?
And one thing too add, haven't played much 1v1s lately (referring to all maps),
but from I have seen, there has been increase in number of neutrals
to make things fair, but 1v1 will never be fair,
now I struggle to fight neutrals to brake other guys bonus from unfair drop.
In 1v1 games will never be fair, you work with what you got.
benga wrote:Chap at this point this looks like your personal crusade,
maybe put it to vote so we see where we stand?
Night Strike wrote:I just had a 1v1 where I dropped with 6 of my 12 territories in the dust. Then I lost all 4 from my deployment on bad dice. There's no chance I can win.
White Moose wrote:Night Strike wrote:I just had a 1v1 where I dropped with 6 of my 12 territories in the dust. Then I lost all 4 from my deployment on bad dice. There's no chance I can win.
I had about the same. Dropped 7 in the dust which i lost. I won the game.. but still.
MrBenn wrote:I just had a thought; could all the dustbowl territories start with 4, so on the first turn they decay to 3 rather than 2?
I'm not sure what I think of that, but it might be a way to mitigate against the drop?
Jatekos wrote:chapcrap wrote:Can the XML be changed on this to have equal amounts of starting territories in the decaying zone?
It just makes sense. It would make games more fair and probably get more people to play the map.
That would be great.
Decreasing the number of starting regions in 1 v 1 games would make the games even more balanced, in my opinion. Currently both players get 12 regions.
ooge wrote:yes change it,along with italy
puppydog85 wrote:It sounds like a fair suggestion to me. Go ahead and change it.
IcePack wrote:PLEASE do this. I can't tell you how many times i've been screwed on the drop. I remember the worst was a multi player game and i think 6 out of 8(?) territories were all in the decay zone.
Brutal, all they had to do was eliminate the other two spots and i basically had no chance...Needs to be addressed.
IcePack
nicestash wrote:Do change it
DiM wrote:we have the power to change this so i say we do it. make the decay are drop to be fair and reduce the starting terits from 12 to 11.
thenobodies80 wrote:koontz1973 wrote:If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them.
Not really related with the map, but what you say it's already been tried, twice. http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=163140
Honestly I would go with it, but it's something that needs lot of time and effort since every small change has to be discussed because it has a very important impact on the player side.
But,to my eyes, if a map need a fix, then it must be fixed. No matter how old it is or how many maps we have.
Mapmaking point to the perfection, always!
thenobodies80 wrote:Guys, do you want a poll?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users