Treasures of Galápagos [Quenched]

[ZeekLTK]

This map is still off balance. I started out with reef 8, and was able to take the West Isabella in the first few rounds. Once I did that, I quickly won the game even when I did lose a 9 v 1 or so every turn afterwards. ALL fresh water territories should have 10 neutrals on them. Had it had 10 instead of 5, my opponent would have taken it from me as soon as I got rid of those neutrals. because I would have wasted a whole lot more men.

I think it is off balance too. Some of the reefs are just too close to others. In my game on this map a player was eliminated by another player in Round 3 (the player that was eliminated had only taken 2 turns!)

To me, you shouldn't be able to get eliminated so quickly, especially since 99% of the board is neutrals to start with. If it's going to be all neutrals, it should be like New World or Feudal Wars where there are HUGE stacks of neutrals separating each player's starting point, so that it's harder to reach them, etc. and also so that a few bad rolls against the neutrals can be overcome. In this game it appears the eliminated player had a few unlucky rolls against neutrals which weakened his army, then the other guy found him and eliminated him in the same turn that he found him (and the guy who eliminated him only got 3 armies to start the turn, so he probably didn't have more than 5-6 armies in total to use to attack the eliminated player).

So, to me, seems to be that this map is very un-balanced for something like this to happen.

Game: 3363117 (it's fog of war though so you can only see what happened in the text bar)

[ZeekLTK]

Yeah this map is horribly unbalanced. There is now some guy in our game who got 18 armies and then 23 armies on consecutive turns while everyone else is getting 5-8. The big cluster of land on the left side of the map means that whoever starts in Reef 4 is going to win every game.

I think the only thing to rectify this is (other than completely remaking the map) changing the number of neutrals. On luggers with 10 armies no one even bothers going for them. They are just treated as "impassible obstacles" and everyone just goes around them because it is not worth it to take them when you could take 2-3 islands for the same amount of armies. Some land only had like 3 neutrals on them and gave the same, or better, bonus! Each land (since they are all bonuses) should have at least 10 armies as well, if not more (maybe 20-25 armies on the land that have "national treasures" AND "fresh water" as those are the most sought after territories). Or you might consider having some land that doesn't have bonuses (aka, take some bonuses off the big island cluster near Reef 4) to balance it better.

[militant]

Cairns, I tink the map is smashing, really enjoy playing on it. Thanks for taking the time to make it

[cairnswk]

Yeah this map is horribly unbalanced. There is now some guy in our game who got 18 armies and then 23 armies on consecutive turns while everyone else is getting 5-8. The big cluster of land on the left side of the map means that whoever starts in Reef 4 is going to win every game.

I think the only thing to rectify this is (other than completely remaking the map) changing the number of neutrals. On luggers with 10 armies no one even bothers going for them. They are just treated as "impassible obstacles" and everyone just goes around them because it is not worth it to take them when you could take 2-3 islands for the same amount of armies. Some land only had like 3 neutrals on them and gave the same, or better, bonus! Each land (since they are all bonuses) should have at least 10 armies as well, if not more (maybe 20-25 armies on the land that have "national treasures" AND "fresh water" as those are the most sought after territories). Or you might consider having some land that doesn't have bonuses (aka, take some bonuses off the big island cluster near Reef 4) to balance it better.

ZeekLTK, thanks for your comments; however since you've only played 49 games in toto on this site, and one of these happens to be this T of G map, and you've had some good wins on all those maps, come back and provide feedback when you've played a few more games on this map at other settings and indeed every map on this site and then tell me if it's still unbalanced.
There has been a lot of input from people getting this to its now current stage, so i find your comments somewhat unbeleiveable and more atuned someone who might just lose a game.
Unfortunately i can not cater simply to your needs alone.
There are a lot of other people out there who think this map is now better balanced than when it went into play.

Cairns, I tink the map is smashing, really enjoy playing on it. Thanks for taking the time to make it

Thanks militant.

[HardAttack]

this map is a best of among some others...the artwork is reflected perfectly...great job is done, ty a lot for such a beautiful nice work...played a few times on the map, gained my favor so soon and recorded this map to be in my favoırites among those 8 or 10 more others...

[cairnswk]

Treasures of Galapagos

I recently played about a dozen games on this map after getting over the initial mess that was created with the adjustments.

What i found was that the luggers weren't used in any of the games that i played in.
The 10 neutrals on them was too high for anyone to conquer and everyone simply conquered across the map.

These were supposed to be an integral part of the gameplay and act like airports that could attack each other, especially for the larger games. I understand there is going to be no happy medium in some of these games to cater for every player combination, but i now feel that the 10 neutrals is way too high, and i would like open discussion on how others feel about this.

My recommendation would be to drop them back to 6 neutrals so they can still be used.

What do others feel?

[Natewolfman]

I agree completely, since the change i never have seen a need to use the luggers, and before i used them every time

[LB Ninja]

right now i think this is my favorite map to play.. i play on it a lot.. and personally i like the lugers how they are.. i like that the person has to go across the map to find someone.. the games will be too short and easy if we reduce any of the numbers on it.. so personally i think they should stay at ten or be less of a bonus

[Qwert]

These need to present in Galapagos topic right?

[neanderpaul14]

I completely agree I've played a number of games on this map and have never tried for the luggers due to the 10 armies present on each

[gimil]

These need to present in Galapagos topic right?

Sorry cairns, qwert is right. Discussion for changes should be in the map development thread you know that. If you want we can get a shadow topic set up to bring people into the thread from the main foundry like we did with das scholb.

[merged]

[cairnswk]

These need to present in Galapagos topic right?

Sorry cairns, qwert is right. Discussion for changes should be in the map development thread you know that. If you want we can get a shadow topic set up to bring people into the thread from the main foundry like we did with das scholb.

[merged]

Qwert may be right Gimil, but i am really pissed that you merged this thread in all your efforts to be oh so correct...you managed to lose the poll that was running in the Foundry Discussion thread and now we have to start all over again...and not even an apology for losing it. Unforgivable!

[cairnswk]

Treasures of Galapagos

I recently played about a dozen games on this map after getting over the initial mess that was created with the adjustments.

What i found was that the luggers weren't used in any of the games that i played in.
The 10 neutrals on them was too high for anyone to conquer and everyone simply conquered across the map.

These were supposed to be an integral part of the gameplay and act like airports that could attack each other, especially for the larger games. I understand there is going to be no happy medium in some of these games to cater for every player combination, but i now feel that the 10 neutrals is way too high, and i would like open discussion on how others feel about this.

My recommendation would be to drop them back to 6 neutrals so they can still be used.

What do others feel?

I agree completely, since the change i never have seen a need to use the luggers, and before i used them every time

right now i think this is my favorite map to play.. i play on it a lot.. and personally i like the lugers how they are.. i like that the person has to go across the map to find someone.. the games will be too short and easy if we reduce any of the numbers on it.. so personally i think they should stay at ten or be less of a bonus

I completely agree I've played a number of games on this map and have never tried for the luggers due to the 10 armies present on each

Sorry peoples, but the poll has to be re-done.
If you could vote again please, if you feel like it.

[cairnswk]

Any votes please??

[Lincecum]

I have voted...all I ask is that if there is a change, it be done in an orderly manner and with advance notice to the community - especially as this is no longer a "beta" map. This is my home map for an ongoing tournament and it would suck to have a change in the middle of an important game(s)

[cairnswk]

I have voted...all I ask is that if there is a change, it be done in an orderly manner and with advance notice to the community - especially as this is no longer a "beta" map. This is my home map for an ongoing tournament and it would suck to have a change in the middle of an important game(s)

noted Lincecum...and thanks for your input.

[Blitzaholic]

Any votes please??

YES cairns please lower it some


I suggest 7 and this is what I voted

but, would be ok with 6, but I think 7 is perfect

[cairnswk]

Any votes please??

YES cairns please lower it some


I suggest 7 and this is what I voted

but, would be ok with 6, but I think 7 is perfect

Thanks for your input Blitzaholic...and everyone else who voted!

[Joodoo]

while searching one of the games played on this map, I found out that you could get negative bonuses for some territories...
why is that the case? does it have anything to do with the fresh water?

[SirSebstar]

did you ever get a reply to this question? why is the water so important for survival?

[cairnswk]

while searching one of the games played on this map, I found out that you could get negative bonuses for some territories...
why is that the case? does it have anything to do with the fresh water?

That may have been possible with the old negative lugger bonus, but all the bonuses are now positive numbers so i don't think this applies any longer.

did you ever get a reply to this question? why is the water so important for survival?

The water is required for survival because if at sea you can't drink salt water...it makes you sick. On These islands the only water available on some of the islands is rain water which is doesn't fall too often.

[SirSebstar]

is it possible to find out how the placement of all the neutrals is, preferably by a pic in the first post?

[cairnswk]

is it possible to find out how the placement of all the neutrals is, preferably by a pic in the first post?

Done as requested.

[Erland]

I think it's time to reduce the number of neutrals on the luggers from 10 to 7 or maybe 8. I'd prefer 7. The problem is that the luggers are never a factor in trips or quads games. I used to play a lot of singles and occasionally I'd take a lugger in them, but in general I think they were over-nerfed when you changed them from 5 to 10. Just a suggestion . . . I'd be interested to hear what others think.

Erland

[Seamus76]

I absolutely agree. It's been one of my favorite maps, and I actually do pretty well on it, but I may have taken a lugger once in all the games I have played. Seven does seem like a good number to consider.