The HIVE [Quenched]

[john9blue]

If you've already basically won after you get 250 territories, why bother adding a victory condition? Just to save a few turns? In an escalating game, you could definitely lose after getting 250 territories, if the cards are high enough.

[Draco74]

once you hold 250 the remaining ones shouldnt be that hard to conquer. leave it bee

[giantrascal]

this map has proved to be extremly difficult under fog of war. I would fully agree to the 250 territ hold but maybe not for a 2 player game. more people, sure.

[BBoz]

You could do something like 66% of the cells AND must hold All 5 Honey Storage Cells for 1 turn to ensure the person really has dominance on the map.

[I_am_DOOZY]

I'll agree with others to a point on here...if 250 territories are held by one player, the game is basically over, and the rest is basically so many rounds of finishing the game up. Not really a point to that, though it would clear up spots quicker for freemiums, like myself.
Something I have thought to myself was that the map could easily be an objective map with the objective being to hold all the storage cells. Thinking that before, I like BBoz's idea of controlling 250 territories, including the storage cells, for a conditional win. Though as I already said, there wouldn't really be a point...the dominant player would almost be in total control by then.

[I_am_DOOZY]

Taking a look at my current game, the power is in total control and is only holding 195 territories/regions at this point. So the objective of 250 territories/regions I believe is totally unnecessary.

[carlpgoodrich]

The point of this 250 territ condition is to end games quickly without changing the eventual winner, not to change the gameplay (which I don't think it will). I like the idea of also holding all the storage cells.

[mattattam]

250 sounds good

[volrazz]

If escalading spoils + fog never finish !!! it s possible to hide a big army !!!

[Chariot of Fire]

I think the escalating spoils argument is a fair one. I'd pity the player who holds two pairs (when trades are big) while the opponent mops up most of the board and can't be taken under 250 on the next turn. Having to hold an objective, e.g. all storage cells, would be a fairer proposition as it gives an opportunity to the player holding two pairs to at least hit one of them and stay in the game. There would therefore be a greater impetus on strategy (gearing up to take and hold all storage cells with sufficient troops) rather than tailoring the new win rule to the player who has probably had the luckier dice and/or cards.

[skeletonboy]

I disagree with the victory condition because on escalating, the cards get very high. I played a game when I held almost 300 teritories, but the other player had a set worth over 500 and then another the next turn. He then won the game.

[squishyg]

i just want to be clear- would this proposal make Hive an objective map?

[Orange-Idaho-Dog]

I've never played this map, but I can assume it's rather annoying because of it's size. While the 250 territory objective would be a pretty big task in itself, it would seem to me at least, to make under dog victories impossible.

If you still have 100 territories left, I'd think you could still have a chance with some decent dice going your way, which does happen, and strategic moves. Then again I've never played the map, so what do I know. I'm sure an objective of some sort should be put into place here though.


*Edit

When I posted the above, I was mainly talking about flat rate or no spoils. I completely forgot about escalating, which would give the under dog an even better chance at pulling out the win.

[mattattam]

In a game with an objective gametype like... St. Patrick's comes to mind, there are certainly times where u get two pair and could have won otherwise if you cashed. It would be rare in Hive where the escalating spoils would have to be high enough to make that difference. If you lose this way I don't think it is a problem. Makes it more a strategy to try and take 250 territories and end it when you might not win otherwise. I'm not too familiar with this map though.

My question is in escalating game would it really happen much at all where a player could get 250, hold that count for one turn, and still lose?

[saaimen]

... you own 66%* of the map, ...
*71.43%

?

[MrGlassB]

I play this map every day, and I usually have 4-5 games going at once. Most of the time, I play triples, no spoils, with fog. I strongly oppose the idea of an objective-based win. What's wrong with playing a massive map and actually needing to conquer all the territories to win? I would probably never play this map 1v1, but I think it's an amazing team map. Please don't mess it up by adding an objective-based winning condition.

MGB

[ender516]

I wonder a little at the need for an objective. Going in, one must know this is a large map, and therefore may take a while to finish. Does it matter that much to take a few more turns to eliminate all opponents completely?

[Orange-Idaho-Dog]

I play this map every day, and I usually have 4-5 games going at once. Most of the time, I play triples, no spoils, with fog. I strongly oppose the idea of an objective-based win. What's wrong with playing a massive map and actually needing to conquer all the territories to win? I would probably never play this map 1v1, but I think it's an amazing team map. Please don't mess it up by adding an objective-based winning condition.

MGB

I'm pretty sure the objective would only come into play in a standard game. As far as the xml goes, I'd think it would only count 1 player's territories, not a whole team's combined. Even in a 4 player doubles game, I don't think 1 player alone would be able to hold 250 territories.

[denominator]

I'm not a fan of the victory condition of holding X% of the map to win - on any map. All it does is allow a lazy player(s) to end their game(s) sooner. The tagline and motto of Conquer Club has always been to conquer the entire world, country, city, etc, NOT to conquer 66% of the world, country, city, etc. and be handed a victory.

For other objective maps, the players are always presented the choice of "kill all the other players, or hold these territories to win". This one is basically stating "kill 66% of the other players to win".

I personally like the tactics of the map and trying to work your borders slowly towards total victory, and waiting for the right opportunity to strike and cripple your opponent. With this, it bases even more luck on the cards and spreading your troops over a major landmass as opposed to stacking.

I say leave it as is, or come up with a better objective.

[MrGlassB]

+1

MGB

[army of nobunaga]

I dont really like victory conditions really... They are cool in a few maps.. Sort of like a unique gimick ... But the novelty has worn off on all the victory condition maps now..

I agree.

you have a nice map here. One that takes completely different type of strategy and play. A fun map and different in its own way. You dont need to cheapen it with gimicks.

Example here where change is not always a good thing.



Edit... this seems like a proposal from 1vs1 people... Gimicks+freestyle=cheappoints in 1vs1 against newer players. I dont like this at all after reading all of this.

[waerth]

I play this map every day, and I usually have 4-5 games going at once. Most of the time, I play triples, no spoils, with fog. I strongly oppose the idea of an objective-based win. What's wrong with playing a massive map and actually needing to conquer all the territories to win? I would probably never play this map 1v1, but I think it's an amazing team map. Please don't mess it up by adding an objective-based winning condition.

MGB

I agree I like the map because it is so big and I need to conquer it all ... please do not spoil the fun!

[cliffaspinall]

I would rather see the win condition be holding the all of the storage cells. The middle storage cell (which I would change to the Queen Bee) would be able to attack the outer storage cells in a one way direction (the outer storage cells could not attack the queen or the other storage cells). This would keep the major battles in the middle of the map.

Just don't see how you can have a bee hive and not have the queen bee.

Cliff

[squishyg]

i like big maps and long games. i say leave hive as is.

[VectorxMan]

why not leave it it as-is. Sure one guy could hold a majority of the territories; but if he is facing multiple survivors and the game still has potential then the top dog can end the game by simply starting his turn...




If anything this should branch off into a brand new map option available to all maps just like spoils, reinforcements, fog of war, etc. This way you dont single out and ruin The Hive.