Conquer Club

Spino wrote:Hi all !

This map is one of my favorite, and here's what I think:

The bowler looks to give a big advantage to the player who controls it. But I think the map was well designed to balance this:

Indeed, from the bowler you can only assault neutral PC's, other fielders or big neutral batter. Thus, there is no easy extra-bonus to take from it. In addition, you should better not play batter AND fielders at the same time because of -1 bonuses, and if you succeed to take it, the fielder bonus is not easy to protect from all sides.
Then, my opinion is that even if a +2 auto-deploy is always nice to control, and even if it is often good to fight for it, loosing it does not give mean that you loose the game. A +2 or +3 bonus is always better to hold than an isolated +2 auto-deploy.

Making is start 1 neutral is no good idea, it would just give a free spoil to the first player in addition of the bowler.

The presence of the bowler is the glamor and the uniqueness of this map as said Jimboy. Please leave it as is

Just stumble on this change and I must agree!

Bowler was good to have but not crucial.

There is difference between 1v1 and team games, but controlling bonuses was more important.

Spino wrote:Hi all !

This map is one of my favorite, and here's what I think:

The bowler looks to give a big advantage to the player who controls it. But I think the map was well designed to balance this:

Indeed, from the bowler you can only assault neutral PC's, other fielders or big neutral batter. Thus, there is no easy extra-bonus to take from it. In addition, you should better not play batter AND fielders at the same time because of -1 bonuses, and if you succeed to take it, the fielder bonus is not easy to protect from all sides.
Then, my opinion is that even if a +2 auto-deploy is always nice to control, and even if it is often good to fight for it, loosing it does not give mean that you loose the game. A +2 or +3 bonus is always better to hold than an isolated +2 auto-deploy.

Making is start 1 neutral is no good idea, it would just give a free spoil to the first player in addition of the bowler.

The presence of the bowler is the glamor and the uniqueness of this map as said Jimboy. Please leave it as is

I could not agree more. Not only does the -1 help to combat the bowler but the other way that this is balanced is that it is much easier to attack into the middle to go after the bowler than it is to attack with the bowler outwards. Even though it may seem making the bowler a nuetral to give balance, I for one think this change takes the balance away

Spino wrote:Hi all !

This map is one of my favorite, and here's what I think:

The bowler looks to give a big advantage to the player who controls it. But I think the map was well designed to balance this:

Indeed, from the bowler you can only assault neutral PC's, other fielders or big neutral batter. Thus, there is no easy extra-bonus to take from it. In addition, you should better not play batter AND fielders at the same time because of -1 bonuses, and if you succeed to take it, the fielder bonus is not easy to protect from all sides.
Then, my opinion is that even if a +2 auto-deploy is always nice to control, and even if it is often good to fight for it, loosing it does not give mean that you loose the game. A +2 or +3 bonus is always better to hold than an isolated +2 auto-deploy.

Making is start 1 neutral is no good idea, it would just give a free spoil to the first player in addition of the bowler.

The presence of the bowler is the glamor and the uniqueness of this map as said Jimboy. Please leave it as is

+1 No, neutral bowler.

"Uniqueness" is not necessarily a good thing.

Hmm.. I like the thought of a neutral bowler. It would make it a better fight over the center of the field. If you start with the bowler, and you go first, you're almost assured to get the middle under control, and by eliminating everyone form the middle, you're very close to the fielder bonus.

I'd be interested with testing out the bowler starting neutral.

i cant tell u how many times we have played team games, and won the game against quality teams when we didnt hold the bowler... Teams get so focused on that +2 autodrop bonus that they have tunnel vision.. it made the outside of the map so valuable... now were looking at the field being useless, its just an area to clear at the end.. even if one team dominates the field.. there is never a reason to take the bowler unless u are really desperate...

i would of suggested dropping the bowler to a +1 auto deploy or making it a neutral 1 or 2... or some combination of the two.. the map was a great quad map... it was never a good 1v1 map.. there is just way to many bonuses to be dropped... now it seems to be average...

I am really curious how many of these posts that are in favor of the nuetral bowler are coming from players that don't normally play the map and have not figured out the strategies needed to handle the bowler? I have now played this a few times and I feel this map has been ruined and that this is now just another standard territory map that is decided by the flawed random dice that CC offers. I used to feel that this was a map that was built in a way that you could strategize your was around some untimely dice but sadly I don't feel that way anymore. The field is now useless and might as well be made 100% nuetral because it's nothing more than a pain in the ass to clean up after the game has already been decided. I am in the group of people that will probably stop playing this map altogether because of this change

only 12 1v1 games with the bowler coded as neutral have actually finished, so it's too early to judge objectively whether this alone is a good or bad move. of these, player 1 has won 5 and player 2 has won 7, therefore no significant advantage is gained by going first. the bowler was conquered in 9 games and ignored in 3; the latter was not the intention when this map was designed. in 3 games, one player started with either the calypso kings or beige brigade bonus, which is a very high percentage.

while we wait for more games to finish, what we can say is that, if we keep a neutral-starting bowler, then either the bowler auto-deploy must be increased from +2 to +3 or the starting neutral has to be reduced from n3 to n1 or n2, while the PC2 and PC3 starting neutrals ought to be moved to dell and tawera. it might also help for all of the neutral 1-run bonuses to start as n2 instead of n3, since no-one ever seems to want them.

ian.

I was one who posted before the change to alter the neutral...i have played the board in team games and i thought the +2 auto deploy was rough holding it off the rip. A +1 neutral should negate this...and not alter the flow of the board too much...although i know what folks say about the outside areas. If it were a plus one...it wouldn't change the way i play the board from before but maybe i didn't play it that well.

Just wanted to update now (incase anyone actually reads this) i've played a fair few games with the bowler change. Personally for me the map has no real gameplay. Everyone fights for the border regions, and the game is won or lost there. Theres little point to taking the pc's or umpires except to clear the field if your not there at the end.

Personnally doubt i'll be playing it anymore, just doesn't seem any fun? Be interested to hear other opinons on it?

Map lost its charm, we used to use it in wars, don't see it anymore used.

Bowler gave the balance in team games.

Only problem was 1v1 I guess, all other types didn't suffer from auto-drop.

Yes, I didn't see a lot of need for the change, but I don't think it messed with gameplay that much.

change it back. there's no dynamic gameplay anymore.

This map has become completely boring for team games. Instead of being a dynamic map it might as well be Luxembourg now.

firstly, a mistake to fix in the xml, about which there can be no argument: the asha loe AL6 bonus is currently written as AL6 and shows like this when that bonus is held, while the other six similar bonuses are written in full.

secondly, another mistake in the xml: the neutral tags for amos and loe are missing, so they are failing to start neutral and some players are starting with the calypso kings or kiwi beige brigade bonuses.

the majority of games on this map are 1v1 games. i've checked 25 1v1 games with the bowler coded as neutral that have actually finished. of these, player 1 has won 16 and player 2 has won 9, therefore there is a reasonable advantage gained by going first (skewed by 5 games where someone started with the bonuses mentioned above). the bowler was conquered in 15 games and ignored in 10; the latter was not the intention when this map was designed. only one singles bonus was held in the 25 games.

to satisfy both the principles that player 1 does not start with a bonus and that the bowler is active from a very early stage, i suggest that the bowler starting neutral is reduced from n3 to n1, with the PC3 starting neutral being removed if the number of starting regions falls below 69 (not sure if it does). to encourage play on the field rather than among the spectators, i further suggest that all of the singles start as n2 instead of n3, since no-one ever seems to want them; the same might be done with the fours, which are also rarely held, while the batter 1 neutrals might reduce from n4 to n3 (but consider the last one carefully, in case it tips the balance too much).

ian.

iancanton wrote:firstly, a mistake to fix in the xml, about which there can be no argument: the asha loe AL6 bonus is currently written as AL6 and shows like this when that bonus is held, while the other six similar bonuses are written in full.

Fixed.

secondly, another mistake in the xml: the neutral tags for amos and loe are missing, so they are failing to start neutral and some players are starting with the calypso kings or kiwi beige brigade bonuses.

Fixed.

the majority of games on this map are 1v1 games. i've checked 25 1v1 games with the bowler coded as neutral that have actually finished. of these, player 1 has won 16 and player 2 has won 9, therefore there is a reasonable advantage gained by going first (skewed by 5 games where someone started with the bonuses mentioned above). the bowler was conquered in 15 games and ignored in 10; the latter was not the intention when this map was designed. only one singles bonus was held in the 25 games.

Nice analysis

...to satisfy both the principles that player 1 does not start with a bonus and that the bowler is active from a very early stage, i suggest that the bowler starting neutral is reduced from n3 to n1,

Done.

...with the PC3 starting neutral being removed if the number of starting regions falls below 69 (not sure if it does).

Not yet done! until decision made

...to encourage play on the field rather than among the spectators, i further suggest that all of the singles start as n2 instead of n3, since no-one ever seems to want them; the same might be done with the fours, which are also rarely held,

4 x Singlesreduced to n2
8 x 4s reduced to n2
...Done!

... while the batter 1 neutrals might reduce from n4 to n3 (but consider the last one carefully, in case it tips the balance too much).
ian.

ian, i'll reduce these now and if it tips the balance too far we can always pull back again.
Done!

I'll wait until decision is made on third last point above before attaching the new xml file, but all others have been changed.
Thanks ian for your efforts once again.

That's a lot of neutral changing... How will this alter the gameplay? Maybe this should be BETA for another minute or two.

chapcrap wrote:That's a lot of neutral changing... How will this alter the gameplay? Maybe this should be BETA for another minute or two.

I have no objection to that happening.

...to satisfy both the principles that player 1 does not start with a bonus and that the bowler is active from a very early stage, i suggest that the bowler starting neutral is reduced from n3 to n1,

Done.

Not in the game i just started?? Did you put this on hold to beat it?

cairnswk wrote:

...with the PC3 starting neutral being removed if the number of starting regions falls below 69 (not sure if it does).

Not yet done! until decision made

cairnswk wrote:I'll wait until decision is made on third last point above before attaching the new xml file, but all others have been changed.

i count 67 starting regions, so we need to remove the starting neutrals for both pc3 and mike atherton to make 69.

ian.

The bowler is still nuetral 3..... is this the plan going forward? From a team game stand point this map is not as interesting in the current form.

1st All Rounder has been misspelled in the xml as 1st All rounder, but is correct on the map itself. 2nd All Rounder is already correct for both.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

...with the PC3 starting neutral being removed if the number of starting regions falls below 69 (not sure if it does).

Not yet done! until decision made

cairnswk wrote:I'll wait until decision is made on third last point above before attaching the new xml file, but all others have been changed.

i count 67 starting regions, so we need to remove the starting neutrals for both pc3 and mike atherton to make 69.

ian.

Done. In version 28 coming up.
With 100 territories, there are now 31 neutral starts, making 69 starts.

jimboy wrote:The bowler is still nuetral 3..... is this the plan going forward? From a team game stand point this map is not as interesting in the current form.

Yes jimboy, it is going forward...very shortly