Pearl Harbor: Twist or Stick?

[ahunda]

i vote for a revert

but i would prefer with plane bonus like :
2 planes : +1
3 planes : +2
4 planes : +3
all planes : +6/7 (like now)

This sounds pretty good to me.

[jwithington]

The first one was fun, but it was also incredibly goofy with the drops. I haven't played the new one because the original was so awful.

[King_Herpes]

C.) Cut it in half and give one side to the hopeless romantics and the other to the hopeless saps carrying a deep seeded sense of entitlement.

[MyTurnToWin]

I vote for the new version.

Please note I also liked the suggestion regarding changing the bonus structure on planes listed previously in this thread.

[MrBenn]

There are a plethora of alternative suggestions that could be tabled in relation to adjustments, but the line will have to be drawn somewhere at sometime... There are only two options because the to-ing and fro-ing could theoretically last indefinitely, and I'm keen to draw a line beneath it.

I'm still keeping my eyes on this barometer of opinion, but at the moment it appears to be 3:2 in favour of reverting to the former map - alongside the vast majority who would appear to care neither way (judging from the 500+ views and ~80 votes)...

[ahunda]

There are a plethora of alternative suggestions that could be tabled in relation to adjustments, but the line will have to be drawn somewhere at sometime... There are only two options because the to-ing and fro-ing could theoretically last indefinitely, and I'm keen to draw a line beneath it.

That different bonus structure has been suggested & discussed in the foundry thread too though. And I believe, it had quite some support.

Seems to me, it could actually be a good compromise: Addressing the problem of lop-sided drops, but preserving the unique nature of the map.

Then again I am not one of the hardcore fans of the map & haven´t played it that often, that I would be overly concerned.

[Robinette]

C.) Cut it in half and give one side to the hopeless romantics and the other to the hopeless saps carrying a deep seeded sense of entitlement.

Such hopeless wisdom from our great King...

[Timminz]

Pardon me, I don't keep up on the foundry as much as some, but why in the hell would you have changed a perfectly good map like Pearl Harbour?

[Robinette]

There are a plethora of alternative suggestions that could be tabled in relation to adjustments, but the line will have to be drawn somewhere at sometime... There are only two options because the to-ing and fro-ing could theoretically last indefinitely, and I'm keen to draw a line beneath it.

I'm still keeping my eyes on this barometer of opinion, but at the moment it appears to be 3:2 in favour of reverting to the former map - alongside the vast majority who would appear to care neither way (judging from the 500+ views and ~80 votes)...

I do not think this is a valid assumption....

This thread has been up about 5 days, and there are about 80 people who are interested enough in this topic to vote, I must presume those same 80 folks are checking in to see where the vote count is, and what the comments are... so 80 passionate people checking once a day for 5 days = 400 views... and then there are the obsessive people who check every hour... well, you get the point...

unless those are "unique" views, but i believe the counter clicks off each and every time someone clicks on the thread...

[rlcfast1]

i play this map constantly and even though i don't have any fancy strategic reasons, i thought the original was more fun.

[MrBenn]

I do not think this is a valid assumption....

This thread has been up about 5 days, and there are about 80 people who are interested enough in this topic to vote, I must presume those same 80 folks are checking in to see where the vote count is, and what the comments are... so 80 passionate people checking once a day for 5 days = 400 views... and then there are the obsessive people who check every hour... well, you get the point...

unless those are "unique" views, but i believe the counter clicks off each and every time someone clicks on the thread...

You're right... I neglected to take CC fanatics (and multis) into account

[natty dread]

Never played the original, but the current map is really fun.

[pearljamrox2]

I'm still keeping my eyes on this barometer of opinion, but at the moment it appears to be 3:2 in favour of reverting to the former map - alongside the vast majority who would appear to care neither way (judging from the 500+ views and ~80 votes)...

oh....i thought we were deciding wheter to spin one up...or pack the steamroller...my bad.

[alstergren]

What is the consensus on the changes to the Pearl Harbor map? Is it more balanced since the gameplay was adjusted towards the end of last year, or was the gameplay better prior to that? Both cairns and I would like to see this put to bed, and the options facing us are

a) stick with the adjusted (current) version.
b) revert to the original version.

I'll keep checking on the poll in this thread as a barometer of opinion, but would welcome discussion about the relative merits (or otherwise) of tweaking maps once they're up into live play.

--MrBenn

I'd go back to the original. In the new one, a lot comes down to a rush for the AA's (unless esc. quads then maybe, but all esc. card quads really diminishes the importance of bonuses). In the old one, the plane bonus more than countered that. Thus, you had several options, now it's quite a predictable map (ships, oil etc. bonuses are like Asia, i.e. rarely worth the hassle).

Also – with respect to “balance”. Well, that’s all nice and dandy, but having “balanced” maps shouldn’t be an overriding goal in itself as it leads to conformity. Some maps could very well stick out in one sense or another. As usual, if one doesn’t like one particular map, there’re no CC mods around putting guns to peoples’ heads forcing them to play them.

[Keredrex]

Why can't the suggestion from the discusion be used... +1 for 2 planes, +2 For 3, etc. Unless im mistaken this would be the middle ground between the new an old version... and I seem to remember a few posts suggesting this idea. or was there some reason against this?