Forum

by **MrGlassB** on Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:58 pm

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

by **ender516** on Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:03 pm

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?

by **Orange-Idaho-Dog** on Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:17 pm

MrGlassB wrote: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.

by **denominator** on Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:09 pm

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.

by **MrGlassB** on Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:11 pm

+1

MGB

by **army of nobunaga** on Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:53 pm

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.

by **waerth** on Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:45 am

MrGlassB wrote: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!

by **cliffaspinall** on Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:43 pm

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

by **squishyg** on Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:24 pm

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

by **VectorxMan** on Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:36 pm

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...

:idea:

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.

by **Chariot of Fire** on Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:52 am

Plenty of wise words spoken here. Seems the consensus, especially amongst those who play it the most, is to let it bee

by **Madstuthe1st** on Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:31 am

I've been playing this map in single and team games, personally I would leave it as it is. I much rather defeat everyone even if it takes a few more turns.

by **Rassilon6** on Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:51 am

My opinion: Hive should stay as it is (no objective). Most of the good arguments have already been made. There are just too many variables in that map, especially with escalating cards, so having 66% is not a guarantee to win. Even if it were a given, the player should demonstrate significant strategy and game play in order to hold the lead and take it to a win.

by **JP007** on Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:57 am

Leave it as it is...The 65% objective is crap...To win a game it should always be 100% conquer of All the territories and elimination of All of the opponents.