District of Alaska - v14.1 [2015-25-05] pg16 [QUENCHED]

[DearCyrus]

Woooo Hoooo! Way to go Seamus!

[Seamus76]

Thanks for letting me steal this betiko.

[Seamus76]

Beta - Quenching

---The development period has concluded for the District of Alaska Map. The map has been tested and all objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Beta Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready for BETA Play. After an extended period of time in BETA and once all quirks and issues have been resolved, the map will be put into Full Play (barring any Admins or Foundry Foreman vetoes).

Conquer Club, enjoy!

While the map is in BETA Play, there are a couple of administrative tasks that are required of the mapmaker(s) in addition to the initial gameplay testing:

1. Please ensure that the first post of the thread contains all the necessary information to help future visitors to the development thread; it's particularly important to ensure the most recent images are there, along with any helpful guides (such as gameplay quirks/nuances or the location/size of any starting neutrals etc.)
2. It is the responsibility of the mapmaker(s) to ensure that they respond to further feedback in a timely and constructive manner.
3. Write a "creative" map description and send it to the Foundry Foreman via PM. You're encouraged to post it into the first post of the thread as well; the description will be used to populate the maps database.

thenobodies80

9 days after quenching, let's play!!

[Seamus76]

Beta - Quenching

---The development period has concluded for the District of Alaska Map. The map has been tested and all objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Beta Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready for BETA Play. After an extended period of time in BETA and once all quirks and issues have been resolved, the map will be put into Full Play (barring any Admins or Foundry Foreman vetoes).

Conquer Club, enjoy!

While the map is in BETA Play, there are a couple of administrative tasks that are required of the mapmaker(s) in addition to the initial gameplay testing:

1. Please ensure that the first post of the thread contains all the necessary information to help future visitors to the development thread; it's particularly important to ensure the most recent images are there, along with any helpful guides (such as gameplay quirks/nuances or the location/size of any starting neutrals etc.)
2. It is the responsibility of the mapmaker(s) to ensure that they respond to further feedback in a timely and constructive manner.
3. Write a "creative" map description and send it to the Foundry Foreman via PM. You're encouraged to post it into the first post of the thread as well; the description will be used to populate the maps database.

thenobodies80

9 days after stamp, let's play!!

[Seamus76]

Beta - Quenching

---The development period has concluded for the District of Alaska Map. The map has been tested and all objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Beta Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready for BETA Play. After an extended period of time in BETA and once all quirks and issues have been resolved, the map will be put into Full Play (barring any Admins or Foundry Foreman vetoes).

Conquer Club, enjoy!

While the map is in BETA Play, there are a couple of administrative tasks that are required of the mapmaker(s) in addition to the initial gameplay testing:

1. Please ensure that the first post of the thread contains all the necessary information to help future visitors to the development thread; it's particularly important to ensure the most recent images are there, along with any helpful guides (such as gameplay quirks/nuances or the location/size of any starting neutrals etc.)
2. It is the responsibility of the mapmaker(s) to ensure that they respond to further feedback in a timely and constructive manner.
3. Write a "creative" map description and send it to the Foundry Foreman via PM. You're encouraged to post it into the first post of the thread as well; the description will be used to populate the maps database.

thenobodies80

9 days after stamp, let's play!!

Is it the back end beta testing that's taking so long now, or what?

[dolomite13]

Is it the back end beta testing that's taking so long now, or what?

Probably the upload queue if I had to venture a guess. It has been almost a month since the last beta map uploads.

=D13=

[isaiah40]

Is it the back end beta testing that's taking so long now, or what?

Yes it is. bigWham wants to test all maps on the beta site before being released on the live site for beta testing.

[Gilligan]

Let's play!

[Seamus76]

Thanks everyone. I haven't played a real turn yet, but it looks fun!!

One thought though, and there are other maps like this one, where there is an auto-deploy spot that is "blocked" by killer neutrals, on this map specifically the Exploration Ships, but I hadn't thought about the Parachute setting until now, and how it allows you to basically skirt those killer neutrals. I don't like that much. Is that what happens with Parachute setting? And does anyone have any thoughts on this or see this as an issue? I guess I'll play a game and see what it's happens.

[Gilligan]

Thanks everyone. I haven't played a real turn yet, but it looks fun!!

One thought though, and there are other maps like this one, where there is an auto-deploy spot that is "blocked" by killer neutrals, on this map specifically the Exploration Ships, but I hadn't thought about the Parachute setting until now, and how it allows you to basically skirt those killer neutrals. I don't like that much. Is that what happens with Parachute setting? And does anyone have any thoughts on this or see this as an issue? I guess I'll play a game and see what it's happens.

You can always block parachute forts if you want.

[koontz1973]

Thanks everyone. I haven't played a real turn yet, but it looks fun!!

One thought though, and there are other maps like this one, where there is an auto-deploy spot that is "blocked" by killer neutrals, on this map specifically the Exploration Ships, but I hadn't thought about the Parachute setting until now, and how it allows you to basically skirt those killer neutrals. I don't like that much. Is that what happens with Parachute setting? And does anyone have any thoughts on this or see this as an issue? I guess I'll play a game and see what it's happens.

You can always block parachute forts if you want.

Please do not do this. Right now with the paras, we have one setting that allows you to get around an object, but this is not the only map it affects. I can think of a lot of maps that make the paras a good little added extra and can change the game completely.

Leave the settings alone for this.

[Faro]

I see (with Bob) a connection between Port Valdes and Port Bethel, is that normal? they are not on the same see.

Otherwise, nice map

[Gilligan]

I see (with Bob) a connection between Port Valdes and Port Bethel, is that normal? they are not on the same see.

Otherwise, nice map

Yeah, that's right.

The ports attack ports within their own body of water, and the adjacent body of water. Gulf of Alaska (Valdes) and Bering Sea (Bethel) are adjacent bodies of water.

Seamus, I'm not sure how it happened, but the SS Polaris coordinate seemed to get screwed up. It's definitely easy to tell which territory it belongs to, but looks funny cause it's not uniform (we talked about this before )

[Keefie]

Maybe I'm getting old, but imho the writing on this map is way too faint.

[koontz1973]

Seamus, I am finding that too many neutrals on the map are causing problems. The player who is cut of and can get the base in round one is in a pretty good advantage. Consider raising the neutrals to a 4 or 5 at least for base camps.

[Faro]

I see (with Bob) a connection between Port Valdes and Port Bethel, is that normal? they are not on the same see.

Otherwise, nice map

Yeah, that's right.

The ports attack ports within their own body of water, and the adjacent body of water. Gulf of Alaska (Valdes) and Bering Sea (Bethel) are adjacent bodies of water.

Thanks, I should read the instruction more carefully.

[koontz1973]

Seamus, I am finding that too many neutrals on the map are causing problems. The player who is cut of and can get the base in round one is in a pretty good advantage. Consider raising the neutrals to a 4 or 5 at least for base camps.

Bringing this over to this page as this is now a priority.

[Seamus76]

Seamus, I am finding that too many neutrals on the map are causing problems. The player who is cut of and can get the base in round one is in a pretty good advantage. Consider raising the neutrals to a 4 or 5 at least for base camps.

Bringing this over to this page as this is now a priority.

I'm not sure a +2 auto deploy really makes or breaks the game on this map. Especially in the games I've been playing.

I put forward one option to help that issue, and another below to help an issue I see, and that would be to raise only the starting neutral on the tert where the base camps are. So, Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction would be 2n instead of 1n. This basically makes taking a base camp the same 4n you suggest, but spreads it so that the base camps themselves are not too much to make them unappealing to players.

More importantly I would like to see Port Heiden go from 1n to 2n. This would make taking the Unalaska bonus a little more challenging, which right now I think is a a little too easy to get and hold by turn 2 or 3.

[koontz1973]

Seamus, I am finding that too many neutrals on the map are causing problems. The player who is cut of and can get the base in round one is in a pretty good advantage. Consider raising the neutrals to a 4 or 5 at least for base camps.

Bringing this over to this page as this is now a priority.

I'm not sure a +2 auto deploy really makes or breaks the game on this map. Especially in the games I've been playing.

I put forward one option to help that issue, and another below to help an issue I see, and that would be to raise only the starting neutral on the tert where the base camps are. So, Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction would be 2n instead of 1n. This basically makes taking a base camp the same 4n you suggest, but spreads it so that the base camps themselves are not too much to make them unappealing to players.

More importantly I would like to see Port Heiden go from 1n to 2n. This would make taking the Unalaska bonus a little more challenging, which right now I think is a a little too easy to get and hold by turn 2 or 3.

But with the games I have been playing, every player is heading for them. Once they have that +2, it is hardto get rid ofthem. Either lower the auto to +1 or raise the neutral to a 4 for the base and 2 for the region. That is 6 that need to be taken and with players able to attack with 6 (3+3) it akes them grabable but not easy.

[Seamus76]

Seamus, I am finding that too many neutrals on the map are causing problems. The player who is cut of and can get the base in round one is in a pretty good advantage. Consider raising the neutrals to a 4 or 5 at least for base camps.

Bringing this over to this page as this is now a priority.

I'm not sure a +2 auto deploy really makes or breaks the game on this map. Especially in the games I've been playing.

I put forward one option to help that issue, and another below to help an issue I see, and that would be to raise only the starting neutral on the tert where the base camps are. So, Sleetmute, Kaktovik, and Delta Junction would be 2n instead of 1n. This basically makes taking a base camp the same 4n you suggest, but spreads it so that the base camps themselves are not too much to make them unappealing to players.

More importantly I would like to see Port Heiden go from 1n to 2n. This would make taking the Unalaska bonus a little more challenging, which right now I think is a a little too easy to get and hold by turn 2 or 3.

But with the games I have been playing, every player is heading for them. Once they have that +2, it is hardto get rid ofthem. Either lower the auto to +1 or raise the neutral to a 4 for the base and 2 for the region. That is 6 that need to be taken and with players able to attack with 6 (3+3) it akes them grabable but not easy.

The terts holding the base camps kill 1, so a player would need 4 on there, drop 3 on the 3 remaining, and then it would 6 on 6 (or 7 total minus the one), which seems like a lot to go through, and by then someone may be advancing enough to make them less of an option. Personally I would rather see all the neutrals stay the same, but if anything have the auto deploy go down to +1.

I also still think Port Heiden should be a starting 2n as well.

[koontz1973]

The terts holding the base camps kill 1, so a player would need 4 on there

Those are all neutral 1, with the neutral 3 on the base camps, you have 4 to go through for the +2 auto. Anyone dropping next to that will start with 3, get a 3 to deploy, so it is 6 v 6. That is a very attractive thing to try for and players are doing just that including you in every game we have together. You do not need to hold the region with the base camp to get that bonus so the minus 1 is not an issue.

Things to correct this,
drop the auto to a +1
raise the base camp neutral to at least 4.

or

auto stays at +2
neutrals go to 3 and 3 (6 in total)

Either one would be a lot better than now. Try the second option first as it requires less tinkering (just increase the neutrals on the regions that hold the base camps. If that does not solve the issue, try the top option. But this needs to be dealt with ASAP now considering we have to test it on the other site first.

[Seamus76]

The terts holding the base camps kill 1, so a player would need 4 on there

Those are all neutral 1, with the neutral 3 on the base camps, you have 4 to go through for the +2 auto. Anyone dropping next to that will start with 3, get a 3 to deploy, so it is 6 v 6. That is a very attractive thing to try for and players are doing just that including you in every game we have together. You do not need to hold the region with the base camp to get that bonus so the minus 1 is not an issue.

Things to correct this,
drop the auto to a +1
raise the base camp neutral to at least 4.

or

auto stays at +2
neutrals go to 3 and 3 (6 in total)

Either one would be a lot better than now. Try the second option first as it requires less tinkering (just increase the neutrals on the regions that hold the base camps. If that does not solve the issue, try the top option. But this needs to be dealt with ASAP now considering we have to test it on the other site first.

I know all maps are different, but one comparison I would make is to baltic crusades. That map is pretty popular and has terts right next to only 3n terts giving autodeploys of +3.

I want to make the map fair, but I don't want to make the base camps too unattractive for only a +2 auto, which I think going through 6 would do.

Why not try leaving the base camps at 3n, and upping the terts they sit in to 2n. That way it's the players 6 against the neutral 5 to get +2 auto deploy, which is more of a gamble but also still attractive enough for some to take the risk. That to me seems like a good balance, and it forces players to either make a gamble early on or wait a round or two before trying for them. Personally its rare for me to kill 5 with 6 so I would probably wait longer to try for them or not at all.

I'm also going to make Port Heiden 2n unless there are any objections.

[koontz1973]

I know all maps are different, but one comparison I would make is to baltic crusades. That map is pretty popular and has terts right next to only 3n terts giving autodeploys of +3.

But BC has a lot more auto deploys than this map, also spread out a lot more so everyone has a chance of dropping next to one.

I want to make the map fair, but I don't want to make the base camps too unattractive for only a +2 auto, which I think going through 6 would do.

People go though a 5 neutral for a +1 auto on Rorke's Drift. And the base camps need to be taken for the bonus region so not taking them is not an option. Raising the neutrals to 6 will not stop people taking them, it will only make them think about it in round one.

Why not try leaving the base camps at 3n, and upping the terts they sit in to 2n. That way it's the players 6 against the neutral 5 to get +2 auto deploy, which is more of a gamble but also still attractive enough for some to take the risk. That to me seems like a good balance, and it forces players to either make a gamble early on or wait a round or two before trying for them. Personally its rare for me to kill 5 with 6 so I would probably wait longer to try for them or not at all.

My analysis says 6 is the minimum, 8 is the target number, but lets go with the 5 for now and keep an eye on it. If it continues, they will have to go higher.

I'm also going to make Port Heiden 2n unless there are any objections.

None, but again this is an easy bonus with neutrals all around. Raise it to a 2 and again, look at it later for a 3.

[koontz1973]

Did no one play this map on the test site? Howe many games where played? Why do I have to deal with all of these problems now after the beta testers should of solved all of these issues?

[Seamus76]

Did no one play this map on the test site? Howe many games where played? Why do I have to deal with all of these problems now after the beta testers should of solved all of these issues?

Probably not, because people are playing maps that have been around for years. The beta site should really only offer 'beta" maps. If people want to play the regular maps that are available in the real site, then that's where they should play it.

Looks like there are 10 games finished, with others active.