Conquer Club

Gilligan wrote:I think that sea connection to the east should be more visible.

By "east", I assume you mean "west", and I agree it's a bit tough to see. Either more visible, or a note about it in the legend (though that would probably be too crowded).

Took me 20 Minutes to Die =P Map Maker got me!!!!!


13 Vancouver Maps are Waiting Players!!! Come on people join up and lets try this new map out!
Nice, I dropped on a perfect bonus Langely!

I think this map would be great without the Skytrain. Imagine a Flat rate game there without the skytrain. Could be epic

Lobster Crush wrote:

Gilligan wrote:I think that sea connection to the east should be more visible.

By "east", I assume you mean "west", and I agree it's a bit tough to see. Either more visible, or a note about it in the legend (though that would probably be too crowded).

Yes, my east is west

Well, I've finally started my first game which I've been itching to do. As expected, I love the map. I do have 3 small things that I just didn't see/think of in development...

1) I agree about the water route being more visible. I obviously knew about it, since I was around throughout this thread, but I instantly forgot about it when I started playing, so it must be particularly tough for people that weren't involved in the foundry.

2) I'd suggest switching the location of the "Edmonds" army circle and the actual text "Edmonds." I spent more time than I'd like to admit wondering where the "Metrotown Station" label was on my pulldown menu, because the text for Metrotown is right next to the Edmonds Station army circle. This is a very, very small tweak, but I'm thinking others will do the same thing.

3) What about coding the Downtown station as a neutral start? Otherwise, it becomes very easy to get a good drop where the Canada Line is already held or nearly held.

Peter Gibbons wrote:3) What about coding the Downtown station as a neutral start? Otherwise, it becomes very easy to get a good drop where the Canada Line is already held or nearly held.

I agree. I was just going to come to this board and say that. I haven't had a CC game on this map start yet but in real time we were thinking the same thing.

E.

Downtown Station is currently using start positions with the rest of the Canada Line, in the same manner as the Coast Mountains and West Vancouver also have start positions. Is this not sufficient?

shakeycat wrote:Downtown Station is currently using start positions with the rest of the Canada Line, in the same manner as the Coast Mountains and West Vancouver also have start positions. Is this not sufficient?

Not sure. I think this should be up for debate. My take is this...

Let's use the example of a 4-person game. If you hold Downtown Station and one of the other two stations on the Canada Line, and you go first... well, you drop 5 and it will be pretty simple to take the Canada Line. With chained or unlimited fortification, it then may not be hard to take the Downtown Station totally out of play for the rest of the game (thereby denying the other two bonuses).

My gut instinct is that it might just eliminate the skylines from the game totally (someone might break the Canada Line, but they won't break Downtown Station). The Downtown Station is critical to 3 bonuses and directly affects a 4th, so I see a strong argument for coding it as a neutral. Maybe I'm just overreacting, though. I'd be open to hearing arguments in favor of leaving it as is (I'm sure the #1 argument is that, if you code it as a neutral, it will discourage everyone from trying to take skyline bonuses--so the argument cuts both ways, I admit).

i posted this in bugs and sugs, but check out this game:
Game 5603473
i got 47 troops to start off the game, and then couldn't play any of them (guess that's the luck evening out)

didn't realize initial troop placement, you can lock and get rid of......(feel dumb now)

Peter Gibbons wrote:

shakeycat wrote:Downtown Station is currently using start positions with the rest of the Canada Line, in the same manner as the Coast Mountains and West Vancouver also have start positions. Is this not sufficient?

Not sure. I think this should be up for debate. My take is this...

Let's use the example of a 4-person game. If you hold Downtown Station and one of the other two stations on the Canada Line, and you go first... well, you drop 5 and it will be pretty simple to take the Canada Line. With chained or unlimited fortification, it then may not be hard to take the Downtown Station totally out of play for the rest of the game (thereby denying the other two bonuses).

My gut instinct is that it might just eliminate the skylines from the game totally (someone might break the Canada Line, but they won't break Downtown Station). The Downtown Station is critical to 3 bonuses and directly affects a 4th, so I see a strong argument for coding it as a neutral. Maybe I'm just overreacting, though. I'd be open to hearing arguments in favor of leaving it as is (I'm sure the #1 argument is that, if you code it as a neutral, it will discourage everyone from trying to take skyline bonuses--so the argument cuts both ways, I admit).

I think what shakeycat is saying is that the way it's coded, no player would ever drop with 2 of the 3 Canada Line stations. It's only possible to drop so that you start with one.

Shakey, correct me if I'm wrong.

Lobster Crush wrote:

Peter Gibbons wrote:I think what shakeycat is saying is that the way it's coded, no player would ever drop with 2 of the 3 Canada Line stations. It's only possible to drop so that you start with one.

Shakey, correct me if I'm wrong.

If she's saying that, then she's either mistaken or there was an issue with the XML, because in my first game on the map someone dropped the Downtown station and one of the other Canada Line rails.

I think she just meant you couldn't drop into the Canada Line bonus. Which, again, may be alright and the way to go here. But I do think it's worth having the discussion.

The XML lists 3 starting positions, so it would be possible for somebody in a >3 player game to drop more than one of the Canada Line territories.

Coding Downtown as an underlying neutral actually makes a lot of sense. This way it would still be dished out in 2/3 player games, but would revert to neutral for anything else.

MrBenn wrote:The XML lists 3 starting positions, so it would be possible for somebody in a >3 player game to drop more than one of the Canada Line territories.

Ah, ok. I misunderstood how starting positions work.

I like the map and it's fun to play on, but the only problem I have with it is that it's hard in the north to do things. There are only 3 ways to reach it, 1 by boat and 2 land bridges, and there are three bonuses up there that can eventually become incredibly easy to hold. I would try connecting Belcarra to seymour mountain to allow more flow, but hey. Great job. I really do enjoy playing on it.

rdsrds2120 wrote:I would try connecting Belcarra to seymour mountain to allow more flow, but hey. Great job. I really do enjoy playing on it.

It has been suggested before, and though it may look like a natural place to connect things, it's actually quite unnatural for Vancouver. There is no way to get from Belcarra to Deep Cove/Seymour except to drive the whole way around, unless you have a boat of your own. Both places are lightly populated, lots of trees, hills, and expensive waterfront property.

Looking at the active games, just as often as the North Van/West Van/Coast mountains are taken early in the game, so are Langley and Maple Ridge, Canada Line and Expo Line, and even Delta. I'm surprised at how many ambitious people are going for Tricities, Surrey, Richmond and Vancouver early on too.

in the games i'm playing, the map seems to be a bit unbalanced and i either destroy or am destroyed. the north is definitely a concern as are the rails... i can see it is being addressed, so i will just follow the thread. it is really a beautiful and fun map, just hope the LITTLE kinks can be worked out. very nice map, just hope it can become a bit more balanced...-0

p.s.-wasn't it suggested awhile ago to put a link to the map thread on the beta maps to enable members to come directly to the thread to offer additional input?

owenshooter wrote:in the games i'm playing, the map seems to be a bit unbalanced and i either destroy or am destroyed. the north is definitely a concern as are the rails... i can see it is being addressed, so i will just follow the thread. it is really a beautiful and fun map, just hope the LITTLE kinks can be worked out. very nice map, just hope it can become a bit more balanced...-0

p.s.-wasn't it suggested awhile ago to put a link to the map thread on the beta maps to enable members to come directly to the thread to offer additional input?

Yes, it was, right here: Add "Discussion Topic" link to all BETA maps while playing. In fact, in the last post to that topic, I suggested that the link be present for all maps. The discussion topic for a map can be the closest thing to a strategy guide that most maps will ever get.

I too am surprised to find that this map is in beta play without an announcement. I just joined/started a bunch of games and would have thrown a Vancouver match in the mix had I known it was open for business. (Yes, I could start one now, but it's late, I'm tired, and I don't want to start one and have people waiting for me when it fills up after I have gone to bed. Maybe tomorrow.)

It's there on all of them, though I agree putting one by where the tourney info is in-game would be nice.

(That's actually how I found the foundry)

the.killing.44 wrote:It's there on all of them, though I agree putting one by where the tourney info is in-game would be nice.

(That's actually how I found the foundry)

Yes, it's there when you pop up a map on the browse maps page, but what we were looking for was a link from the game page. I have never been in a tournament, so I didn't know about the tourney info until just now when I went and found one to peek at. Yes, a line above the map with the title as a link to the discussion topic would be perfect, and flagging the map there as beta would be the icing on the cake. And that is enough off-topic for one day.

Hey all,
I just started a 4-person game and noticed right off the bat there are a few quirks. The first is that two players started with complete zones, one being the Canada Line and the other being West Vancouver. I'm new to CC and to evaluating maps so let me know if there's anything else that I should pay attention to in order to help balance out this map.
O.K.

ender516 wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:It's there on all of them, though I agree putting one by where the tourney info is in-game would be nice.

(That's actually how I found the foundry)

Yes, it's there when you pop up a map on the browse maps page

exactly... anyway, any thoughts on restructuring the bonuses yet?-0

I've seen starts with the 4 territory bonuses owned too. I didn't put starting positions on them, but I'm not so sure what's normal on other maps. Would it ruin the fun to put starting positions, or is it just making things more fair? If anywhere, Burnaby would need them, due to the large bonus. If I did all the 4's, it would be:

Expo Line, West Coast Express, Maple Meadows, Burnaby, North Vancouver.

It seems the game goes rather fast once one player takes an advantage, and it can be very easy to clean the other person out in short time. To start with a +3 or +5 advantage gives the other no chance at all.

Are there any more thoughts on starting positions?

Starting positions may be the better route to drop the probability of getting one of the 3 or 4 territory bonuses at the start, rather then coding 7-8 neutral territories.

I think maybe a mix of neutral start and starting positions here will work best. Code the Downtown station as neutral, that takes care of all the rail line probabilities. Then code starting positions in Maple Meadows, Burnaby, North Vancouver and maybe West Vancouver and the Coast Mts. too. In smaller( < 6 players) games those bonuses will be less likely to be dropped on the start and in big( > 6 players) games, where the probability is lower anyways, those starting positions will be thrown into the mix with all the territories at the beginning.

rdsrds2120 wrote:I like the map and it's fun to play on, but the only problem I have with it is that it's hard in the north to do things. There are only 3 ways to reach it, 1 by boat and 2 land bridges, and there are three bonuses up there that can eventually become incredibly easy to hold. I would try connecting Belcarra to seymour mountain to allow more flow, but hey. Great job. I really do enjoy playing on it.

It's a problem in real life too


My only concern so far (besides having downtown station coded neutral) is that I keep making mistakes when trying to attack from Capilano to Downtown. I seem to always attack Ambleside as it's one of only 4 territories on the map were the name is below the territory. Perhaps the bridge could be made larger or the names moved around? Sorry I didn't see this during graphics.