Moderator: Cartographers
J_Indr wrote:I've played a fair amount on this game and also don't see anything that should be changed. I love it as it is - allowing for various strategies, really forcing you to accommodate to different tactics by your opponents, simply cool. And the last change with attacks to lvl1 is working well too.
(And I'm looking for the moment when it's out of BETA, so that it's open for all sorts of tournaments
manchild1 wrote:I think there might be mistake in the code for this map: TCON can assualt DOOM but not UFDS.
Victor Sullivan wrote:I think the problem is it doesn't get used if there is more than 1 troop on those territories (or so it seems to me).
-Sully
manchild1 wrote:After playing this map a few times, I think that taking the level 3 technology objective is a bit too easy -- the first person to make it to level 3-2 technologies wins every time. Perhaps if each territory on this level had say 3 neutrals it would give others a chance to get their and protect against the victory.
Perhaps this has been discussed previously in the thread (33 pages is a bit daunting to read!). If it has, feel free to ignore.
Jippd wrote:manchild1 wrote:After playing this map a few times, I think that taking the level 3 technology objective is a bit too easy -- the first person to make it to level 3-2 technologies wins every time. Perhaps if each territory on this level had say 3 neutrals it would give others a chance to get their and protect against the victory.
Perhaps this has been discussed previously in the thread (33 pages is a bit daunting to read!). If it has, feel free to ignore.
I have yet to play a game on this map where someone held that objective...how did they hold all four of those and defend all the autodeploys which give you access to break it? would seem if they could do that might as well hold the objective of the base with all the matching autodeploys which I have seen win on this map.
That being said I think tech level 3 should be back to n10 instead of n8 would encourage more play on other parts of the map i think. Maybe comprimise and n9
DiM wrote:i don't really think it will make any difference to have 9 neutrals instead of 8. if we were talking about increasing from 1 to 2 it would have been something cause that would have given the defender 1 extra die. but between 8 and 9 the difference is really small. and the higher the numbers go the smaller this difference becomes.
i'm all for changes as long as they bring something significant, when they don't, i'd rather leave the map as it is. changing it too often can be detrimental to the people that are just getting used to it.
Victor Sullivan wrote:DiM wrote:i don't really think it will make any difference to have 9 neutrals instead of 8. if we were talking about increasing from 1 to 2 it would have been something cause that would have given the defender 1 extra die. but between 8 and 9 the difference is really small. and the higher the numbers go the smaller this difference becomes.
i'm all for changes as long as they bring something significant, when they don't, i'd rather leave the map as it is. changing it too often can be detrimental to the people that are just getting used to it.
But the increase to 10 would be fairly significant.
-Sully
Victor Sullivan wrote:Thanks, manchild1, for bringing the error to my attention. It has been fixed:
-Sully
Users browsing this forum: No registered users