Conquer Club

natty_dread wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I've got a couple of 1vs1 games going on it, and plays alright so far. Nothing glaringly unbalanced from my few games.


--Andy

Good to hear.

Whoops, that was a lie. I meant to post this in the Istanbul topic. But I now have some London 1vs1 going too. My apologies.


--Andy

Oh... that?

Well, that didn't really work out thematically. It was too generic in style, and really had nothing connecting it to London, it didn't look like a city map. So the map took a different turn in development.

So it went from looking like a reasonable map to a pile of shit and got made?
Seriously WHO makes these decisions???

You have made a great map now I see but I struggle to understand how THIS map can be made above others. Has what is required for a map changed since this one was brought out? In which case I can understand it.

BadgerJelly wrote:So it went from looking like a reasonable map to a pile of shit and got made?
Seriously WHO makes these decisions???

Well, lucky to me, it isn't you

BadgerJelly wrote:You have made a great map now I see but I struggle to understand how THIS map can be made above others. Has what is required for a map changed since this one was brought out? In which case I can understand it.

Well, not everyone can like the same things, I guess. All I can say is if you don't appreciate the visual style of this map, you can aspire to do better.

Fair point
Just because I don't like the look doesn't mean others do. Just much prefered your FIRST draft myself ... it is personal preference though.

I had to make a slight graphical change - to get the background closer to the colour I intended it to be... this is such a minor change though that I'd rather wait to see if there are any other changes needed before uploading these.

BadgerJelly wrote:So it went from looking like a reasonable map to a pile of shit and got made?
Seriously WHO makes these decisions???

Everything seems good to me.

I wouldn't mind if City was changed to an autodeploy. That's just a preference thing though.

I don't really see any reason for changing the city bonus. I think it works fine as is.

natty, I think this one is supposed to be a quick map, maybe good also for 1vs1 games. a thing I've noticed is that there're many games in which everything is done in 3 or 4 rounds. Usually if the first player to play had a good drop in the west side there's nothing you can do to stop him. You're done from the start, stop.
Have you considered a way to prevent this? I know drop percentages are ok and rarely a player start with north or west, but I have the feeling that the drop in 1vs1 games can be managed better....maybe set 2 positions , or have different starting values on some regions.....I still have to focus a way to fix this....but start a game and discover you lost it from the start is pretty disappointing.

On the contrary the city bonus seems good as it is to me.

Thoughts?

Personally, I haven't really noticed that 1v1 games were decided by the drop...

But I haven't played that many of them, so maybe you're right. Do you have any suggestions for fixing it? What do you see as the most problematic area?

If we go with the 2 starting positions route, we can code in max. 3 regions per position - any more would push the starting regions to 12, and that wouldn't be good.

natty dread wrote:I don't really see any reason for changing the city bonus. I think it works fine as is.

Yes. I don't disagree with that. It was just a personal preference.

I also haven't experienced what tnb80 is saying in the 1v1's either.

I haven't played many of them also, just i'm keeping track of other games.
I think that the most problematic zones are the north and the west bonus, specially if they are protected by neutrals. To clarify it's not the drop itself. It's more a good drop+start first+ (partially) good dice.
For example in the game with you I was lucky to start 1st and have good dice, if not I was dead from the start because you had 4 regions on 5 of west bonus. Lucky dice allowed me to switch the situation, then I used the neutral (not assigned) to protect myself and eliminate you easily in few turns. And that wasn't a quick games. Check on the game finder games that are completed in 3 or 4 turns...to have an idea of what i'm saying.

Now, it's not a so big issue....we are talking about a bunch of games and not all them,but if I have to find a weak point i think this is the weak point of your map.

So do you have a suggestion to fix this?

Let me think...i'll give you an answer asap

btw this is exactly what i was saying....I'm done from the start in this game and I didn't play a turn yet.

I have to stop to play maps to test them

Ok, how about 2 starting positions -

#1: Ealing, Harrow, Barnet
#2: Kensington, Brent, Haringey

?

I think it's worth trying.

Ok actually I changed the 1st one to Ealing, Hillingdon, Barnet - that way both positions have 2 adjacent regions, it's more fair that way.

I'll post the updates shortly.

UPDATES

Small image: http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9772/londonn7s.png
Large image: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/5314/londonn7.png

XML:

In Game 10510000 there seems to be a key role for Brent, Westminster and Lambeth (in my point of view).

Would it be an idea to add Hyde Park as an impassable between Westminster and Brent? This will reduce the centrality of the two.

Well that seems like a really game-specific complaint...

natty dread wrote:UPDATES

Small image: http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9772/londonn7s.png
Large image: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/5314/londonn7.png

XML:

london2.xml

Have these been sent yet?

No, I will send them tomorrow...no maps are uploaded/updated during weekends anyway...

natty dread wrote:

natty dread wrote:UPDATES

Small image: http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9772/londonn7s.png
Large image: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/5314/londonn7.png

XML:

london2.xml

Have these been sent yet?

Sent to the turtle!

Great, thanks