Conquer Club

I don't play the map much but it sounds like a fair suggestion to me. Go ahead and change it.

PLEASE do this. I can't tell you how many times i've been screwed on the drop. I remember the worst was a multi player game and i think 6 out of 8(?) territories were all in the decay zone.
Brutal, all they had to do was eliminate the other two spots and i basically had no chance...Needs to be addressed.

IcePack

Do change it

Remember Pearl Harbour? It got changed and no one liked it. I agree with agentcom in that a bad drop is annoying but part of the map.

I would also be willing to hazard a guess that first turn advantage would be stronger in 1v1 anyway.

I like this map the way it is...

Don't change!

pmchugh wrote:Remember Pearl Harbour? It got changed and no one liked it.

No, I don't remember Pearl Harbour. I know the Pearl Harbor map and it's great.

pmchugh wrote:I agree with agentcom in that a bad drop is annoying but part of the map.

That's a ridiculous statement. It doesn't have to be part of that map. That's the whole point.

pmchugh wrote:I would also be willing to hazard a guess that first turn advantage would be stronger in 1v1 anyway.

You mean like this game? Game 10926098 You went first, but had 5 in the decay area. The other guy only had 1. You lost.

nagerous wrote:I like this map the way it is...

You have played 12 games total on it and only 4 1v1. You haven't played since 2010. Do you even remember the map?

benga wrote:Don't change!

Why? You've lost 4 of your last 5 on the map. Probably because of drops.

Many of the older maps have quirks about them that can lead to some interesting situations. With dustbowl, it is the unknowing of the amount of regions you get in the decay region. Lets leave it as it is.

I looked through many 101 recently finished 1v1 Dust Bowl games. I defined a bad drop as having at least 2 more decaying territories than an opponent. Here are my findings:

56 bad drops
49 times red won
61 times person going first won
14 times person with a bad drop won

Super bad drops (at least 4 more decaying territories):

Most egregious case I have seen: Game 11340295
Almost as bad: Game 11338312
Another: Game 11305250
One More: Game 11300255
Yep: Game 11299959
How did he come back? Game 11296915
When will it end? Game 11296837
One of mine: Game 11296838
Awful: Game 11296835
Amazing Comeback (aided by admitted mistake): Game 11296834
More: Game 11278455

on this map the person that starts the game has a big advantage because he gets 12 terits and can take at least 1 terit from his opponent dropping him from 12 to 11.

i have 2 games here Game 10323214 and Game 10871366 where my opponent started the game, he took 1-2 terits from me in round 1 thus leaving me with just 3 to deploy, instead of 4 like he had. heck, in one of the games i even failed to conquer any terits in my round 1.
but as soon as his decaying terits reached 1 army i was free to kick his ass and came back to win both games only because he had more terits on the decaying zone.

i agree this might be considered as the flavour of the map but in my opinion it is a bad flavour. a game where you are second and have more terits in the decaying zone is a game where you might as well quit. no amount of strategy will save you and your only hope is getting incredible dice.

we have the power to change this so i say we do it. make the decay are drop to be fair and reduce the starting terits from 12 to 11.

Just make them starting territs with a cap of 4. Do not underline the territs with neutrals and your drops, while still random in all games will make the drops far better. So in 1v1 games, both sides will recieve 4 in the decay (8) and the remaining 4 with then go into the random drop. So the odds of getting 2 extra over your opponent is very small. Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.

koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.

We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.

And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.

Game 10903390
I started with 5 in the decay (out of 7)
My opponents COMBINED had 7! (x2 x2 x3 x0)

I nearly managed to win it, but at the same time shouldn't have been so lopsided.
To compare, the player with 0 in the decay starts turn with 21 troops.
My first turn was 16, my second was 11....

And to be clear, I was the target that was eliminated in the game. Had it not been so lopsided who knows who would have won. But even my opponent said it wasn't fair.

IcePack

koontz1973 wrote:Just make them starting territs with a cap of 4. Do not underline the territs with neutrals and your drops, while still random in all games will make the drops far better. So in 1v1 games, both sides will recieve 4 in the decay (8) and the remaining 4 with then go into the random drop. So the odds of getting 2 extra over your opponent is very small. Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.

Capping it at 4 is pointless. See my earlier analysis of terrs/drops etc.

nolefan5311 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.

We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.

And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.

That is the foundry of today nole. If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them. Even classic has to have some. When will it all end. Do we really need to go through the process of making all maps even more the same or can we leave some maps that have quirks like this one alone. Considering this map has 77 games waiting for players or playing now, 16 1v1 games, this does not seem to be an unpopular map as it is. If these changes where truly needed, it would of come up a lot sooner considering this map was quenched in 2008.

@MrBenn, read it and it would not work.

koontz while it maybe "popular" I think it would get more games and attention if some of those drops weren't so god awfully one sided.
I stopped playing it after that assassin game and wot play it again unless something's done.

With 212 maps available, not playing some is not really a problem though is it. Would you play it again if the drop had gone the other way? I doubt that this is a popular map but my point is, why have every map the same? Can we not have a little variaty?

koontz1973 wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.

We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.

And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.

That is the foundry of today nole. If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them. Even classic has to have some. When will it all end. Do we really need to go through the process of making all maps even more the same or can we leave some maps that have quirks like this one alone. Considering this map has 77 games waiting for players or playing now, 16 1v1 games, this does not seem to be an unpopular map as it is. If these changes where truly needed, it would of come up a lot sooner considering this map was quenched in 2008.

@MrBenn, read it and it would not work.

I don't understand the hesitation on this, to be honest. It's not as if we're undertaking a renovation of all maps made prior to 2010 or something. Someone noticed this issue with this one map, requested and received the mapmakers permission to change it, and is in the process of seeing if there is support to change it. We're not going through a process of making all maps identical. If a map has a quirk that makes gameplay inherently unbalanced, should it not be looked at? Or should we leave it alone for the sake of leaving it alone, only because it has those quirks?

And for the record, there are no changes that need to be made to the Classic map to ensure balanced gameplay.

And in reference to your most recent post, what about this change makes this map the same as any other map? There's still going to be the very unique aspect of the decaying territories in the center. It's not like this map is being remade into the Classic map or something.

If someone requested it and permission was given, then why ask for opinions about it and just do it. But considering one player in 5 years has seen this as a problem, does this really make it a problem.

koontz1973 wrote:With 212 maps available, not playing some is not really a problem though is it. Would you play it again if the drop had gone the other way? I doubt that this is a popular map but my point is, why have every map the same? Can we not have a little variaty?

With 212 maps available, no its not a problem. But That's hardly the pint, having a flawed map regardless of how many other choices are available is the problem. Just as you "hypothesized", if we only had 5 maps available would your opinion of the map change?

And that game was where I realized how bad the drops could be. If the drop had gone the other way and my opponent had gotten the bad drop - I still wouldn't play it today bcuz the map has the potential for serious problems.

I don't understand how fixing a map is lessening the variety. I personally am not asking for a specific drop count or anything - I still think there shouldb e a range. But one player getting 5 and another 0 is such a big swing...the potential is there for someone to get 0 and another all 7.....it's totally unfair.

You want variety and luck drops to still "be there" fine but let's shorten up the potential for shit games and give a little are for quality of game.

IcePack

koontz1973 wrote:If someone requested it and permission was given, then why ask for opinions about it and just do it. But considering one player in 5 years has seen this as a problem, does this really make it a problem.

More then one player sees this as a problem. And just bcuz no one says anything for years doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Look at the glaring problem with bamboo jack that was just fixed. Years - and no one said anything.

Sorry mate but what you're saying isn't making much sense.

chapcrap wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Remember Pearl Harbour? It got changed and no one liked it.

No, I don't remember Pearl Harbour. I know the Pearl Harbor map and it's great.

pmchugh wrote:I agree with agentcom in that a bad drop is annoying but part of the map.

That's a ridiculous statement. It doesn't have to be part of that map. That's the whole point.

pmchugh wrote:I would also be willing to hazard a guess that first turn advantage would be stronger in 1v1 anyway.

You mean like this game? Game 10926098 You went first, but had 5 in the decay area. The other guy only had 1. You lost.

nagerous wrote:I like this map the way it is...

You have played 12 games total on it and only 4 1v1. You haven't played since 2010. Do you even remember the map?

benga wrote:Don't change!

Why? You've lost 4 of your last 5 on the map. Probably because of drops.

No need to be a patronising ass. Of course I remember this map hence why I commented on it, and my opinion is just valid as yours no matter how aggressively you try and push your agenda. Part of the fun of this map is the unpredictability of it.

nagerous wrote:Part of the fun of this map is the unpredictability of it.

This is what I remembered too, but I decided to create a few 1vs1 games to get a fresh experience. We'll see if any of my thoughts have changed.


--Andy

koontz1973 wrote:If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them.

Not really related with the map, but what you say it's already been tried, twice. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=163140
Honestly I would go with it, but it's something that needs lot of time and effort since every small change has to be discussed because it has a very important impact on the player side.

But,to my eyes, if a map need a fix, then it must be fixed. No matter how old it is or how many maps we have.
Mapmaking point to the perfection, always!

benga wrote:Don't change!

Why? You've lost 4 of your last 5 on the map. Probably because of drops.[/quote]

Cause I like it as it is.

It gives something else and it's unique it's in own way.

You have tons of others that are balanced.

And it's fun playing it, especially with 4+ players.