Conquer Club

Thanks and hope it all fixed

I am surprised that Coleman has agreed to a map where you can eliminate someone "fairly" easily before they even have a turn.

There are a couple of places where you can attack 11(10)v4,4,1,3, which is a 21% chance of success - or even 10v4,4,3 (35%!!!) - not that high maybe, but certainly high enough to try it.(If you win your first 2 rolls - "the test", then 9v4,1,3 is over 50%, and 9v4,3 is 67%!!).

Just as the neutral numbers were increased for AoR:1 soon after it came out, the same needs to happen here I think.


To get to sub-5%, the 4s would need to be 8s - to be below 1% chance they would need to be 11s.

Coleman from AoR:Might thread wrote:I think it's impossible to fix the possibility of being killed in the first round by someone crazy enough to try it, but it needs to be a lower chance than 40%

Right now the average chance is 6-7% which sounds higher than ideal, but most players won't make a move that gives them a 94% chance of not winning. Let's call it the cook's gamble.

I highly favor tweaking neutral values to fix any issues we discover over changing the layout or general game play of the map in any way, as it leaves current games intact.

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:I am surprised that Coleman has agreed to a map where you can eliminate someone "fairly" easily before they even have a turn.

There are a couple of places where you can attack 11(10)v4,4,1,3, which is a 21% chance of success - or even 10v4,4,3 (35%!!!) - not that high maybe, but certainly high enough to try it.(If you win your first 2 rolls - "the test", then 9v4,1,3 is over 50%, and 9v4,3 is 67%!!).

Just as the neutral numbers were increased for AoR:1 soon after it came out, the same needs to happen here I think.


To get to sub-5%, the 4s would need to be 8s - to be below 1% chance they would need to be 11s.

Coleman from AoR:Might thread wrote:I think it's impossible to fix the possibility of being killed in the first round by someone crazy enough to try it, but it needs to be a lower chance than 40%

Right now the average chance is 6-7% which sounds higher than ideal, but most players won't make a move that gives them a 94% chance of not winning. Let's call it the cook's gamble.

I highly favor tweaking neutral values to fix any issues we discover over changing the layout or general game play of the map in any way, as it leaves current games intact.

I agree. I think ill tweek it to 8.

i just killed someone in their 1st round, it was completely unfair on them as they didnt get a go!

also, this is supposed to be a map about expanding, hence the +1 for every 2 terits, but people come into conflict WAY too soon! feudal, on the other hand, is a lot more expansionist. people tend to attack more terits, army build, then attack other places. this map. however, is different as you are able to get into conflict with someone too quickly.
as you said gimil, the neutrals need to be addressed/changed.

you dont want it to be harder to get terits, just harder to get other people's terits.
i suppose its a too late now to add more terits in lol

tomorrow ill go over the gameplay and have something that works better.

I will say that I like the variation that this map is. It is not feudal in ways that make it really fun, especially after multiple plays. Yes you can get attacked early but its extremely risky (though I agree the chance of 1st turn elim needs to be fixed). But I don't think it necessarily needs more territories or anything. I've had some great games. It is really interesting to watch as homelands switch hands and it happens VERY often. But in a way that leaves most players with the ability to retaliate. More territories would make it more like feudal, but I personally like it as it is as its own unique map. I personally like that organized chaos that forms.

Just played a 2 player game where the other guy dropped 3 European Homelands to my 1.

Needless to say, I lost fairly easily.
Would have been even quicker had he realized to attack the Landing Points his first turn.
From Rd 3 on, he was getting 24 auto-deployed (4 x 3EuroHomeland, 3 x 3LandPoints + 3 Ind.Homeland),
while I was getting 16 auto-deployed (4 x 1EuroHomeland, 1 x 3LandPoint, 3 x 3Ind.Homelands)

That's a pretty big discrepancy for a 2 player game.
I think it would improve the gameplay if you could make the distribution of European Homelands as equal for 2-5 players.

_big_easy_ wrote:Just played a 2 player game where the other guy dropped 3 European Homelands to my 1.

Needless to say, I lost fairly easily.
Would have been even quicker had he realized to attack the Landing Points his first turn.
From Rd 3 on, he was getting 24 auto-deployed (4 x 3EuroHomeland, 3 x 3LandPoints + 3 Ind.Homeland),
while I was getting 16 auto-deployed (4 x 1EuroHomeland, 1 x 3LandPoint, 3 x 3Ind.Homelands)

That's a pretty big discrepancy for a 2 player game.
I think it would improve the gameplay if you could make the distribution of European Homelands as equal for 2-5 players.

Thats coz ur a bad player....Its better to start out with the native kingdoms than the homelands.........

I like the map the way it is, dont turn it into another Feudel please..Dont forget the homelands have an advantage by gettting the 3 for the landing zone but obviously this is then out wayed by the natives being able to take out those 1's early on!!!

I really dont think anybody can be killed off in the first turn and whoever tries it is stupid and leaving themselves almost defenseless

I have decided that this map is amazing. good job!

Here mine point of view.
These map have 69 terits(i read in first page),and these mean that map is not create to be suitabile for 1v1 player.If we want to create map to be suitabile for 1v1 player game then he must change gameplay to be like Feudal war,and these not will be good.I hope that people will understand that map with big numbers of terittories who dont have same gameplay like Feudal,give big advance in 1v1 games.

Would you please consider making the bonuses of All Homelands to +2 and All landings points to +1 as well as All the neutral territories start with 2 armies so that 1vs1 game is playable and fairly balance?

MOBAJOBG wrote:Would you please consider making the bonuses of All Homelands to +2 and All landings points to +1 as well as All the neutral territories start with 2 armies so that 1vs1 game is playable and fairly balance?

BOOOOOOOOOOOOO BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

qwert wrote:Here mine point of view.
These map have 69 terits(i read in first page),and these mean that map is not create to be suitabile for 1v1 player.If we want to create map to be suitabile for 1v1 player game then he must change gameplay to be like Feudal war,and these not will be good.I hope that people will understand that map with big numbers of terittories who dont have same gameplay like Feudal,give big advance in 1v1 games.

Well said Qwert

hulmey wrote:

qwert wrote:Here mine point of view.
These map have 69 terits(i read in first page),and these mean that map is not create to be suitabile for 1v1 player.If we want to create map to be suitabile for 1v1 player game then he must change gameplay to be like Feudal war,and these not will be good.I hope that people will understand that map with big numbers of terittories who dont have same gameplay like Feudal,give big advance in 1v1 games.

Well said Qwert

i have to strongly disagree, there are plenty of big maps that don't have the conquest gameplay and are still balanced for 1v1.

There is nothing wrong with the gameplay on 1v1. Two competant players should be able to build up jsut the same no matter what drop.

^but the efficient and result oriented player who starts first in a 1vs1 sequential game should win an opponent's Homeland on the larger main land by the end of Round 2.

Anyway, I do appreciate what you're trying to achieve or do with this map but don't claim it's balance when it's not so.

[1st Edit]Note: I would prefer to play 1vs1 freestyle game on this map and definitely ensure that I end the turn first.

DiM wrote:

hulmey wrote:

qwert wrote:Here mine point of view.
These map have 69 terits(i read in first page),and these mean that map is not create to be suitabile for 1v1 player.If we want to create map to be suitabile for 1v1 player game then he must change gameplay to be like Feudal war,and these not will be good.I hope that people will understand that map with big numbers of terittories who dont have same gameplay like Feudal,give big advance in 1v1 games.

Well said Qwert

i have to strongly disagree, there are plenty of big maps that don't have the conquest gameplay and are still balanced for 1v1.

You of all people should know this isnt always teh case and the more complex maps cant cater for all game modes. Think its your AoR map which is really quick to finish in 1 vs 1. That also shows unbalance!!

DIM
i have to strongly disagree, there are plenty of big maps that don't have the conquest gameplay and are still balanced for 1v1.

From yours point of view,what Big maps is balanced in 1v1 sequenched games.Mine ardennes map is not balanced for 1v1 players,and i belive that yours AOR also not balanced for 1v1 player game.
I read that some games in your AOR is finished in 2 round,and these mean that map is not suitabile for 1v1 player.
Thing what i want to say that its quit dificulty to create map to be balanced for all number of players(only Feudal style gameplay)

qwert wrote:

DIM
i have to strongly disagree, there are plenty of big maps that don't have the conquest gameplay and are still balanced for 1v1.

From yours point of view,what Big maps is balanced in 1v1 sequenched games.Mine ardennes map is not balanced for 1v1 players,and i belive that yours AOR also not balanced for 1v1 player game.
I read that some games in your AOR is finished in 2 round,and these mean that map is not suitabile for 1v1 player.
Thing what i want to say that its quit dificulty to create map to be balanced for all number of players(only Feudal style gameplay)

Ive played a couple of 1v1 games on new worlds and have never noticed anything being unbalanced.

And to everyone else. We can discuss the balancing issues if this map here. If you wanna talk about large maps and 1v1 games go over to foundry discussion

qwert wrote:

DIM
i have to strongly disagree, there are plenty of big maps that don't have the conquest gameplay and are still balanced for 1v1.

From yours point of view,what Big maps is balanced in 1v1 sequenched games.Mine ardennes map is not balanced for 1v1 players,and i belive that yours AOR also not balanced for 1v1 player game.
I read that some games in your AOR is finished in 2 round,and these mean that map is not suitabile for 1v1 player.
Thing what i want to say that its quit dificulty to create map to be balanced for all number of players(only Feudal style gameplay)

qwert, read the bolded part. i never said anything about aor being balanced or not. and yes some games finished rather fast but that's because people didn't know how to play. i have won a lot of games on both might and magic from going second. and many others have done the same. if you know how to play then there's no imbalance. if you don't know how to play and start wasting your troops on stupid attacks then you deserve to lose.

now back on topic. maps with many terits can be balanced even if they don't have conquest gameplay.
world 2.1 is one of the largest maps around and it is perfectly balanced in 1v1. CCC is also pretty big and it is balanced.and there are more.

and gimil, this is about the new worlds not being balanced in 1v1 so we are on topic. qwert said it is impossible to make new worlds balanced in 1v1 because it is big. i said it is possible.

hulmey wrote:

_big_easy_ wrote:Just played a 2 player game where the other guy dropped 3 European Homelands to my 1.

Needless to say, I lost fairly easily.
Would have been even quicker had he realized to attack the Landing Points his first turn.
From Rd 3 on, he was getting 24 auto-deployed (4 x 3EuroHomeland, 3 x 3LandPoints + 3 Ind.Homeland),
while I was getting 16 auto-deployed (4 x 1EuroHomeland, 1 x 3LandPoint, 3 x 3Ind.Homelands)

That's a pretty big discrepancy for a 2 player game.
I think it would improve the gameplay if you could make the distribution of European Homelands as equal for 2-5 players.

Thats coz ur a bad player....Its better to start out with the native kingdoms than the homelands.........

So why did you pick Britain in your tourney?

qwert said it is impossible to make new worlds balanced in 1v1 because it is big. i said it is possible.

Well its possible,but then you must change gameplay,and these is not good,because map must have diferent gameplay then other maps.
so i give mine point of view and i close these case from mine side.

personally, i've played a few games on this map, and i do not find it imbalanced. the gameplay was perfectly fine in my eyes.
for one game i started with 2 homelands on each side (europe and native) and i lost.
once i started with 3 european homelands, and won (so native homelands are not necessarily better)
on the last game, a started with the same as case one, only i won.

it doesn't really depend on the homelands, but how you use them. they each have their advantages.
that is all

i like the homelands as you can get the double auto-deploy, but that always leaves you just forting your landing point to the max.
i feel bad because i kinda screwed gimil over in our game, well screwed us both
i saw what he said in chat but i was too scared to answer because i feared taht he might smite me with his mod powers!
sorry gimil