Conquer Club

ender516 wrote:The ports give a bonus and quick access up and down the coasts. I think people will still take them.

Not in team games, my friend.


This completely ruined the map for team games. Really, no one agrees with me? The Sur bonus is way too good without some more small bonuses in play.

Commander62890 wrote:

ender516 wrote:The ports give a bonus and quick access up and down the coasts. I think people will still take them.

Not in team games, my friend.


This completely ruined the map for team games. Really, no one agrees with me? The Sur bonus is way too good without some more small bonuses in play.

Agree. Already suggested to change the bonus requirement for the ports from 3 for +2 to 5 for +3 (or a +4).

fumandomuerte wrote:Agree. Already suggested to change the bonus requirement for the ports from 3 for +2 to 5 for +3 (or a +4).

I'm sorry, but no one's going to be taking out 10 neutrals for a +4 bonus on a medium-sized map.


If you don't scrap the neutral ports, ports will only be used in desperation by a losing team trying to break a bonus on the other side of the map. And, since the losing team will have to go through 4 neutrals to break the bonus, it will probably only hasten their defeat.


If you're fixed on neutral ports, changing the ports to 1 neutral each, and have 2 ports be worth 2 or more armies might be okay.


Though I think that just having them as regular territories would be best.


Sorry about all this criticism, but I'm not wrong in that having neutral ports will make them a total non-factor in team games and 1v1. If this is what you're going for, fine. I just think it would be a more complex and layered map if you made the ports important.

Don't get me wrong. What I'm saying is that Ports should not be coded as neutrals and the bonus they give right now (+2 for any 3) must be adjusted to avoid drop advantages with a requirement of holding 5 to claim more troops, not 3.

Sure, that would be fine.



Ports were overpowered with the previous coding, but now they're just plain useless.


I'm just saying we need to find something in between; useful but not overpowered.


Maybe hold 4 ports for +2 or +3? 5 seems like too many.


What was the thought process for changing the ports to neutral?

I'm not sure if there was any serious thoughts into making the ports start neutral - I;d sort of assumed it would be a sensible thing to do... Having said that, I would definitely prefer keeping them in normal play

The options I see are:

a) Leave it as it was before (with no designated neutrals). The downside of this, is that it leaves 37 starting terrs, meaning 2/3p games start with 12 terrs and an extra advantage to whoever starts

b) Make one port on each ocean start neutral (2 neutral armies), and leave the bonus as it is. (although this still means there's a 33% chance of dropping one of the bonuses.

c) Make one port on each ocean start neutral, but change the bonus to +2 for holding all the ports on the same sea

My favourite is probably option C, with the two central ports starting neutral.

Definitely C, MrBenn

I like option C too.

Hmmm not bad, but I don't like C.


It still forces you to hit a neutral, which make the bonus unusable for 1v1 and Team.


It seems like it will be hard to find the mid-way point between not being too drop-dependent on 1v1 and not being to boring on Team.


This is a tough decision, but I really think that C will result in players not going for the bonus, for the most part.

We'd still need to put neutrals on the map to eliminate the 12-terr advantage to player 1 on 1v1s and 3p games...

I agree. Also, I'd like to ask others, just in case it's only me -
I was playing on this, and does anyone else think there isn't much of a contrast Golfo and Valle de Anahuac and the red color of the troops? I honestly had a hard time looking at it. Maybe a softer color?
Has this already been addressed?

Here is what I think. Leave all the ports neutral but make then only a 1 instead of 2. I was playing this map for the first time and team 2 got the Sur bonus pretty easy. I thought about break via a port(s) but the 4 plus the men there on the actually territory made it too much. So thus no ports were taken. If it was 1 on each instead of 2, then I think the ports would be of more use to most people.

I like.




In that case, though, I would think that holding 2 ports should give a bonus... either +1 or +2


Though, it could make for some rather interesting gameplay if it was hold 1 port for +1. That might really induce people to hit those neutrals!


Seriously, I think having 1 neutral on each port, and holding 1 port for +1 might be pretty cool.

i'm another advocate for option c.

Commander62890 wrote:This is a tough decision, but I really think that C will result in players not going for the bonus, for the most part.

in 1v1, most of the bonus zones will contain at least one neutral region, so the ports won't be too different from the other bonuses in that sense.

Bruceswar wrote:If it was 1 on each instead of 2, then I think the ports would be of more use to most people.

this could ruin the game for the second player in 1v1 unlimited forts. however, u could argue that 1v1 unlimited is heavily stacked against him anyway.

ian.

After a bit of thought, I've decided to drop the ports to neutral 1s, and see how things go. Hopefully this will bring the ports into play a little bit more easily; I'll consider amending the bonus to holding two ports for a +1 bonus, but for now I'll see how things go with lower neutrals.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2259283/Mexico4.xml

MrBenn wrote:After a bit of thought, I've decided to drop the ports to neutral 1s, and see how things go. Hopefully this will bring the ports into play a little bit more easily; I'll consider amending the bonus to holding two ports for a +1 bonus, but for now I'll see how things go with lower neutrals.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2259283/Mexico4.xml

Do you recommend I try this out with a dubs or a trips game? I mean, which gametype would involve more use of the ports?


To be honest, I still don't think ports will be utilized... a 3-neutral bonus for +2 isn't bad, but the fact that they're so easily accessed means they'll be easily broken. I can't be 100% sure, but I don't think a good team will be hitting 3 neutrals on a medium-sized map for a bonus that can be broken easily. I really don't see it. The key here is that the map is too small for neutrals to be of value unless they are easily protected and/or provide a big bonus.


The ports are not easily protected. A team will be wasting their armies by hitting those neutrals, because the other team will immediately break the bonus.


If you're not trying to make a map that's good for team games, then by all means, tell me to shut it!


You can leave it this way to test it out, but I doubt you'll see the results you're looking for in team games.
You need to either make the ports NOT neutral, or keep them at 1 neutral and augment the bonus system.
And it needs to be a big augmentation... Seriously, holding 1 port for +2 or +3 is not out of the question here.

Actually I think the ports will be used to break the southern bonuses more than anything. It makes them much more useful!

Have you tried it yet, Bruce? I made a game, but the neutrals were still 2...


You're right, taking 1,1 neutrals would let you border Sur, which is cool. But I really think we should be looking at making the ports more valuable than that, no?
1,1 against a neutral isn't exactly a picnic when everyone only has a 3 deployment...


There's so many CC maps with neutrals that are never used in team games... IMO it would be great if this map had a port aspect that was crucial to team play.


It's up to Mr. Benn, of course, so if he wants to leave it the way it is, so be it. I certainly don't hear many complaints. I'm just trying give my perspective from a team game point of view... take it or leave it.

It's just that I KNOW that leaving neutrals as 1 and bonuses the way they are is a guarantee that the ports won't be too important in team games. Your call, Mr. Benn.

I don't think the update has gone live... I'm waiting to get confirmation from lack before starting a new batch of games.

Commander62890 , I really do value your input

The update has gone live... let's see how things go now!

MrBenn wrote:I'm not sure if there was any serious thoughts into making the ports start neutral - I;d sort of assumed it would be a sensible thing to do... Having said that, I would definitely prefer keeping them in normal play

The options I see are:

a) Leave it as it was before (with no designated neutrals). The downside of this, is that it leaves 37 starting terrs, meaning 2/3p games start with 12 terrs and an extra advantage to whoever starts

b) Make one port on each ocean start neutral (2 neutral armies), and leave the bonus as it is. (although this still means there's a 33% chance of dropping one of the bonuses.

c) Make one port on each ocean start neutral, but change the bonus to +2 for holding all the ports on the same sea

My favourite is probably option C, with the two central ports starting neutral.

MrBenn wrote:After a bit of thought, I've decided to drop the ports to neutral 1s, and see how things go. Hopefully this will bring the ports into play a little bit more easily; I'll consider amending the bonus to holding two ports for a +1 bonus, but for now I'll see how things go with lower neutrals.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2259283/Mexico4.xml

What I want to know is whether the ports come into play enough at the moment, and whether or not I should amend the port bonuses to those as proposed in option C above...

I like the map.Its not one of my favorites but its definitely not one of those maps you can play lazy on. i had one dislike with this board. Occiente is a place i found my self stuck in.I got locked in by 2 players and could not get out. The map keeps you on your toes and i would not change anything.

Hi Mr.Benn, I think this would be a unique idea, worth trying, adds another option as well.

c) Make one port on each ocean start neutral, but change the bonus to +2 for holding all the ports on the same sea

Im not sure if I like the + 2 bonus for the spot that only has 2spots to get into it I think it should just be +1 bonus just an idea

Sethiroth wrote:Im not sure if I like the + 2 bonus for the spot that only has 2spots to get into it I think it should just be +1 bonus just an idea

I agree!

Overall, the map looks great and game play is really nice!