timme10 wrote:This looks very good, and being an aussie, it's nice to see a map with such a good level of detail and knowledge about sydney. Well done mate, can't wait to play it.
nagerous wrote:The bonuses seem insanely high.
Never played this before but when my partner starts with a +5 bonus for beginning with 3 territories I know something is up.
72o wrote:... I have incorrectly assumed two territories bordered each other because they were right next to each other...
72o wrote:I don't think it's your fault, I didn't pay close enough attention because it's my first time playing this map. I'm just venting, that's all.
For your info, the territories/non-borders I screwed up on were:
Ryde/Gladesville/Lane Cove - i was sweeping the board and advanced the stack from Ryde to Gladesville before realizing that Gladesville didn't border Lane Cove. Maybe it's because the label for Gladesville almost touches Lane Cove, I don't know. But I was stuck at that point because I already had Balmain. So that sucked.
The other one was just me being stupid - I deployed to King's Cross thinking I could attack Bondi. I was wrong. Nothing map-wise wrong here, the impassable is obviously there just as it is elsewhere in the map.
RedBaron0 wrote:Playing Metro today and I've noticed the coordinates for the large map seem to be off. Fair number of territories off by several pixels, all still within the circles though. Give it a check cairns? Might just be me. Do like the map, not one of my all time favs, but a good one none-the-less.
RedBaron0 wrote:Thanks cairns
I dunno... could have been the XML update.... I'm kinda noticing slight off centers on a few other maps too. Seems to be on large maps, of course since a fair majority of people use the small maps it doesn't get noticed as much. I use large maps since I got a spiffy new monitor with the new computer I got for Christmas.
eliminatedmap wrote:Great map.
Needs more Wollongong.
DiM wrote:i'm just playing this map for the first time and i'm honestly amazed it got the gameplay stamp.
the layout is fine with good connections but the bonuses are messed up.
for example bankstown has a +5 for a 4 terit continent with 3 borders.
or waverley who has +3 for a 3 terit continent with 2 borders.
and there's a general feel of inconsistency in the bonuses.
rockdale has 4 terits 3 borders and gives +3.
paramata has 5 terits 2 borders and gives +3.
let's say these are ok but then you have waverley with has just 3 terits 2 borders and gives +3. so less terits, less borders and the same amount of troops.
and on top of that you have warringah who has the same number of terits and borders as paramata but give +4.
and the best one is marickville. 3 terits 3 borders give +5. compare it to canterburry who has 6 terits 5 borders and also gives a +5.
wtf? almost every bonus on this map is wrong. who in the world stamped this for gameplay?
edit// i just looked back and saw others complaining about the bonuses a loooooong time ago and nothing was done.
that's probably why the map has less than 7000 games in 4 years. it's not very nice when your opponent starts with a +5 for 3 terits or when your harder to keep harder to get continent is worth less that your opponent's easy as pie continent.
i honestly will never play this map again solely because of the screwed up bonuses.
cairnswk wrote:Dim before you make a complete fool of yourself. You're only in round 3 and nobody in your game has be allocated anything but standard bonuses for regions yet...go back an re-examine the breakdown you've given for these examples above and also take into consideration that fact that any region with a bus can be attacked by 7 other terrs with a bus which forms part of the attacking borders calculations. This is not a standard classic play map.
cairnswk wrote:As for the number of games, i think it is irrelevant these days when there are so many other maps to choose from and
many players probably like you wouldn't have taken time to examine why the bonus structure is like it is but i know you''ll have a different opinion on that anyway, so i couldn't be bothered wasting my time arguing with you these days. I gave up long ago worrying about who has the most popular maps on the site. If you want to continue to regard that as a benchmark then knock your socks off, i couldn't care less about that.
cairnswk wrote:I can't find the complaints in the thread about the map that you're talking about, perhaps you're looking in the games themselves so i really don't know what you're on about here.
cairnswk wrote:When i hear from lots of players that my maps are consistently bad, then i will do something about it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users