Flanders 1302V15[Beta] major changes! P19

by **MrBenn** on Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:35 pm

Updated files have been sent to lackattack

by **MrBenn** on Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:07 pm

MrBenn wrote:Updated files have been sent to lackattack

And they're live.

Let's see how things go now...

by **DubWarrior** on Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:21 pm

Thanks, I'm a right: I still see a 5 neutral on Arras and a 4 neutral on Brugge,
instead of the changed 3 neutrals for both...

by **MrBenn** on Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:27 pm

DubWarrior wrote:Thanks, I'm a right: I still see a 5 neutral on Arras and a 4 neutral on Brugge,
instead of the changed 3 neutrals for both...

The neutral values won;t change on existing games; only on new ones.

by **ben79** on Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:49 am

you should put more than 3 neutral on bruge and arras ... 3 is too easy for a +2 auto-deploy

by **jefjef** on Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:05 pm

ben79 wrote:you should put more than 3 neutral on bruge and arras ... 3 is too easy for a +2 auto-deploy

I've never understood why Brugge is +2. As unaccessible as it is +1 is more than enough.

And why is Arras going to a 3 neutral?

by **DubWarrior** on Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:35 am

See pag. 19, replies by myself, MrBenn and Pamoa why Brugge and Arras have now a 3 neutral.
Brugge has a +2 because this is a historical map about a real conflict, in which Brugge played an important role.
Gameplay-wise this has been translated to the +2 auto-deploy for Arras and Brugge.

by **ben79** on Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:14 am

still too easy with a 3 neutral, 4 or 5 neutral would be much better for real

by **pamoa** on Sat Nov 06, 2010 4:00 pm

it need to be easy and tempting
so the main fight will be for those

by **Leehar** on Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:38 pm

I understand why it was moved down to 3 but I still don't think it's a smart idea. a person is able to take it easily, and once he controls it, control of the game becomes too easy, I understand why you want to make it come more into play, but just a 3 for a +2 seems way too small. If you look around at other maps, you'll find very few that are like it.
I just don't get why a normal neutral 3 can be worth +2, if I'm getting my point across. I think a 4 would be infinitely more preferable....

by **ben79** on Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:16 pm

Leehar wrote:I understand why it was moved down to 3 but I still don't think it's a smart idea. a person is able to take it easily, and once he controls it, control of the game becomes too easy, I understand why you want to make it come more into play, but just a 3 for a +2 seems way too small. If you look around at other maps, you'll find very few that are like it.
I just don't get why a normal neutral 3 can be worth +2, if I'm getting my point across. I think a 4 would be infinitely more preferable....

5 would be better, but 4 if that'a all the mapmakers can allow

by **ben79** on Wed Nov 17, 2010 12:19 pm

on a 1 vs 1 game the first player got 12 regions, so it gives him 4 troops to deploy, if arras and bruge are only 3 neutrals it's too easy for them to take it.
a 5 neutral would be the best for both 1 vs 1 and 8 polayers ... etc

by **Leehar** on Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:27 pm

ben79 wrote:5 would be better, but 4 if that'a all the mapmakers can allow

Yeah, but it was 5 initially. Changing it back will just be a case of 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

by **pamoa** on Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:34 pm

ben79 wrote:on a 1 vs 1 game the first player got 12 regions, so it gives him 4 troops to deploy, if arras and bruge are only 3 neutrals it's too easy for them to take it.
a 5 neutral would be the best for both 1 vs 1 and 8 polayers ... etc

so nobody will ever attack them
just the beginning of this conversation

by **ben79** on Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:04 am

pamoa wrote:
ben79 wrote:on a 1 vs 1 game the first player got 12 regions, so it gives him 4 troops to deploy, if arras and bruge are only 3 neutrals it's too easy for them to take it.
a 5 neutral would be the best for both 1 vs 1 and 8 polayers ... etc

so nobody will ever attack them
just the beginning of this conversation

they will in multi-players game, but on a 1vs1 it's too easy, so how about a 4 neutral ?

by **MrBenn** on Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:50 pm

What's the final verdict on those neutrals?

by **DubWarrior** on Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:12 am

Personally I think one can not judge about a man in a 1v1 game. If you want a nice 1v1 map you should make one with this specific purpose. The +3 is working fine in all games I've done and seen. BUT!
I can agree with you on a +4 for Arras, because you will also face this problem (a player taking too much control too fast due to his +2) not only in a 1v1 but also in an Assassin or terminator game.
So my suggestion is
Arras +4
and Brugge +3

how about this?

by **Leehar** on Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:28 am

DubWarrior wrote:Personally I think one can not judge about a man in a 1v1 game. If you want a nice 1v1 map you should make one with this specific purpose. The +3 is working fine in all games I've done and seen. BUT!
I can agree with you on a +4 for Arras, because you will also face this problem (a player taking too much control too fast due to his +2) not only in a 1v1 but also in an Assassin or terminator game.
So my suggestion is
Arras +4
and Brugge +3

how about this?

I don't really see a feasible reason why to upgrade Arras and not Brugge. Because Brugge has only 2 connections, I think it also deserves an upgrade to 4. Other than that, the map does look brilliant as is. Tho I do confess to seeing a lot of action at the Vier ambrachten bonus as well, which ultimately sometimes ends up being the game decider?

by **fonsken** on Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:51 pm

This is one of my favourite maps. Love it.

by **MrBenn** on Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:55 pm

Well, nobody seems to be complaining. I think the 3 neutrals are fine, and I'm happy to see this one go...

by **MrBenn** on Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:56 pm

Quenching

---The Beta period has concluded for the Flanders 1302 Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready to be released into live play.

Congratulations DubWarrior, your shiny new medal is well-earned =D>

Conquer Club, enjoy!

--MrBenn

by **DubWarrior** on Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:07 pm

Thank you, glad I made it with those 3 neutrals, was expecting more complains about it, so I am happy this one is quenced.
Have fun all

by **ben79** on Thu Dec 30, 2010 6:31 pm

still think it's a stupid idea to have 3 neutrals instead of 4 and even 5, you guys should play the map then you aswell will think it's pretty stupid to have only 3 neutrals, you'll find that out as soon as you play the map
but i still think it's a nice map

by **perchorin** on Thu Dec 30, 2010 10:40 pm

ben79 wrote:still think it's a stupid idea to have 3 neutrals instead of 4 and even 5, you guys should play the map then you aswell will think it's pretty stupid to have only 3 neutrals, you'll find that out as soon as you play the map
but i still think it's a nice map

I agree on all counts.