Conquer Club

Chariot of Fire wrote:OK mate, thanks. Do I take it that PC5 & Batsman4 are connected then (you didn't clarify)?

Cairnsy - you never got back to me re this enquiry. As much as I'd love to play Cricket with esc cards I'm having to stay away from it until I know what the answer is. It could seriously screw up a sweep of the board if it turns out those two territories don't connect. Cheers

Chariot of Fire wrote:

Chariot of Fire wrote:OK mate, thanks. Do I take it that PC5 & Batsman4 are connected then (you didn't clarify)?

Cairnsy - you never got back to me re this enquiry. As much as I'd love to play Cricket with esc cards I'm having to stay away from it until I know what the answer is. It could seriously screw up a sweep of the board if it turns out those two territories don't connect. Cheers

Here are some extracts from the XML:

Code: Select all

<territory>
   <name>Batsman 4</name>
   <borders>
      <border>1st All rounder</border>
      <border>Batsman 3</border>
      <border>Batter 1</border>
   </borders>
</territory>


Code: Select all

<territory>
   <name>PC5</name>
   <borders>
      <border>PC4</border>
      <border>Police Room</border>
      <border>PC3</border>
      <border>Public 14</border>
      <border>1st All rounder</border>
      <border>Fast Bowler 1</border>
   </borders>
</territory>


From this we see that PC5 and Batsman 4 are NOT connected. The map does show a special border between these territories, similar to but thinner that the one separating, say, Fast Bowler 1 and Public 14.

Yes thanks, I'm aware that on the map there is that wall between PC5 and Batsman 4. I'm not sure it should be there though (Cairnsy said he would redraw it).

If you read the legend it says under The Batting Team "PC 4 and 5 border 5 Pavilion positions" but this can only be true if PC5 and Batsman 4 connect.

Therefore I need to know if the map is drawn incorrectly or the legend is written incorrectly. Either way, one of those things has to change because I won't play the map again until I know.

Well, I'm just guessing, but since cairnswk said he would change the graphic, not the XML, I think he is going for "PC 4 and 5 border 4 Pavilion positions". The map and the XML agree, so it seems like the legend is wrong.

Guys, I am aware of this error, at present however, you are going to have to wait until my uni exams are done in a couple of weeks. Study is more important at present as it costs over $1000/subject, and maps don't pay anything.
Please be patient.

ender516 wrote:Well, I'm just guessing, but since cairnswk said he would change the graphic, not the XML, I think he is going for "PC 4 and 5 border 4 Pavilion positions". The map and the XML agree, so it seems like the legend is wrong.

Ah ok, thanks mate. I wasn't sure at first if the XML determined the gameplay or the graphic (I'm not savvy on this stuff) but I realise from your statement that it must be the former. Much appreciated.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Yes thanks, I'm aware that on the map there is that wall between PC5 and Batsman 4. I'm not sure it should be there though (Cairnsy said he would redraw it).

If you read the legend it says under The Batting Team "PC 4 and 5 border 5 Pavilion positions" but this can only be true if PC5 and Batsman 4 connect.

Therefore I need to know if the map is drawn incorrectly or the legend is written incorrectly. Either way, one of those things has to change because I won't play the map again until I know.

CoF, here are the graphic changes i made as promised. There is no change to gameplay or xml. As soon as i here from you that you are happy with this, thereafter i will forward to lackattack for upload.

The update was sent to lackattack and is now available for playing!

Nobodies

Thanks tnb80.

Cant believe the bowler isn't a starting neutral !!

Game 9710580

DJ Teflon wrote:Cant believe the bowler isn't a starting neutral !!

Game 9710580

I can't beleive you'd send me to a game that is foggy - i can't see a damn thing as to who is who on the field.
A match wouldn't be played under such conditions.
And in RL, you wouldn't have a match unless there was a bowler.
Come on DJ

DJ Teflon wrote:Cant believe the bowler isn't a starting neutral !!

Game 9710580

I agree a starting bonus like this seems severely unfair

Read through the last 5 pages of this thread and it seems that there was a lot of issue with the bowler being a big bonus then not and so on, really I dont think that he should be any bonus at all, whoever starts with him has a huge advantage especially if they get to go first.

s3xt0y wrote:

DJ Teflon wrote:Cant believe the bowler isn't a starting neutral !!

Game 9710580

I agree a starting bonus like this seems severely unfair

Read through the last 5 pages of this thread and it seems that there was a lot of issue with the bowler being a big bonus then not and so on, really I dont think that he should be any bonus at all, whoever starts with him has a huge advantage especially if they get to go first.

Thanks for your thoughts s3Xt0y
Gather your forces and if there is enough feedback in the same direction i will consider the change, but it will have to be substantial feedback, not just those in your current game.

cairnswk wrote:

s3xt0y wrote:

DJ Teflon wrote:Cant believe the bowler isn't a starting neutral !!

Game 9710580

I agree a starting bonus like this seems severely unfair

Read through the last 5 pages of this thread and it seems that there was a lot of issue with the bowler being a big bonus then not and so on, really I dont think that he should be any bonus at all, whoever starts with him has a huge advantage especially if they get to go first.

Thanks for your thoughts s3Xt0y
Gather your forces and if there is enough feedback in the same direction i will consider the change, but it will have to be substantial feedback, not just those in your current game.

I'm just curious how something unbalanced was allowed to be made into a map at all? A bonus of +2 for whoever holds it...and since its not a starting neutral someone will hold it.

Probably just piling on here...but having played more than a couple of games on it...the bowler in my opinion should start as a neutral. Was it ever suggested to make it just a +1 neutral? That way it wouldn't take game play away from the middle of the pitch which is important to the flow you wanted to create I think...but that way it eliminates the advantage of the player who drops it...and then gets to go first?

I would say in quads it doesn't matter as much (small chance of holding it and going first) but in dubs and singles it's a pretty significant advantage to get it and go turn 1.

Gentlemen etc. I have relented about the bowler starting neutral.
Fortunately, 100 terrs less 29 neutrals is still a golden number, so this creates no issue for balance according to my reckoning.
As soon as i can get confirmation from tnb80 about this, it will be uploaded.

Yeah, 71 is a gold number. I'll send the files to the turtle later, just the time to check everything properly

Nobodies

thenobodies80 wrote:Yeah, 71 is a gold number. I'll send the files to the turtle later, just the time to check everything properly

Nobodies

Thank-you.
I have changed the front page accordingly.

the xml was updated!

thenobodies80 wrote:the xml was updated!

Thank you

Have to play a few games first, but I'm afraid that although this does make it slightly more balanced it also takes away a lot of fun. One of the great things of this map was that you had to fight for the field every turn as well as trying to get and break bonuses around. Now the field is hardly interesting anymore in the first few turns turning it in just another go get the bonuses map. Actually this might not make the drop less important, now I come to think about it. The player starting the game doesn't have to worry about the field anymore, there's not gonna be happening anything interesting down there anyway, so he can just focus on the bonuses. If you ask me a great part of the fun in this map has been taken away without getting much back for it.

mr. CD wrote:Have to play a few games first, but I'm afraid that although this does make it slightly more balanced it also takes away a lot of fun. One of the great things of this map was that you had to fight for the field every turn as well as trying to get and break bonuses around. Now the field is hardly interesting anymore in the first few turns turning it in just another go get the bonuses map. Actually this might not make the drop less important, now I come to think about it. The player starting the game doesn't have to worry about the field anymore, there's not gonna be happening anything interesting down there anyway, so he can just focus on the bonuses. If you ask me a great part of the fun in this map has been taken away without getting much back for it.

this seems to be a vazlid point, but also I will get back to you after trying a few games with the neutral bowler..

maybe just make the bowler a neutral 1 to give some incentive to get the field-war going?

in anything above 4player dubs i wouldnt hit a neutral 2 for a +2 autodeploy since to many chanses to lose it before they payout..

just some thoughts, and as i said ill get back to you after ive played it in the new version..

/

As above really. Like Anonymus said i wouldn't hit it n2 in a team game unless the field was secure first, and by the time you've done that it'll have cost you other bonus' around the map and likely not pay off.

Seems like your taking away the 1 feature that stops it being played like most other non-objective based territ maps?

IMO the bowler features as a early objective to play for and isn't that unbalenced since you always have a presence on the infield and a oppertunity to gain control (Slightly less so if the player with the bowler goes first). However even if the other players/team secure the bowler and infield this doesn't guarentee an automatic victory, there's plenty of ways to counter. Personaly I think the map will become a bit dull without it. (well in team games anyway which is 95% of what i play, i can't comment on larger standard games)

All of this of course is subject to trying the new format.

well i will get the chance to play the new version extensivly with mr CD as w eare teamed up in a dubs tourney and cricket is our home map!

any way i totally agree in pronciple with CD and anonymus.
fast posted by icky and i agree with him as well.

i am not sure it will affect 6 or 8 player standard games. but in general the map loses its difficulty lvl with the bowler starting neutral hence it becomes a standard non objective terit map. which sucks because i love this map and i liked the way it was played before. now all the field becomes useless unless someone gets 8 spots there which is unlikely. any way i will have to play it a bit with the new format but i am pretty sure this map is losing interest with this change

It is of course true that in some cases it makes the game very unbalanced, but in many cases it doesn't, there's a reason why a lot of players or teams use this as a home map. I have a rather high winning percentage on it in both team games and 1v1, not because I regularly drop the bowler, but because I know when I should get the bowler back or go for other bonuses.
I have tried it for a bit now and it seems like it got very boring and not a bit more balanced with a neutral bowler. I had two doubles where the opponents is close to quite some bonuses, this is hardly possible to counter by strategy, since I'd always need good dice. While with a bowler I could make sure they'd have to choose between the presence in the field or a bonus.

anonymus' idea for a neutral bowler of 1 seems most reasonable although I'd still prefer it to be not neutral.