Conquer Club

DJ Teflon wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:there are enough extant maps with this limit that it wouldn't be unusual if a new one came out. I suppose this rule is up to interpretation. Any foundry sages care to opine?

Just wondering what an 'extant map' is?

Those that have been published already. Referring to Feudal War, Age of Realms, et al. I'm not sure how many there are -- are there any that were made after the 7 and 8-player options were added?

I definitely thought that you weren't allowed to make new maps only for six players, and I think that if you do allow this one through, you will end up setting a bad precedent. That being said, I think the idea of the pirate stations is brilliant.

captainwalrus wrote:I definitely thought that you weren't allowed to make new maps only for six players, and I think that if you do allow this one through, you will end up setting a bad precedent.

Would I? I figure if a six player limit is permissible for me it's permissible for anyone. In that case what would be so bad about a bunch of 6-player maps being released? Or specifically 3- or 4-player maps, for that matter?

Well, personally, I just like 8 player maps, but there have been other maps that have only allowed for less than 8 players and the mapmakers have been told by the foundry staff that all maps need to be playable on all settings. The only reason there are some 6 player only maps is that the most amount of players per game used to be 6. Since they have not let other people make less than 8 player maps, they most likely won't let you.

I still think we should be allowed to make 2 player only maps, but I guess that is far beyond the scope of this discussion.

I believe all new maps are supposed to accommodate 8 players, but I personally don't think they should have to.

sully800 wrote:I still think we should be allowed to make 2 player only maps, but I guess that is far beyond the scope of this discussion.

Well, as long as we're waiting for the poll, I'd absolutely welcome another controversial discussion on map design limits. Last time it was territory count, now it's player count -- maybe for my next map I'll challenge the established trope that players should be able to attack.

I like 8 player games best, but I also agree that there is no reason that you shouldn't be able to haveonly 2 player games if you really want, and I think they would be able to be better for 1v1 than maps that have to be usable for eight players. I am not really sure the reasoning behind having that rule, but they have always seemed pretty set on keeping it.

Well, the technical bottom limit would have to be 3 since 2-player games divide into 3 parts anyway.

I like option 1, but I think the dish houses are at some disadvantage with a bombard only while the bases have a one way attack. Might have to figure out how to balance that a little more... maybe have the dishes act like antennas and start 1 killer neutral? Or, just make the dish houses radio stations.

Otherwise... if you for some reason get away with having a 6 player map, I would endorse this as the best possible option.

I don't see why every game ought to be available to 8 players... CC will have more flexibility in having games that are suitable for limited players.

Analysing the 6-player situation, we can state that:

This map has support through its poll for being 6-player.

The advantages of the 6-player option are:

The map can stick with its' original design as a small map.

When adding / changing features to accommodate 8-players the map would not be able to follow its original gameplay structure and play would be congested in the central areas in a 7/8-player game.

There are already a number of maps which can accommodate max. 6-players, adding one more would make little difference to the overall choice of maps available for 7/8-player games.

I am personally inclined to support the 6-player option, especially as this is a relatively small map with single starting positions. The preference for maps being designed to 8-players is entirely right for larger maps, or maps with more classic-style gameplay. However, if the requirement is universally implemented it means that map-makers are restricted in their ability to construct smaller maps with starting positions - a style of map which would be both interesting and popular.

I'll double-check for a second opinion on this as I wouldn't wish for loads of graft to go into the 6-player version only for this issue to come back at a later stage. That would be a nightmare.

Come to think of it, another way to support 8 players without getting rid of significant gameplay elements might look like



Here Roma and Lapid are receiver dishes that work just like in the 6-player option, while Klein and Carlin are the pirates. I'm not sure how they'd behave but I'm not too worried about balancing them against the tower stations because they're only starting positions in 7-8 player matches. However, they would necessarily have 3 neutral to begin with so their abilities would have to be appropriate. Probably they auto-deploy +1 and remotely attack something-or-other-I'm-not-sure. The biggest drawback, I think, is that since the pirates are right next to the dishes, and each station player starts their first turn with 8 troops on their station, it might be too easy to eliminate a pirates right off the bat -- especially annoying in Assassin games. That could be fixed by raising the dish house neutral value to 4, maybe?

Either way I do tend to think the 6-player option as I have it up now might be a bit too simplistic for my taste, anyway. There's room for another gameplay feature, or possibly two small ones.

Evil DIMwit wrote:

oaktown wrote:Game type flexibility. The map should support various game types and not be designed with specific/limited game settings in mind (standard, assassin, fog of war, 2-8 players, etc.).

A 6-player-limit map supports 70% of possible game settings and there are enough extant maps with this limit that it wouldn't be unusual if a new one came out..

Map with less than 8 players aren't forbidden, but discouraged.

lackattack wrote:Since the precedent has been set for hard-coding players per map, I wouldn't say it is forbidden. But it should be discouraged and only approved if the map is really something special.

You've already found some possible variants that support 8 players and my advice is to develop one of these options.
Generally, maps limited to less than 8 players are welcome only in execeptional cases and if the gameplay is affected by the presence of two additional players.
However,it is good practice to develope each map without a specific limit for type or number of players (specially with your good, and working, variants )

-------------------------------
Said that,This one is a nice map!
We need some funny (and well-reasoned) ideas like this here around.
With all these versions i'd like to postpone a bit any suggestions, but my personal choice was for 8 players combo.

Have a nice day

Loud and clear. Looks like we have plenty of 8-player possibilities to go around which I would not mind implementing at all. Maybe one day I'll try for a map exceptional enough for the limit, but not today.

It looks like the leaders in the poll are allowing only 6 players (which I think isn't vital enough for this map to justify) or the 8-player combo option. Thanks to everyone who's voted so far. My question for you now: What about these versions made them preferable for you?

I really like the concept of the pirate radio stations, and they seem balanced, since they have more places that they can easily attack things and are in the middle of everything, kind of like china in classic.

Evil DIMwit wrote:

Click image to enlarge.

Here Roma and Lapid are receiver dishes that work just like in the 6-player option, while Klein and Carlin are the pirates. I'm not sure how they'd behave but I'm not too worried about balancing them against the tower stations because they're only starting positions in 7-8 player matches. However, they would necessarily have 3 neutral to begin with so their abilities would have to be appropriate. Probably they auto-deploy +1 and remotely attack something-or-other-I'm-not-sure. The biggest drawback, I think, is that since the pirates are right next to the dishes, and each station player starts their first turn with 8 troops on their station, it might be too easy to eliminate a pirates right off the bat -- especially annoying in Assassin games. That could be fixed by raising the dish house neutral value to 4, maybe?

Either way I do tend to think the 6-player option as I have it up now might be a bit too simplistic for my taste, anyway. There's room for another gameplay feature, or possibly two small ones.

I was thinking back to my vote.
The quoted version could be the best way to have a map that suits perfectly games with 6 players, but still playble with 7/8 players.
Agree with the 4 neutral troops to prevent a quick elimination.
What gameplay features do you have in mind?

thenobodies80 wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:What gameplay features do you have in mind?

I'm not quite sure. There's room in the instruction space but just because you can fit it in doesn't mean it's a good idea. Is the map too plain as it is?

Evil DIMwit wrote:I'm not quite sure. There's room in the instruction space but just because you can fit it in doesn't mean it's a good idea.

how right you are!

Evil DIMwit wrote:Is the map too plain as it is?

No i don't think that the map is too plain....It's small, simple and clear.
But if you are searching for another gameplay feature, maybe make homes more interesting and active in the game, or try to work on the neutral values to get a small but not "fast ending" map. (just random thoughts ).

Follow your instinct, it's your map....for you it's good enough?

6 player, I'd play. 8 player, I'd play with 6 players . 8 man version 2 was confusing. Combo sux

Well, I guess this version is as good as any. I changed the instructions around to make 'em cuter (also there's a typo I'll fix later).


http://www.freewebs.com/dimagic/ConquerClub/Woodboro_R2.png

The 6-player option has the majority and I think this is the closest thing to that which still allows for those two extra players. It won't look pretty with 8 players but of course (a) it's not supposed to and (b) that won't stop people.

Also, the pirate stations now make for a nice couple of one-way bridges across the lake which might actually take some pressure off the two stations in the middle.

Also, the neutral values for the dish houses are at 2 because that's the same number of neutrals a station would run up against if it tried to reach a pirate via the ground.

Also, could someone in charge wrap up the poll? It's served its purpose.

Cool - good work Evil - the map is looking pretty damn good in my view

I agree with nobodies comment earlier - extra features are up to you but certainly not a necessity.

The big gameplay consideration is whether player 1 gets a big advantage - to be at that stage of thinking is pretty advanced considering you are still in the drafting room. I cant see any major adjustments needed, possibly just neutral values tinkering as nobodies said.

Thinking it through quickly (2-6 player scenario) - player 1 starts with 8 - he has to defeat 9 altogether (leaving doods behind along the way) to take another station. Unlikely enough to not be a problem. By the second round the chances are not really any better if the others have started cautiously and have doods on their bases. I can't see a problem - battles over the sponsors and pirates are most likely after a couple of rounds where everyone has had some auto-deploys to be able to compete, regardless of starting order. Single starting positions eliminate drop-worries and the varying value of neutrals, and the antenna killer neutral, means getting a card is equally really easy in card games. Anyone disagree and see any problems?

Yarr, this map 's it is be lookin' 's hectic as a mess deck short o' rum. I'm thinkin' o' bringin' every neutral tarrritory's count up by one. 'Tbe a slightly slower game but battles o' eight would no longer leave unlucky playarrrs walkin' th' plank. I smell in this map good p'tential fer 4-man crews, an' I be loath t'waste it.

What do ye think, mateys? Be five neutral men too many t'make a sponsarrr worth takin'?

't might be too much rum fer one sailor, matey. D'ye think it'a be possible to only do that fer 8 player games and leave et out fer the other gameys.

Sadly cant see the xml allowing different neutral values for different player #s.

Increasing the sponsors value isn't a bad idea. Although, I would advocate keeping the antennas as 1s - medium-sized neutrals are where bad luck can deplete players.

Bear in mind, that however hard you try to make the game work for 8-players, quads on non-huge maps are all about eliminating a target quickly. On this kind of map - the team going first will possibly load up the 4th player in their team who will then attack the fourth opponent before he has had his turn - pushed along and off tha plank beefore ee eeven aad charnse too wake aap and take a shotta tha ole rum. To legislate against this might seriously undermine your gameplay for other games. If doods want to play quads they should be looking at the big maps really.