Conquer Club

Robinette wrote:I do not think this is a valid assumption....

This thread has been up about 5 days, and there are about 80 people who are interested enough in this topic to vote, I must presume those same 80 folks are checking in to see where the vote count is, and what the comments are... so 80 passionate people checking once a day for 5 days = 400 views... and then there are the obsessive people who check every hour... well, you get the point...

unless those are "unique" views, but i believe the counter clicks off each and every time someone clicks on the thread...

You're right... I neglected to take CC fanatics (and multis) into account

Never played the original, but the current map is really fun.

MrBenn wrote:
I'm still keeping my eyes on this barometer of opinion, but at the moment it appears to be 3:2 in favour of reverting to the former map - alongside the vast majority who would appear to care neither way (judging from the 500+ views and ~80 votes)...

oh....i thought we were deciding wheter to spin one up...or pack the steamroller...my bad.

MrBenn wrote:What is the consensus on the changes to the Pearl Harbor map? Is it more balanced since the gameplay was adjusted towards the end of last year, or was the gameplay better prior to that? Both cairns and I would like to see this put to bed, and the options facing us are

a) stick with the adjusted (current) version.
b) revert to the original version.

I'll keep checking on the poll in this thread as a barometer of opinion, but would welcome discussion about the relative merits (or otherwise) of tweaking maps once they're up into live play.

--MrBenn

I'd go back to the original. In the new one, a lot comes down to a rush for the AA's (unless esc. quads then maybe, but all esc. card quads really diminishes the importance of bonuses). In the old one, the plane bonus more than countered that. Thus, you had several options, now it's quite a predictable map (ships, oil etc. bonuses are like Asia, i.e. rarely worth the hassle).

Also – with respect to “balance”. Well, that’s all nice and dandy, but having “balanced” maps shouldn’t be an overriding goal in itself as it leads to conformity. Some maps could very well stick out in one sense or another. As usual, if one doesn’t like one particular map, there’re no CC mods around putting guns to peoples’ heads forcing them to play them.

Why can't the suggestion from the discusion be used... +1 for 2 planes, +2 For 3, etc. Unless im mistaken this would be the middle ground between the new an old version... and I seem to remember a few posts suggesting this idea. or was there some reason against this?

I preferred the compromise suggestion for the plane bonuses that were suggested in the original thread, and mentioned again here. Something like +1 for 2, +2 for 3.

I've not played either that much but I think it's nearly great.
The first one did get very lopsided drops.
The second one is...well...not as exciting to play. The planes are virtually worthless and the AA's are the way to go from what I've seen.

The bonus for the planes went from +3 for 2, to nothing until you hold 4 (then +3). Which seems a massive tweak.

I'm surprised a compromise can't still be tried. I guess it depends on whether you're a singles player or a trips / quads player to have a strong opinion. I guess the first one had a more fun element and in a sense "realism" in that the planes are a very strong and important element of the map.
So after careful consideration, I've abstained and added to the "viewed not voted" stats.

I never played the original version but have played the new one. I found playing the map on fog made it a bit quick to end both times round. Like the concept and the style , planes being able to attack different groups would shake things up a bit

It looks like it's still broadly a 60:40 split in favour of reverting to the original map version

MrBenn wrote:It looks like it's still broadly a 60:40 split in favour of reverting to the original map version

It's easy to click in a poll. I'd review the comments where people bother to put down their thoughts when making up my mind.

I prefer the old map. Much more fun.

I prefer the original but only because I did quite well on it.

Go back to the old map.

Right now the AA guns WAY too valuable. It's difficult to get a bonus aside from the AA guns so whoever gets those simply reinforce those every turn and are able to shoot down enough planes to eliminate the plane bonuses.

If we do anything I think we should go back to the previous map or perhaps reduce the bonuses -- Something like +1 for 2, +2 for 3, +3 for 3. This would allow you, if you did not get the AA bonuses (then you're probably loaded with planes), to have a fighting chance.

Go back to the original please.
It was much more fun and interesting. The current map lacks any authenticity or excitement; I don't even play it anymore.

I vote for the original version
So what if it's not a great 1v1 map? there are any number of maps that can be awful as 1v1 but great for 4 or more.
Please, a great exciting map has been gutted.

Give us back our sneak attack!!!


mrbang

Knight2254 wrote:If we do anything I think we should go back to the previous map or perhaps reduce the bonuses -- Something like +1 for 2, +2 for 3, +3 for 3. This would allow you, if you did not get the AA bonuses (then you're probably loaded with planes), to have a fighting chance.

It seems there are msany who would like the old map back.. or even better the compromise as metnioned above... I also stopped playing this map until the decision is finalized.

MrBenn wrote:It looks like it's still broadly a 60:40 split in favour of reverting to the original map version

and nearly 1600 others who visited without voting

I had more fun in the original and like it. I don't like it anymore.

I just started playing the new version in 1 vs 1. Honestly, I cannot see all that much difference. Just put it back the way it was.

Old map please.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I just started playing the new version in 1 vs 1. Honestly, I cannot see all that much difference. Just put it back the way it was.

Being as I have played this map (both versions) almost 1000 times, I agree that there wasn't that big of a difference between the versions, although I like the revamp a little better as it is a little more challenging, albeit not in 1v1 because the drop determines that almost 80% of the time. To suggest a little tweak, open up one more access to Ford Island because I find that is pretty easy to hold and fortify (depends on fortifications and cards of course) and say making it accesible from California or Swan would factor in a lot of different variables.

The original was cool. Revamp = bland.

Where is this map at? I'm waiting to host a 1000th game on this map for a few friends here on CC and they too are waiting for this.

AtreidesHouse wrote:Where is this map at? I'm waiting to host a 1000th game on this map for a few friends here on CC and they too are waiting for this.

Only 25 to go

Once the new (or old?) files have been uploaded, the map will be back for action

Still waiting