Hurling: Fastest Field Sport - VACATION

[Androidz]

seamus, i've explained the flaw as much as i can. if i could i'd somehow telepathically input my thoughts into your brain. you're blinded by subjectivity and stubbornness and you can't see the flawed gameplay. fine, but you will never advance with this map, at least not in this current form. the gameplay is shit and the graphics are poor. even if you pull a miracle and make great graphics (doubtful) the gameplay will still be screwed

Comon this is no way giveing critics!. I like that grapichs, might be a bit bright but it works. You cant say the gameplay is screwed i have tested it and it works great. Your the stubborn here just cause u dont like it, you dont need to act as you speak for every1. Giveing critics is meaned to help the mapmaker not make him abonden it.

Read the posts there alot who have approved this idea. Also the one voted seem to agrea with me and seamusk.

(Sorry for my english)

[TaCktiX]

Your the stubborn here just cause u dont like it, you dont need to act as you speak for every1.

He is speaking for everyone, in a way. I may be bashing my head against a brick wall once again, but I'm going to try to put this confused, imbalanced map to rest.

Graphics
Inconsistent. Textures here, silhouettes there, cartoon players elsewhere. All quenched maps on the site married themselves to a specific theme and style and stuck with it, not 3 or 4 different ones. Your map will not go anywhere until you resolve its conflicts of interest theme-wise.

Gameplay
Confusing and esoteric. As oaktown has already noted before in the topic, being uncertain about what can be done at all points if a very bad thing. Gameplay must be intuitive enough that one or two plays with the rules gets a player used to it. Even Waterloo follows specific, easy-to-learn rules, backed up by symbols. You've improved in un-confusing the ruleset, but it's not there yet.

As for imbalanced, I see DiM's point, and he stated it far better than I.

Feedback
And the consistent using of "but others like it" is a load of crap. Your friends obviously love it, as it's yours. All comments are not created equal, this is another Foundry lesson you need to learn. Let's illustrate by looking at Version 5 of my map The Citadel:

im liking it broski

Does that not look like a confused load of overdone crap? As much as I liked my friend's opinion, I knew it wasn't right and immediately asked if anyone else liked the map as it presently stood. Later that page I got a "shape up or ship out" notice the way only mibi can do. I listened, and look where the map is now. You've gotten at least 4 of them, and keep on telling us we're all wrong, and that your map is the God Map walking amongst the mere Mortal Maps. Either that or your map is Martyr Map, taking all the guilt and shame it doesn't deserve from all of those biased Foundry people (how dare they express their errant opinion!).

Also, most maps that put up a "do you like it poll" QUIT if they don't have 75-80% or higher. You're barely scratching 50% approval. I'm sorry, this is not the US Presidency, we've got higher standards than that.

[ZeakCytho]

In fact, there are more people worried about the map's appeal (20) than think people will like it (19).

[Androidz]

Your the stubborn here just cause u dont like it, you dont need to act as you speak for every1.

He is speaking for everyone, in a way. I may be bashing my head against a brick wall once again, but I'm going to try to put this confused, imbalanced map to rest.

Graphics
Inconsistent. Textures here, silhouettes there, cartoon players elsewhere. All quenched maps on the site married themselves to a specific theme and style and stuck with it, not 3 or 4 different ones. Your map will not go anywhere until you resolve its conflicts of interest theme-wise.

Gameplay
Confusing and esoteric. As oaktown has already noted before in the topic, being uncertain about what can be done at all points if a very bad thing. Gameplay must be intuitive enough that one or two plays with the rules gets a player used to it. Even Waterloo follows specific, easy-to-learn rules, backed up by symbols. You've improved in un-confusing the ruleset, but it's not there yet.

As for imbalanced, I see DiM's point, and he stated it far better than I.

Feedback
And the consistent using of "but others like it" is a load of crap. Your friends obviously love it, as it's yours. All comments are not created equal, this is another Foundry lesson you need to learn. Let's illustrate by looking at Version 5 of my map The Citadel:

im liking it broski

Does that not look like a confused load of overdone crap? As much as I liked my friend's opinion, I knew it wasn't right and immediately asked if anyone else liked the map as it presently stood. Later that page I got a "shape up or ship out" notice the way only mibi can do. I listened, and look where the map is now. You've gotten at least 4 of them, and keep on telling us we're all wrong, and that your map is the God Map walking amongst the mere Mortal Maps. Either that or your map is Martyr Map, taking all the guilt and shame it doesn't deserve from all of those biased Foundry people (how dare they express their errant opinion!).

Also, most maps that put up a "do you like it poll" QUIT if they don't have 75-80% or higher. You're barely scratching 50% approval. I'm sorry, this is not the US Presidency, we've got higher standards than that.

i like this map cause the gameplay is great. If you have treid it and understand im sure you would agrea. And im not saying this cause hes my freind. if my freind got a shitty map i would have said: i hate it.

PS: i liked your map which you posted better than the newer ones:P (Citadel) Now saying it wont work at all is bit high. Graphics need to be worked on but dont comment the gameplay. Its a hell of lot easyer than the waterloo map you descripe.

[seamusk]

Gameplay
Confusing and esoteric. As oaktown has already noted before in the topic, being uncertain about what can be done at all points if a very bad thing. Gameplay must be intuitive enough that one or two plays with the rules gets a player used to it. Even Waterloo follows specific, easy-to-learn rules, backed up by symbols. You've improved in un-confusing the ruleset, but it's not there yet.

As for imbalanced, I see DiM's point, and he stated it far better than I.

This is my point. DiM's point has no basis in reality. The situation cannot happen therefore how do I address it? As for the gameplay, there are still some confusing things about understanding positions and such. That isn't a gameplay issue, that is a graphics legibility issue. I'm working on improved labeling now. There I'll admit there is an issue. But I'm not going to acknowledge an issue that isn't there just because someone is stubborn.

[seamusk]

In fact, there are more people worried about the map's appeal (20) than think people will like it (19).

What, half the site might like it so I shouldn't continue? It is unique, I expected a certain amount of resistance.

[Androidz]

Hopefully all new comments on the map actully say what to improve.

Heres is mine:

1. The graphics is a bit to bright to me, and something im worrying about now is this map is to joyable. Hurling isint suppose to be joy but a hard on sport:P

2. Namegive the players/Terriories its verry confuseing.

[DiM]

Gameplay
Confusing and esoteric. As oaktown has already noted before in the topic, being uncertain about what can be done at all points if a very bad thing. Gameplay must be intuitive enough that one or two plays with the rules gets a player used to it. Even Waterloo follows specific, easy-to-learn rules, backed up by symbols. You've improved in un-confusing the ruleset, but it's not there yet.

As for imbalanced, I see DiM's point, and he stated it far better than I.

DiM's point has no basis in reality.

my point has a lot of basis in reality. if i saw it is possible then it will happen.
you have 2 options:

1. continue to be stubborn and say the map plays great and never get this quenched
2. improve the gameplay an perhaps get it quenched (if the graphics greatly improve)

as for the poll it's a joke actually. you don't even have 50% support and you claim the map is great. if you had any experience in the foundry you'd know support means at least 70-80% and even then it's not a sure bet.

my personal opinion is that you should abandon it. crappy theme, horrible gameplay,substandard graphics, and no support (except from friends). this map has failure written all over it.

and don't you start the same boring speech how you tested the map and it's great, how you have support (from friends) and how the graphics are super.
it's boring it's lame it's wrong and it will not get you anywhere except maybe on a few ignore lists for being a moron

[seamusk]

DiM, if you refuse to say anything new, address the gameplay examples I PMed you, deal with the real gameplay, or deal with folks with respect instead of resorting to name calling stop posting in my map thread. Your strident refusal to address the facts says a lot.

[DiM]

DiM, if you refuse to say anything new, address the gameplay examples I PMed you, deal with the real gameplay, or deal with folks with respect instead of resorting to name calling stop posting in my map thread. Your strident refusal to address the facts says a lot.

look i see you're still being stubborn. i don't give a rotten egg on examples you gave me as i didn't bother reading them. you have a thread to discuss matters not to talk via pm.

i explained you twice the flaws of the map and each time you said it's impossible. please take my post and explain me what part of it is impossible:

in a 1v1 each player has 3 goalies, right?
player 1 will have direct attack routes to an average of 4 fullbacks. he takes them with ease since all of them have 1 neutral and then he will place an average of 4-5 armies on top of each of those 4 fullbacks. that gives him a +4 extra troops.
player 2 now needs to take the other 2 neutral fullbacks as well as break some bonuses from player 1. since player 1 has 4-5 troops it's obvious player 2 will not be able to break all the bonuses, so now player 1 starts with at least a +2, advantage that he will keep and also increase round after round because player 2 is always fighting an uphill battle.

you claim to be a gameplay guru, a real know it all master of map making. i bow to your great knowledge. please enlighten me and show me where i was wrong

i'm watching the euro2008 final now. when it ends i'll challenge you to a game on this map. i'll explain later how it will work.

[AndyDufresne]

Remember to keep discussion oriented towards the map. Focus on analysis and explaination rather than arguing like hot bananas.


--Andy

[Qwert]

by AndyDufresne on Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:41 pm

Remember to keep discussion oriented towards the map. Focus on analysis and explaination rather than arguing like hot bananas.


--Andy

I agree with that,Dim you say that you dont like Map,so no need for arguing. If i dont like some map,then i will comment one post and finish with these map.
Any way,aim not understand these game 'hurling",so i will not participiate in these topic so much,its to many unknown things for me.

[seamusk]

Ah, but I already answered you DiM. Not reading well? Well, in more detail since you might not stop spamming my thread...

Under certain starting positions which are very limited themselves, red can take all 4 fullbacks that green can attack.

There is only one kind of starting position where player one can even take all 4 of the fullbacks that player two can attack. In other situations he has to take 5 or 6 fullbacks. No matter where he goes, with perfect dice, at best he has 18 armies to split between 4 fullbacks. There is ONE situation where red can block all 4 fullbacks with 4 or more armies on all 4 attackable fullbacks by green. This situation leaves either a 15 on 4 attack for player two one one side with a 6 on 4 on the other side, or a 12 on 4 on one side with a 9 on 4 on the other side. In other words, his dice would have to really really really suck.

What happens if player two fails? Even in unlimited fort he gets an attacking advantage (numbers wise) on at least one side (of his choice) or he can build. In either case, player two will continue to have a numbers advantage for breaking the fullbacks well into the game even if player one does nothing but try to keep player two locked in. If it isn't unlimited fort player two's advantage on breaking those fullbacks growing exponentially. Good luck with that.

Each player gets a +12 total army bonus throughout the game that they cannot lose. A +4 bonus per turn is not enough to provide any kind of substantial advantage, especially since it isn't a +4 deploy, it is 4 +1 autodeploys (on different sides of the map no less). In none of these situations is it game over after one round. And in fact, because player two needs to then fight through neutrals to try and win the game, his ability to fort those fullbacks diminishes not increases over time (and if dice don't change the map doesn't matter - he wins on every map). This isn't the AA battery in Das Schlob. If player one does as you say and tries to block player two he is taking a gamble that can cost him the game and in most cases will at least cause a set back.

Now there may be other situations that need to be addressed, but as I told you before I did a gameplay analysis (not a look at the map and guess at will happen, a chart breaking down the possible starting gameplay options and how they could possibly play out) of this particular possibility earlier. Forgive me for trusting objective gameplay charts over subjective viewing over a few minutes online. I will say that I did make one gameplay change between now and then that I could change back now that I've added attack lines. And I could change it back if I decide it help, but I don't think it matters.

[DiM]

here we go.
1v1 sequential unlimited fortifications.
i'm red you are blue
the map looks like this:
notice i have made a perfectly even distribution of starting locations. things could have been much worse for player 2 but i'm keeping it balanced


i go first and get 3 armies deployed to each goalie plus another 3 armies (for number of terits owned) to deploy wherever i want

so i deploy like this:


i conquer 6 fullbacks and end turn in this position. notice i have lost 3 troops while killing 6. a perfectly normal outcome considering i always attacked 3v1.



i now have 6 fullbacks meaning a +6 bonus. now it's your turn and i am pretty sure you have a huge mountain to climb. not only that all your attack choices have 2 or more armies on them so pretty big chance of losing but you also have to break all 6 fullbacks to prevent me from taking a bonus.

please take your turn and post here. also please don't give yourself fantastic dice.
you lose half of what you kill when attacking 3 dice vs 1 and you lose 75% of what you kill when attacking 3 dice vs 2.

example. you have 10v4 you lose 3 to kill 4.


edit// unless you get absolutely perfect dice you will not be able to break all my bonuses so i have an advantage because next round i'll start with at least 3-4 fullbacks and further reinforce my positions.

also it's woth mentioning that 2-3 bad rolls for you will mean you won't be able to break anything thus allowing me to keep my whole bounus. and 2-3 bad rolls are very possible. i have lost 6v2 battles a lot of times and looking at the map i see you have some nice 6v2 battles to take.

one more problem is if by chance (it can happen) each plaer starts with 3 goalies on each side. then it will simply be a battle of who has the better dice when fighting neutrals. pretty crappy, no?

[Androidz]

i think the neatruals in the middle is a bit to high and the one in the start atleast lower them to 5-7

since you can bombard them there is no need for high numbers even if the enemy controls it...

[DiM]

yeah i tried to help and it seems seamusk doesn't want help.
i suggested we do a test game but he said it is spam. last i recall you posted test games in this thread. so why not this time?
oh that's right, you're starting to realize i'm right and you're afraid others will notice too.

well too bad, i was trying to help. perhaps when you get over your stubbornness and you're obsession that you're the best the greatest the all mighty cartographer, then you might actually have a shot of doing a decent map. until then this map is crap.
next stop crapllegheny forest. this is gonna be a blast

[seamusk]

yeah i tried to help and it seems seamusk doesn't want help.
i suggested we do a test game but he said it is spam. last i recall you posted test games in this thread. so why not this time?
oh that's right, you're starting to realize i'm right and you're afraid others will notice too.

well too bad, i was trying to help. perhaps when you get over your stubbornness and you're obsession that you're the best the greatest the all mighty cartographer, then you might actually have a shot of doing a decent map. until then this map is crap.
next stop crapllegheny forest. this is gonna be a blast

Please don't respond to this post anyone. I've already reported it to the mods. DiM refused to use the process I've been using for test games of limiting images to one post. I have map development to do and I've already proven him wrong with facts. I need real test players, not test players out to prove a point. Test players need to be objective and willing to see various perspectives.

[Androidz]

Hmm this is sounding more and more like personal harashment. Your actully now judgeing map out of people makeing it. Your stubborness and childish behaivour is to much for me:/

Sorry seamusk i had to respound hes pissing me off.

Dear Dim, Now stop your behaviour and give some real comments. i actully dont like your CC magol, magul, Migul map either but i dont say scrap it. Your complaining on the graphics??have you seen yours?it looks like something drawn by a kid. The graphics is lame is like doodle and you allready scrapped scribleearth..looks just like yours..lol get real man.

Now if you arent going to post something seriously leave this post pliss.

[DiM]

yeah i tried to help and it seems seamusk doesn't want help.
i suggested we do a test game but he said it is spam. last i recall you posted test games in this thread. so why not this time?
oh that's right, you're starting to realize i'm right and you're afraid others will notice too.

well too bad, i was trying to help. perhaps when you get over your stubbornness and you're obsession that you're the best the greatest the all mighty cartographer, then you might actually have a shot of doing a decent map. until then this map is crap.
next stop crapllegheny forest. this is gonna be a blast

Please don't respond to this post anyone. I've already reported it to the mods. DiM refused to use the process I've been using for test games of limiting images to one post. I have map development to do and I've already proven him wrong with facts. I need real test players, not test players out to prove a point. Test players need to be objective and willing to see various perspectives.

OMG you reported me to the mods. i'll go cry in a corner

seamusk i offered you the chance to do a test game. i have limited my test game to just 1 post (as seen by the multiple edits) and i needed 1 more post for your images. 2 posts can hardly be considered spam.
you haven't proven me wrong with any facts. you have only said i'm wrong without any valid reasoning.

the rules clearly state you must respond to all feedback and refute with valid points. the only thing you've been doing is being stubborn and denying the truth that the gameplay is flawed.
oh wait you've been doing one other thing, spamming my inbox after i repeatedly asked you not to.

[DiM]

Hmm this is sounding more and more like personal harashment. Your actully now judgeing map out of people makeing it. Your stubborness and childish behaivour is to much for me:/

Sorry seamusk i had to respound hes pissing me off.

Now if you arent going to post something seriously leave this post pliss.

personal harassment
you're cracking me up. i have posted only on topic. i have posted about gameplay about graphics about theme and all of my posts are serios. if you have nothing constructive to say then please don't do it i see you're the one posting off topic

[rocky mountain]

also i'm looking at the original draft and the one you have now and frankly i see no improvement.

were you looking at this one?

his first draft is not on the first page... this is the earliest one i could find. its on page 2, the first test game... not sure what version it is...
personally i think there is big improvement from that to this:


just a question... what do people have against seamusk and his maps?

[DiM]

yes rocky that's the image i was talking about. no improvement at all.
i mean you can't really consider adding a few lines and player silhouettes as a big improvement, can you?

if you want to see improvement then look at this:
http://www.zoomorama.com/efe0e2302f2cf1 ... 80f04db4ba


edit// i don't think anybody has anything personal with seamusk and his maps. it's just that he can't admit when he's wrong and he's not willing to make improvements and accept opinions from others.
as tacktix pointed earlier he has also been told to shape up or ship out and he didn't take it as a personal attack, instead he took it as an advice and improved. i was told the same and each map maker is told that in the beginning. the problem is seamusk started here thinking he's the best and that he knows it all. and he's wrong. and worst of all he's not admitting he's wrong

[rocky mountain]

about the seige thing: seamusk has done 16 updates (I think...) so that gets him to the second row of the seige thing... seamusk's updates were probably smaller than the seige one...
i dunno... just one thing i will say: you have voiced your opinion. you don't like it. it seems that more people who dislike it post here, because there are people who do like it... i'm not sure what to think now... (sorry seamusk) i'm so confused!!!

yes rocky that's the image i was talking about. no improvement at all.
i mean you can't really consider adding a few lines and player silhouettes as a big improvement, can you?

thats not all he's done...

EDIT: however, i think the alleghany map is a lot better than this one. it is not "crapleghany". i believe that one is going somewhere.

[mibi]

The fact still remains that the map is incredibly lopsided as DiM so explicitly pointed out. DiM can be an arrogant bastard and I have had many feuds with him that are an order of magnitude greater than this one, (Golden Palace anyone?).
But at the end of the day, if you are looking for wisdom on how a map will play out with convoluted game play, then consider DiM your zen master and heed his words.

He has numerous quenched maps that test the boundaries of XML and game play,
you ignore his suggestions at your own peril.

[oaktown]

wow, more bickering in this thread?

I've said this before and I'll probably say it a dozen more times before I get fed up with with site and start my own (wink) - no map is going to make everybody happy. This Foundry is full of folks with strong opinions and the willingness to voice them, which is fine so long as they restrict their comments to the map and don't get mean/personal.

So, if one or two users hates your map should you stop? No, especially if you feel passionate about the project which it seems you do, seamusk. This is clearly the map you want to see at ConquerClub, so I say by all means go for it.

However, the fact that over half of the poll respondents aren't behind the production of this map doesn't bode well, because most such polls around here (even for what I think aren't great ideas) get at least 80% support. Now, just because people don't care for the idea doesn't mean its a bad idea, nor does it mean that this couldn't be a great map. What it does mean is that as you try to get this map to progress through the Foundry you aren't going to have very much support, and for better or for worse the Foundry process is one that relies on constructive criticism and support from the community.

For a map to be considered 'good' around here it needs to 1) have a unique or interesting theme, 2) play well, and 3) look good. I've been lucky enough to see maps get through with only two of those elements, and now nobody plays them (Chinese Checkers, anyone?). And I've started a few projects that had only one - or none - of those elements going for it, which you can find on the back pages of Map Ideas if you're interested.

I'm hearing concerns in this thread from different folks about all three areas - theme, play, and graphics - which suggests you have a long road yet ahead of you. You may need to seriously rethink some elements of this map if you want to rally the support you'll need to get this map through the Foundry.