CC Archery v22ish [D]

[bryguy]

uh if u havent noticed, he is still not blinking


sorry but thats the only thing wrong that i can see before this should be quenched

I told you that the final version ill be a blicker

ok so the final version he'll blink? that works for me


quench/ff?

[Kaplowitz]

Looks great, ill get to work on the centering

[DiM]

2 problems
1. the legend says white is 1 black is 2 and so on. if i'm a person that never set foot in the foundry i'll assume i need all white or all black not just 1 target. please clear the confussion
2. i see no incentive in attacking anything. sorry but i don't.
let me explain. each turn i get 8 armies. 5 fro holding the archer and 3 for the teritorial bonus. i start with 3. so in 10 turns i'll have 83 troops on my archer.
player B decides to go for bonuses. in 10 turns assuming even rolls and some competition with other players he might have as low as 20 or so troops.
i have 83 i attack the lobby and then the poor guy. game over without me even bothering to do anything other than deploy end turn. did i mention it was an assassin game?

[bryguy]

hmm, dims 2nd point is good. Maybe make 8 territories that under no circumstance can be attacked like das schloss?

[Kaplowitz]

Actually DiM, you're wrong on number 2 ...kinda
After Player A attacks the Lobby, he will have about 30 armies, with average dice. So after the other players with 20 attack the lobby, they would easily eliminate Player A.

Maybe we should up the bonuses, or the Lobby neutrals?

[bryguy]

Actually DiM, you're wrong on number 2 ...kinda
After Player A attacks the Lobby, he will have about 30 armies, with average dice. So after the other players with 20 attack the lobby, they would easily eliminate Player A.

Maybe we should up the bonuses, or the Lobby neutrals?

or maybe make the lobby killer?

[Kaplowitz]

Actually DiM, you're wrong on number 2 ...kinda
After Player A attacks the Lobby, he will have about 30 armies, with average dice. So after the other players with 20 attack the lobby, they would easily eliminate Player A.

Maybe we should up the bonuses, or the Lobby neutrals?

or maybe make the lobby killer?

Thats interesting...but it would have to be a much lower number. Maybe 25, i need to think and hear more opinions.

[DiM]

Actually DiM, you're wrong on number 2 ...kinda
After Player A attacks the Lobby, he will have about 30 armies, with average dice. So after the other players with 20 attack the lobby, they would easily eliminate Player A.

Maybe we should up the bonuses, or the Lobby neutrals?

but it is impossible to eliminate player A because as i said the game is over. player a has 82 armies and attacks the wall. has 33 remaining and he must kill ~20 from player B who is his target in an assassin game. so game over.

2. i see no incentive in attacking anything. sorry but i don't.
let me explain. each turn i get 8 armies. 5 fro holding the archer and 3 for the teritorial bonus. i start with 3. so in 10 turns i'll have 83 troops on my archer.
player B decides to go for bonuses. in 10 turns assuming even rolls and some competition with other players he might have as low as 20 or so troops.
i have 83 i attack the lobby and then the poor guy. game over without me even bothering to do anything other than deploy end turn. did i mention it was an assassin game?

[gimil]

DiM why dont you suggest a fix? Would making the lobby 150 neutral again be a good solution to you?

[Kaplowitz]

it seems to me would should either make the bonuses higher (more incentive to not build) or make the wall neutral higher (harder to take).

Killer neutral wouldnt make a difference, because the person would have already won.

[DiM]

i would suggest a fix if i knew one but unfortunately i don't.


make the wall huge and nobody will dare attack it.because he who attacks the neutral probably loses the game unless he already controls all the targets.

making the bonuses bigger could work but i'm not sure. i'd have to run some tests to express my full opinion.

also i just thought of one more flaw, perhaps even bigger than the previous.
i'm talking about 1v1 games. basically i don't see 1v1 games as a playable option.

each smiley can attack any target but to attack another smiley you have to go through the lobby.
let me explain. player A deploys and attacks a white bonus. B goes second and takes the white from A. then A deploys and takes the bonus and so on.
basically the first to hit a few bad dice loses. no strategy involved, just dumb luck.

option B, player A knows his bonus will be broken if he takes it so he just waits. but player B is smart too so he won't attack any bonus and he will also deploy. so they both sit and deploy and sit and deploy until the army counts are so high, the neutrals in the lobby can no longer be an impediment. for example if each player has 1000 troops the 50 in the lobby won't be a problem since dice odds say that 1000 armies can beat 1 stack of 50 and another stack of 1000. increasing the bonuses or the lobby neutrals will not solve this at all.

tis 1v1 issue makes me think the map needs a whole new redesign of the gameplay.

i'm thinking limiting the attack options of the starting locations but that would be bad for assassin games so i don't know an exact solution, yet.

[Kaplowitz]

All 1v1 games are luck, this just eliminates that lucky drop.

[oaktown]

can we see an update with the starting neutral counts? that's pretty key to making this map work as intended.

I'm wondering about the combination of big bonuses for the bullseyes and making them a victory condition. Seems as if the bullseyes are the way to go.

Still not sure about the spelling of "color" I see, as you have it spelled two different ways on the map. How about eliminating the problem entirely and just writing "ring?" You'd then have "Ring Bonuses" which is more appropriate anyway since you get the bonuses for each ring that you hold, not holding all rings of a colo(u)r, right?

And "All targets colours" is a grammatical mess anyway. Just say "Rings and bullseyes lose one army per turn."

Is Steve going to be a territory? I say make him a killer neutral with a moderate army count just for kicks; no bonus for holding him, but he could be a source of cards... and twisted entertainment.

[Kaplowitz]

can we see an update with the starting neutral counts? that's pretty key to making this map work as intended.

I'm wondering about the combination of big bonuses for the bullseyes and making them a victory condition. Seems as if the bullseyes are the way to go.

Still not sure about the spelling of "color" I see, as you have it spelled two different ways on the map. How about eliminating the problem entirely and just writing "ring?" You'd then have "Ring Bonuses" which is more appropriate anyway since you get the bonuses for each ring that you hold, not holding all rings of a colo(u)r, right?

And "All targets colours" is a grammatical mess anyway. Just say "Rings and bullseyes lose one army per turn."

Is Steve going to be a territory? I say make him a killer neutral with a moderate army count just for kicks; no bonus for holding him, but he could be a source of cards... and twisted entertainment.

The neutrals are the same as they were before in a previous update: http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c64/G ... MALL-3.gif

Yes, but they have huge neutrals, making it pretty hard to take them without having smaller bonuses first.

Im fine with Rings.

Im fine with any explanation.

Right now, we have Steve as a territory that can be bombarded by the archers, starts with 1 neutral, and no bonus. I think that's better than having neutral killer because that way you cant stop others from getting cards by stacking Steve.

[DiM]

All 1v1 games are luck, this just eliminates that lucky drop.

sorry but not all 1v1 games are luck.
there's plenty of strategy in all of them. that includes even doodle earth.

here you have no strategy whatsoever. just luck. and to be honest i believe it is valid for all games not just 1v1.

let's imagine an 8p game. player A takes a white bonus, player B takes that bonus from him, then C from B and so on.
it just doesn't work at all.

sorry but the map really is unplayable. if you go for bonuses then what i wrote above happens. if you don't go for bonuses then it's a stupid build game until one guy gets bored and suicides on the lobby.
basically 1v1 games are all luck and no strategy
and all other games are either all luck no strategy or simply stalemate from the start.

[oaktown]

let's imagine an 8p game. player A takes a white bonus, player B takes that bonus from him, then C from B and so on.
it just doesn't work at all... if you go for bonuses then what i wrote above happens. if you don't go for bonuses then it's a stupid build game until one guy gets bored and suicides on the lobby.

Any map will require some strategy, even this one. The choice to attack a target and set yourself up to lose it vs. sitting back and building a big stack involves strategy. I do think that this map will be like a game of chicken - you wait and wait and hope you didn't wait too long. Since there are limited options as for what to attack and no way to build an empire in the traditional sense there will be fewer winning strategies, but that doesn't mean that there are none.

Somebody out there will love this map... clearly it won't be DiM, and it may not be me, but it will work for somebody.

[DiM]

what strategy? there's no strategy.

"do i attack first and lose or do i wait and hope that the other guy attacks first" is not strategy. not even remotely. the gameplay is faulty on this one oak.

if this map gets the stamp then i guess this one also deserves it, yes?

black circle can attack only the red circle.
the red circle is neutral and has 50 bonus.
red circle can attack anything.



same idea without the useless targets. whoever attacks first loses. whoever has patience and good dice wins.

we seem to be heading into a new era of gameplay. if a luck based map is needed then i'll be glad to resurrect wheel of fortune. at least that had a quick gameplay where each game was over in 2 rounds. here you have never ending "get bored till you deadeat" stalemates

[Kaplowitz]

1- this map has no bonus of 50. There is no one huge bonus that is easy to get.
2- Why do you think that so many people are going to just go after one little +1. Go out and get your own, its pretty simple. If you want to preventing others from getting bonuses, thats your strategy. Others will sit on their archer. Others will go for their own bonuses.
3- I think we should go back to "Whole target = +big" rather than "bullseye= + big" because that will add some more strategy. Some people will go for all of the bullseyes- as they would have have the biggest individual bonuses, while others would go for a whole target.

[DiM]

1- this map has no bonus of 50. There is no one huge bonus that is easy to get.
2- Why do you think that so many people are going to just go after one little +1. Go out and get your own, its pretty simple. If you want to preventing others from getting bonuses, thats your strategy. Others will sit on their archer. Others will go for their own bonuses.
3- I think we should go back to "Whole target = +big" rather than "bullseye= + big" because that will add some more strategy. Some people will go for all of the bullseyes- as they would have have the biggest individual bonuses, while others would go for a whole target.

1. you missed my point, which was that this map has no strategy and all luck.
2. let's make a mental exercise and use our imagination.
exercise 1.
you, me and 6 other players. turn 1. you are first. what do you do?
option A: you attack a bonus, whatever bonus you like, fully knowing that you won't have the strength to hold it and that you will lose it in case somebody else attacks.
option B: you deploy on your archer hoping and waiting for others to attack first and waste their troops.

[Kaplowitz]

I know what you're saying...but im trying to disagree.

And btw, what do you want me to do? You're saying that the whole focus of the map is bad...there is no solution to that- one would be a completly new map with a similar theme. Do you think i should abandon? I know what you're saying...and i cant think of anything to do...this is yet another reason as to why we need a testing place. There's no real way to know what people will do other than to actaully try it out.

[DiM]

I know what you're saying...but im trying to disagree.

And btw, what do you want me to do? You're saying that the whole focus of the map is bad...there is no solution to that- one would be a completly new map with a similar theme. Do you think i should abandon? I know what you're saying...and i cant think of anything to do...this is yet another reason as to why we need a testing place. There's no real way to know what people will do other than to actaully try it out.

as i said before the main problem of this map is the fact that the archers ca attack absolutely anything on the map. that's bad because if one guy attacks a bonus the next can take that bonus from him, as explained a few times above.

now all i can think of is limiting the visibility of the map. if i can attack something without the fear of losing it immediately then i have an incentive to expand. i'm trying to think of something but i just don't get any good ideas. it's 4:43 am so that might be the problem.
after i get some good sleep i'll stop by again. hopefully others will post here and come with a solution in the meantime

[AndyDufresne]

Are you wishing for some sort of "Directional Accuracy" solution, DiM? I.E. it is pretty easy and possible to hit a target directly in front of you, but one that is off at a diagonal and far away, not easy? Etc?


--Andy

[DiM]

Are you wishing for some sort of "Directional Accuracy" solution, DiM? I.E. it is pretty easy and possible to hit a target directly in front of you, but one that is off at a diagonal and far away, not easy? Etc?


--Andy

that would be the easiest to implement solution but it would totally be screwed for all games where some archers are neutral and it would be kinda bad for assassin games.
in fact the whole existence of the lobby kinda screws the assassin games. but more on that later.

now let's assume the "accuracy" is introduced and groups of 2 archers are assigned to each target.
A1 and A2 to left target and so on. in a 7 player game chances are A1 will start neutral. this means A3 to A8 will fight for their targets while A2 will waltz and take the whole target without any concern. not fair.

then there's another problem. let's assume a 4p game. what happens if a guy gets the A1 and A2 archer and the other 3 players get the remaining six archers mixed. the first guy has a target all for himself while the others fight like madmen.


now back to the assassin issue. any assassin game is bound to become a stalemate unless somebody gets ridiculously lucky rolls and manages to take all the targets. basically the only way to kill your target is to take down the lobby but you will only attack the lobby when you are 100% sure you can also kill your target because if you kill the neutrals but not the target then somebody else is going to go and kill his target.

also i know i've mentioned this before but i don't remember getting an answer.
the colour bonuses must be explained better. a new player will think he gets +1 for holding all white not just the white from a single target.

oh and 20 yard star is not centered.

[max is gr8]

This sort of reminds me of russian roulette.

6 starting places. 6 territories. First to attack loses.

[Kaplowitz]

This sort of reminds me of russian roulette.

6 starting places. 6 territories. First to attack loses.

Thats not at all what i was hoping for.

Im sure we can think of something, maybe we could think of an xml update that would work for these problems...