WWII Pearl Harbor - [Quenched]

[Thezzaruz]

I never really saw the need for a change (must have been getting all good drops ).Just thought the planes where a sub set of the map that needed to be strategically tended to.


But if there should be a change then I'd say this is the way to go.

To

* Until Group taken, within any Group
+ 3 any 4 aircraft + 4 any 5 aircraft

[a.sub]

I'm quite calm. Thanks.
Unfortunately i can't red any intonations from your face or other expressions you might use because you failed to indicate that you were joking....Sorry.

was my post that vindictive that you couldnt even realize it? brilliant

To the thoughts from people of dropping the number of planes that start....
It will not happen. Period.
This is a map met to revolve around the initial attack by the planes.
I am not interested in changing that., so please do not ask further on this line.
Yes thats great, making the initial attack from the planes is nice and all but do you honestly believe that removing ONE plane per set would be that detrimental to your map?

We can ensure that seomone doesn't get an immediate bonus on the drop by making the drop aspect harder for all games, but i tend also to agree with Knight2254, that the map is reasonably well balanced apart from the drop, and this is the aspect that has been most troublesome over the last year or more for most players.

If someone wants to play the AA batteries then good that is there option...but I am not in favour of making it easier to get plane bonuses, like +1 for 2, +2 for 3 etc.

I am happy to reconfirm the changed bonuses for the planes and agree with Ian canton....

this is worth doing properly. bonuses for 4 and 5 planes! no half-hearted measures!
ian.

From

* Until Group taken, within any Group
+ 3 any 2 aircraft + 4 any 4 aircraft

To

* Until Group taken, within any Group
+ 3 any 4 aircraft + 4 any 5 aircraft

[cairnswk]

Yes thats great, making the initial attack from the planes is nice and all but do you honestly believe that removing ONE plane per set would be that detrimental to your map?

Yes, it takes away the flavour of what Pearl Harbour was.

[shidarin]

Yes thats great, making the initial attack from the planes is nice and all but do you honestly believe that removing ONE plane per set would be that detrimental to your map?

Yes, it takes away the flavour of what Pearl Harbour was.

Not all the planes attacked at the exact same time.

I understand that you want there to be an attack from the planes thing going on; but it's never really felt like that to me. Just feels like a normal map for the most part.

Heck, if you want the attack from the planes feeling, you should embrace the unevenness of the first drop.

[cairnswk]

...
Not all the planes attacked at the exact same time.

I understand that you want there to be an attack from the planes thing going on; but it's never really felt like that to me. Just feels like a normal map for the most part.

Heck, if you want the attack from the planes feeling, you should embrace the unevenness of the first drop.

I did shidarin, but so many people complained....
So i am prepared to give this adjustment to see if it helps appoase most...but i know it will probably mean others will never be happy.

[a.sub]

you know what?
i typed up a full 3 paragraphs on what you could change to get the "planes are attacking" feel and at the same time keep people quiet
but i realized something, this is retarded
can we honestly say more than 10% of CC actually dislike the way the map is?
i say we put up a vote to see if this is really worth doing, because as a map maker i think the last thing you need is to deal with the handful of ppl that are never satisfied

[cairnswk]

you know what?
i typed up a full 3 paragraphs on what you could change to get the "planes are attacking" feel and at the same time keep people quiet
but i realized something, this is retarded
can we honestly say more than 10% of CC actually dislike the way the map is?
i say we put up a vote to see if this is really worth doing, because as a map maker i think the last thing you need is to deal with the handful of ppl that are never satisfied

a.sub, if you want to create another Pearl Harbour maps that works along different lines, drops or whatever, you are welcome to create your own.
For the last time, i am interested in only giving the proposed changes.

[MrBenn]

Let's all take a chill pill, and wait for the updated files to be uploaded

[cairnswk]

Let's all take a chill pill, and wait for the updated files to be uploaded

I agree.

[a.sub]

you know what?
i typed up a full 3 paragraphs on what you could change to get the "planes are attacking" feel and at the same time keep people quiet
but i realized something, this is retarded
can we honestly say more than 10% of CC actually dislike the way the map is?
i say we put up a vote to see if this is really worth doing, because as a map maker i think the last thing you need is to deal with the handful of ppl that are never satisfied

a.sub, if you want to create another Pearl Harbour maps that works along different lines, drops or whatever, you are welcome to create your own.
For the last time, i am interested in only giving the proposed changes.

lol i think my poor communication skills have come in again, it was a crappy way of saying i liked the old map

[ahunda]

Just a thought, guys: This is not a graphics revamp, but a change of bonus structure & game-play. And that should not happen in the middle of games.

If you simply up-date this map, prepare for a shit-storm of complaints of all the people, who are currently in active games on the map, incl. clan challenges & tournaments. Because you will screw all these games, where people hold bonuses and have positioned themselves accordingly.

Alternative: Take the map offline now, so that no new games can be started. Wait for the active games to finish. Then upload the new one.

[cairnswk]

Just a thought, guys: This is not a graphics revamp, but a change of bonus structure & game-play. And that should not happen in the middle of games.

If you simply up-date this map, prepare for a shit-storm of complaints of all the people, who are currently in active games on the map, incl. clan challenges & tournaments. Because you will screw all these games, where people hold bonuses and have positioned themselves accordingly.

Alternative: Take the map offline now, so that no new games can be started. Wait for the active games to finish. Then upload the new one.

Forwarded to Foundry Leader as a good suggestion.

[Lubawski]

For the last time, i am interested in only giving the proposed changes.

So the discussion is off the table? That's too bad. This was one of my favorite maps for team games. The proposed change of needing 4 or 5 planes makes it pointless in a trips or quads game. While I agree that in a 1v1, standard 4 player or fewer game, or in a dubs game, it offered unbalanced drops, there is still strategy involved. The same argument can be made for many maps on the site. This is one of the few maps that have a huge following (as evidenced by the social group that play only this map). It's unfortunate if a drastic change (and I would consider going from 2 planes to 4 planes for a bonus drastic) is made. Better options are making three planes required for the +3 bonus or dropping the bonus from a +3 for 2 planes down to a +2 or +1.
Going first always has its advantage. That's why we have random chance determining who goes first. It equals out in the end. Good players overcome drops all the time. A change to 4 planes required for the bonus, in my opinion, would ruin this map. However, as Cairns created it, I think he should also be the one to decide.

lol. I just realized the title now says Quenched...I'll leave my opinions anyway for posterity sake.

[Greycloak]

I play this map quite a bit as well and have had great success. As far as imbalanced -- I'm not so sure it is. Sometimes, but not everytime. I'm 16 for 19 with a rating of "equalitarian." If you exclude the 8 player free for all I just finished I'm 16 for 18 in team games so there must be something I do differently than everybody else because certainly I've had more than 2 "bad drops" yet I maintained a 88+% win percentage.

I am in the same boat. I love the map as it is, play it all the time and would hate to lose the big plane bonus. I'm currently in the Premier League 2v2 tournament with it as our "home" map and we are 13-2 on it so far. We have not gotten 13 first drops so clearly strategy matters. At 4 planes to earn a bonus, it is not worth going for it as it is not defensible because of the AA coverage. As it sits now, there are several corners away from the AA guns where one can take and hold a bonus.

Sure, the drop is important but given even elite opponents the team that gets the drop has a significant advantage on *every single* map on this site, more so on the really large no-neutral maps and on the smaller maps. This map is now all about who controls the skies - attacking opponents' planes and protecting your own. If this proposal goes through, this map will be reduced from something that is unique and fun to play to the sad state of being a slightly quirky medium-large map with a couple of huge choke points that plays like all the rest. There is a significant fan base for this map so the haters should leave it alone for those of us who love it.

[cairnswk]

... There is a significant fan base for this map so the haters should leave it alone for those of us who love it.

It's not the haters who want to change it...It is only the drop inbalance that needs to be changed.
As i said, there is always going to be someone who is unhappy.
This map was quenched 370 days ago. It has had 22374 games started on it.
That's 60 games started per day average.
Compare that with Age of Realms....106425 over 309 days = 344 games average per day.
I'd hardly call PH totally popular.
A fan base it may have, but sometimes i wonder if the fan base comes from those who have learned to "win" the map since the map doesn't change its connections each time you play it. As with all these maps there is a certain leanrability about how they play.
As such, I see two advantages in changing the map. Removing the advantage of the drop, and putting everyone back on even footing.

[Greycloak]

When you take away the plane bonus, the map changes from something unique to yet another map whose bonuses are not defendable in any meaningful sense. The only bonuses that will be in play will be the +1 for an AA gun. Once people take the AA guns and kill the halo of enemy planes around them, there will be no incentive to retake the planes because defending 4 isolated points that are covered so well by bombardments for a measly +3 bonus is not a good return on units. All the games will end up with a bunch of wasted neutral planes and the struggle will be for the choke points and to leverage your coverage into more attacking units.

There are tons of maps on this site that have lots of theoretical bonuses and victory conditions that rarely enter into game play in singles and almost never are of importance in team games (Gazala to name an example). This change will turn this map into another one of those.

What's odd is that you chose Age of Realms as a map to compare to. Those three are among the trickiest to play where if you know "the strategy" you cannot lose against some poor schmuck who doesn't - exactly the learnability issue you decry above. I don't care for how the gameplay works in those maps so despite knowing the tricks, I choose not to play them. I love nothing more than coming from behind in a PH game because it's fluid, it's full of objectives that will all work and it's different than the vanilla maps out there. I'll be sad if this changes because something that is unique will be lost.

[OTE]

I agree with Greycloak completely. Why change the bonus structure it is a great map as is. OTE

[captainwalrus]

I agree with Greycloak completely. Why change the bonus structure it is a great map as is. OTE

I once saw someone start off the game by getting 12 troops a turn while I was only getting 3. That is hardly balanced. It needed to be changed.

[Thezzaruz]

I once saw someone start off the game by getting 12 troops a turn while I was only getting 3. That is hardly balanced. It needed to be changed.

Making a 2 or 3 player game on a large map that has many continent bonuses in play is the real problem there, not the map itself.

[Knight2254]

When you take away the plane bonus, the map changes from something unique to yet another map whose bonuses are not defendable in any meaningful sense. The only bonuses that will be in play will be the +1 for an AA gun. Once people take the AA guns and kill the halo of enemy planes around them, there will be no incentive to retake the planes because defending 4 isolated points that are covered so well by bombardments for a measly +3 bonus is not a good return on units. All the games will end up with a bunch of wasted neutral planes and the struggle will be for the choke points and to leverage your coverage into more attacking units.

There are tons of maps on this site that have lots of theoretical bonuses and victory conditions that rarely enter into game play in singles and almost never are of importance in team games (Gazala to name an example). This change will turn this map into another one of those.

What's odd is that you chose Age of Realms as a map to compare to. Those three are among the trickiest to play where if you know "the strategy" you cannot lose against some poor schmuck who doesn't - exactly the learnability issue you decry above. I don't care for how the gameplay works in those maps so despite knowing the tricks, I choose not to play them. I love nothing more than coming from behind in a PH game because it's fluid, it's full of objectives that will all work and it's different than the vanilla maps out there. I'll be sad if this changes because something that is unique will be lost.

Well said. This map does have the potential for drop favoritism, but this is just as likely to go for you as against. In the long run it should even out... And really good players can overcome bad drops some of the time.

As I stated earlier the only effective points on the map are going to be the AA guns because they are +1 by holding 1 territory while you potentially have to hold 4 isolated points for +3? This makes little sense to me.

[iancanton]

if everyone thinks that +3 is too low for holding 4 planes, then the simplest xml change (which has the merit of xml continuity) is simply to zero the 2-plane bonus and leave the 4-plane bonus unchanged. however, as far as i know, this is not under consideration by the author at the moment.

ian.

[captainwalrus]

I once saw someone start off the game by getting 12 troops a turn while I was only getting 3. That is hardly balanced. It needed to be changed.

Making a 2 or 3 player game on a large map that has many continent bonuses in play is the real problem there, not the map itself.

It was a 4 player game, the one person just beat all of us. Maps should try to be as balanced as possible for all settings though, not just 8 player games.

[shidarin]

I once saw someone start off the game by getting 12 troops a turn while I was only getting 3. That is hardly balanced. It needed to be changed.

Making a 2 or 3 player game on a large map that has many continent bonuses in play is the real problem there, not the map itself.

It was a 4 player game, the one person just beat all of us. Maps should try to be as balanced as possible for all settings though, not just 8 player games.

I wanted to see this game, so I took a look at your game records,

According to the list, you've only played 2 Pearl Harbor games, one a doubles with 6 people, January of 2008, and one with 6 people in Nov 2007.

What's up with that?

This map is fantastic as is- please do a poll before the change- I think you'll see the haters are in the minority.

[owenshooter]

As I stated earlier the only effective points on the map are going to be the AA guns because they are +1 by holding 1 territory while you potentially have to hold 4 isolated points for +3? This makes little sense to me.

or you could keep the guns at +1, but make the bonus automatically added to the gun... never thought of that before.. as far as the planes go, there are some really good ideas in here. when someone lands on a plane bonus, it is just too hard to get them off of it, and often times it is the end of the game if they hold it for their turn... still love the map... but these bonus updates are an interesting fix...-0

[waseemalim]

Well said. This map does have the potential for drop favoritism, but this is just as likely to go for you as against. In the long run it should even out... And really good players can overcome bad drops some of the time.

As I stated earlier the only effective points on the map are going to be the AA guns because they are +1 by holding 1 territory while you potentially have to hold 4 isolated points for +3? This makes little sense to me.

Agreed that in the long run better players will have a greater than 50% win rate. But the win rate can not be significantly higher than 50% because the randomness is just going to bring it down. Most of the top team players and complex map enthusiasts willfully avoid this map because of this fact alone.

I wouldnt be making a fuss about it if this was doodle -- but this map has a lot of potential. It is being stunted by its rubbish bonus structure.

+1 for 1 territory makes a lot more sense than +3 for 2 territories -- dont you think? The bonuses dont have to be in perfect ratio, but there shouldnt be any outliers. Given the size of the map,I doubt that the +1 bonuses will be of much use even if one gets a couple in his drop. I could be wrong here... but I am pretty sure that the changes being suggested would make this game a lot more playable.