Conquer Club

MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Care to peruse completed maps? Take a stroll through the Atlas.

Moderator: Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby rdsrds2120 on Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:39 am

I agree. Also, I'd like to ask others, just in case it's only me -
I was playing on this, and does anyone else think there isn't much of a contrast Golfo and Valle de Anahuac and the red color of the troops? I honestly had a hard time looking at it. Maybe a softer color?
Has this already been addressed?
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class rdsrds2120
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby Bruceswar on Sun Sep 26, 2010 5:06 am

Here is what I think. Leave all the ports neutral but make then only a 1 instead of 2. I was playing this map for the first time and team 2 got the Sur bonus pretty easy. I thought about break via a port(s) but the 4 plus the men there on the actually territory made it too much. So thus no ports were taken. If it was 1 on each instead of 2, then I think the ports would be of more use to most people.
Last edited by Bruceswar on Mon Sep 27, 2010 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Highest Rank: 26 Highest Score: 3480
Image
User avatar
Corporal Bruceswar
 
Posts: 9713
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:36 am
Location: Cow Pastures

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby Commander62890 on Sun Sep 26, 2010 5:18 am

I like.




In that case, though, I would think that holding 2 ports should give a bonus... either +1 or +2


Though, it could make for some rather interesting gameplay if it was hold 1 port for +1. That might really induce people to hit those neutrals!


Seriously, I think having 1 neutral on each port, and holding 1 port for +1 might be pretty cool.
User avatar
Major Commander62890
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:52 pm

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby iancanton on Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:43 am

i'm another advocate for option c.

Commander62890 wrote:This is a tough decision, but I really think that C will result in players not going for the bonus, for the most part.

in 1v1, most of the bonus zones will contain at least one neutral region, so the ports won't be too different from the other bonuses in that sense.

Bruceswar wrote:If it was 1 on each instead of 2, then I think the ports would be of more use to most people.

this could ruin the game for the second player in 1v1 unlimited forts. however, u could argue that 1v1 unlimited is heavily stacked against him anyway.

ian. :)
Image
User avatar
Colonel iancanton
Foundry Foreman
Foundry Foreman
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:40 am
Location: europe

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby MrBenn on Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:13 pm

After a bit of thought, I've decided to drop the ports to neutral 1s, and see how things go. Hopefully this will bring the ports into play a little bit more easily; I'll consider amending the bonus to holding two ports for a +1 bonus, but for now I'll see how things go with lower neutrals.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2259283/Mexico4.xml
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
 
Posts: 6880
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby Commander62890 on Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:29 am

MrBenn wrote:After a bit of thought, I've decided to drop the ports to neutral 1s, and see how things go. Hopefully this will bring the ports into play a little bit more easily; I'll consider amending the bonus to holding two ports for a +1 bonus, but for now I'll see how things go with lower neutrals.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2259283/Mexico4.xml

Do you recommend I try this out with a dubs or a trips game? I mean, which gametype would involve more use of the ports?


To be honest, I still don't think ports will be utilized... a 3-neutral bonus for +2 isn't bad, but the fact that they're so easily accessed means they'll be easily broken. I can't be 100% sure, but I don't think a good team will be hitting 3 neutrals on a medium-sized map for a bonus that can be broken easily. I really don't see it. The key here is that the map is too small for neutrals to be of value unless they are easily protected and/or provide a big bonus.


The ports are not easily protected. A team will be wasting their armies by hitting those neutrals, because the other team will immediately break the bonus.


If you're not trying to make a map that's good for team games, then by all means, tell me to shut it! ;)


You can leave it this way to test it out, but I doubt you'll see the results you're looking for in team games.
You need to either make the ports NOT neutral, or keep them at 1 neutral and augment the bonus system.
And it needs to be a big augmentation... Seriously, holding 1 port for +2 or +3 is not out of the question here.
User avatar
Major Commander62890
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:52 pm

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby Bruceswar on Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:39 pm

Actually I think the ports will be used to break the southern bonuses more than anything. It makes them much more useful!
Highest Rank: 26 Highest Score: 3480
Image
User avatar
Corporal Bruceswar
 
Posts: 9713
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 12:36 am
Location: Cow Pastures

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby Commander62890 on Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:57 pm

Have you tried it yet, Bruce? I made a game, but the neutrals were still 2...


You're right, taking 1,1 neutrals would let you border Sur, which is cool. But I really think we should be looking at making the ports more valuable than that, no?
1,1 against a neutral isn't exactly a picnic when everyone only has a 3 deployment...


There's so many CC maps with neutrals that are never used in team games... IMO it would be great if this map had a port aspect that was crucial to team play.


It's up to Mr. Benn, of course, so if he wants to leave it the way it is, so be it. I certainly don't hear many complaints. I'm just trying give my perspective from a team game point of view... take it or leave it.

It's just that I KNOW that leaving neutrals as 1 and bonuses the way they are is a guarantee that the ports won't be too important in team games. Your call, Mr. Benn. :)
User avatar
Major Commander62890
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 1:52 pm

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby MrBenn on Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:18 am

I don't think the update has gone live... I'm waiting to get confirmation from lack before starting a new batch of games.

Commander62890 , I really do value your input ;-)
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
 
Posts: 6880
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby MrBenn on Fri Oct 08, 2010 3:31 pm

The update has gone live... let's see how things go now!
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
 
Posts: 6880
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby MrBenn on Fri Oct 29, 2010 6:38 pm

MrBenn wrote:I'm not sure if there was any serious thoughts into making the ports start neutral - I;d sort of assumed it would be a sensible thing to do... Having said that, I would definitely prefer keeping them in normal play

The options I see are:

a) Leave it as it was before (with no designated neutrals). The downside of this, is that it leaves 37 starting terrs, meaning 2/3p games start with 12 terrs and an extra advantage to whoever starts

b) Make one port on each ocean start neutral (2 neutral armies), and leave the bonus as it is. (although this still means there's a 33% chance of dropping one of the bonuses.

c) Make one port on each ocean start neutral, but change the bonus to +2 for holding all the ports on the same sea

My favourite is probably option C, with the two central ports starting neutral.

MrBenn wrote:After a bit of thought, I've decided to drop the ports to neutral 1s, and see how things go. Hopefully this will bring the ports into play a little bit more easily; I'll consider amending the bonus to holding two ports for a +1 bonus, but for now I'll see how things go with lower neutrals.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2259283/Mexico4.xml

What I want to know is whether the ports come into play enough at the moment, and whether or not I should amend the port bonuses to those as proposed in option C above...
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
 
Posts: 6880
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby Aaron234 on Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:41 pm

I like the map.Its not one of my favorites but its definitely not one of those maps you can play lazy on. i had one dislike with this board. Occiente is a place i found my self stuck in.I got locked in by 2 players and could not get out. The map keeps you on your toes and i would not change anything.
Image
Man life cant be better.
If you see that 5,6 Monkey shoot to kill!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cadet Aaron234
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:31 pm
Location: 187 Bloody bath water street & Death valley New york..

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby Blitzaholic on Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:31 am

Hi Mr.Benn, I think this would be a unique idea, worth trying, adds another option as well.

c) Make one port on each ocean start neutral, but change the bonus to +2 for holding all the ports on the same sea
Image
User avatar
General Blitzaholic
 
Posts: 23050
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Apocalyptic Area

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby Sethiroth on Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:51 pm

Im not sure if I like the + 2 bonus for the spot that only has 2spots to get into it I think it should just be +1 bonus just an idea
Major Sethiroth
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:17 pm

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby jricart on Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:45 am

Sethiroth wrote:Im not sure if I like the + 2 bonus for the spot that only has 2spots to get into it I think it should just be +1 bonus just an idea


I agree!

Overall, the map looks great and game play is really nice!
User avatar
Lieutenant jricart
 
Posts: 2931
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:52 pm
2

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby natty dread on Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:43 am

I finally got around to playing this map. I have to say I rather like it. Simple, but not too simple. Good work.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby Victor Sullivan on Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:03 pm

I agree with natty - good work! I like going for the ports instead of the bonus areas for lolz. It actually won me the game once cuz no one was paying attention lol. I wish they'd be used more, but I think you've done the best you possibly can with them, so bravo for that. Methinks your beta (ß?) period will be over soon ;)

-Sully
User avatar
Corporal Victor Sullivan
 
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:17 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby thenobodies80 on Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:10 pm

              Quenching

---The Beta period has concluded for the Mexico Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready to be released into live play.

Congratulations MrBenn and fumandomuerte, your shiny new medal are well-earned =D>


Conquer Club, enjoy!
              Image

--thenobodies80
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thenobodies80
 
Posts: 5400
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:30 am
Location: Milan

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby MrBenn on Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:19 pm

thenobodies80 wrote:
              Quenching

---The Beta period has concluded for the Mexico Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready to be released into live play.

Congratulations MrBenn and fumandomuerte, your shiny new medal are well-earned =D>


Conquer Club, enjoy!
              Image

--thenobodies80

Thank you my friend!
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
 
Posts: 6880
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby Victor Sullivan on Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:22 pm

Congrats, MrBenn! :)
User avatar
Corporal Victor Sullivan
 
Posts: 6010
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:17 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby fumandomuerte on Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:12 am

Thanks to Mr. Benn for re-taking the map! He made an amazing job in my humble opinion ;)
Image
Thanks to the CC staff for the perma-ban on ۩░▒▓₪№™℮₪▓▒░۩!
User avatar
Captain fumandomuerte
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:27 am
Location: The Cinderella of the Pacific

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby drunkmunky on Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:51 am

Hi everyone, not sure if this is something that's come up before but unless I'm reading the map wrong, I think I've found a bug. (really more likely I'm reading it wrong cos it's my first time on the map). And as it's a map bug I wasn't sure if this post should go into this thread or separately into the bug forum under a new topic.

Game 8941584

In this game, I control DF in the centre Val de Anehuac or whatever it is. I ended my assault phase and should've been capable of forting to either Morelos or Edo Mex. as both are controlled by my team mates. I wasn't given the option to fort to Morelos and thus has to fort to Edo Mex. Granted, this is where I was going to fort anyway, but something I thought could possibly be an issue.
Image
User avatar
Major drunkmunky
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Barcelona

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby isaiah40 on Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:20 am

drunkmunky wrote:Hi everyone, not sure if this is something that's come up before but unless I'm reading the map wrong, I think I've found a bug. (really more likely I'm reading it wrong cos it's my first time on the map). And as it's a map bug I wasn't sure if this post should go into this thread or separately into the bug forum under a new topic.

Game 8941584

In this game, I control DF in the centre Val de Anehuac or whatever it is. I ended my assault phase and should've been capable of forting to either Morelos or Edo Mex. as both are controlled by my team mates. I wasn't given the option to fort to Morelos and thus has to fort to Edo Mex. Granted, this is where I was going to fort anyway, but something I thought could possibly be an issue.


Nah, your teammate doesn't own Morelos, only Edo. Mex.
Lieutenant isaiah40
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:14 pm

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:32 pm

I've finally got around to playing some games on this map---mostly 1vs1. It's not best for that setting, but I think the games have been fun at least.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24919
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Postby drunkmunky on Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:46 am

Christ, I thought this was a quads game...

Oh well, shouldn't be playing in the midst of a heavy hangover...bugger (^_^)
Image
User avatar
Major drunkmunky
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Barcelona

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users