Antarctica [Quenched]

by **natty dread** on Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:29 am

Nope, it does get lifted. The updates just haven't gone live yet.

by **SirSebstar** on Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:41 am

natty_dread wrote:Nope, it does get lifted. The updates just haven't gone live yet.

what the man above me said..

by **Seamus76** on Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:52 pm

+1 per 3 territory bonus removed - you get +3 for any amount

Maybe my brain is not working properly today, but I don't get this. Should this be a region bonus instead of a "territory" bonus? You already get +1 for every 2 territories within a region, so is this an additional +1 for just getting more territories? Or should it be +1 for holding 3 total "regions", i.e. hold all of Victoria Land, Scott Land, and Halley Land equals an additional +1?

by **SirSebstar** on Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:30 pm

Seamus76 wrote:
+1 per 3 territory bonus removed - you get +3 for any amount

Maybe my brain is not working properly today, but I don't get this. Should this be a region bonus instead of a "territory" bonus? You already get +1 for every 2 territories within a region, so is this an additional +1 for just getting more territories? Or should it be +1 for holding 3 total "regions", i.e. hold all of Victoria Land, Scott Land, and Halley Land equals an additional +1?

the latter, hold all of antartica (save for one base) will just give you +3 in addition to the special bonusses +2 for every 2 territories within a region.(and the +30 for having the southpole and sectors)

by **ender516** on Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:27 am

The confusion comes from mixed terminology. The classic board game that this site resembles (only to a legal extent) talks of "territories" and "continents", as does the XML which drives the maps on this site. The Instructions use the terms "regions" and "zones" respectively.

by **MrBenn** on Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:12 pm

SirSebstar wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Nope, it does get lifted. The updates just haven't gone live yet.

what the man above me said..

The files have been sent to lack and are waiting to be uploaded

by **HighlanderAttack** on Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:08 am

How many starting points should we have?

I liked the lesser amount

I think I started with 8 today

Makes it extremely difficult to win going second in a 1v1 game

So far I have really enjoyed this map but with this many starting points it becomes a little like baseball

by **HighlanderAttack** on Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:12 am

Went back and checked--it used to be four and now it is eight

If you go second you might as well deadbeat in my opinion

Go back to four would be my recommendation

This is just pertains to 1v1 not sure of team or multi player

by **greenoaks** on Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:28 am

Game 9308452 game over before i have had my first turn

8 starting positions each in 1v1 is a joke

by **natty dread** on Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:28 am

Sigh...

People complained when we reduced the starting positions to 4. We increased it back to 8, and now... #-o

How about a compromise? If we set them at 6 everyone should be happy, right?

Or 5?

by **HighlanderAttack** on Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:49 am

natty_dread wrote:Sigh...

People complained when we reduced the starting positions to 4. We increased it back to 8, and now...

How about a compromise? If we set them at 6 everyone should be happy, right?

Or 5?

How many players actually complained? I can't even imagine a decent 1v1 player actually wanting to add starting points to this map. As a 1v1 player I even thought 4 was too much of an advantage for the start. Three would probably be ideal in my opinion. I really hope the players that play this map get in here and express their opinions. I really like playing this map myself. So far I started two games with 8 bases and the game is over before the other player even goes.

I think even a compromise to five or six starting points and the game for 1v1 just becomes a whoever gets lucky enough to start game.

by **HighlanderAttack** on Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:51 am

I suggest checking into the new 1v1 games that are starting and checking the chat out. I wish more players did express opinions though because if only a few do so it skews what most people probably think.

by **natty dread** on Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:03 am

HighlanderAttack wrote:I suggest checking into the new 1v1 games that are starting and checking the chat out. I wish more players did express opinions though because if only a few do so it skews what most people probably think.

I actually do that for most of my maps... and yes it would be nice if more people would post their concerns in map threads.

I'll see if I can find the relative posts about the starting positions...

by **greenoaks** on Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:10 am

i don't care how many people complain about you reducing starting territories. increasing starting territories to a point where the game is over before the 1st round takes all the skill and strategy out of playing the map.

you might as well put in a victory condition of whoever goes first wins and save everyone some time.

by **natty dread** on Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:21 am

greenoaks wrote:i don't care how many people complain about you reducing starting territories. increasing starting territories to a point where the game is over before the 1st round takes all the skill and strategy out of playing the map.

you might as well put in a victory condition of whoever goes first wins and save everyone some time.

Greenoaks, we have been talking about removing the starting territory cap for about a dozen pages now. I know you have been following the thread, I saw your posts way back... why didn't you say anything before we implemented the change?

Anyway, we've made lots of updates on this map since it was released for beta - this has been the hardest map to balance between different game types during my mapmaking career: it's very hard to make this map balanced both in multiplayer singles and 1v1 or team games. We're trying our best, according to the feedback we receive, all I ask is that you give the map a chance, if it doesn't work we can discuss and try to come up with a solution.

So, capping the bases back to 4 is certainly doable... but at this point, after already making what, 3-4? updates on the map, I just want to be certain that I won't have to change it right back again.

by **perchorin** on Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:21 am

greenoaks wrote:i don't care how many people complain about you reducing starting territories. increasing starting territories to a point where the game is over before the 1st round takes all the skill and strategy out of playing the map.

you might as well put in a victory condition of whoever goes first wins and save everyone some time.

x2

by **perchorin** on Tue Jun 28, 2011 8:59 am

Also I wanna add that I thought the map was great the way it played when it first came out, could have gone without a BETA tag as far as I was concerned. Now it seems like it's being updated to death. Can we just put it back the way it was when it first came out?

by **natty dread** on Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:57 am

Nope, sorry. But we can put back the starting position cap.

by **HighlanderAttack** on Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:03 am

also maybe not so many armies to start with could help keep it more even going from second position. Right now you have a good chance of starting with 16 more armies in round 2--at least 10 for sure

by **HighlanderAttack** on Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:05 am

if u started the bases with 1 army then it becomes more even --even with 8 starting points--I still like three starting points either way--I see that not too many players were shocked with the new 8 starting points based on all the comments

by **mr. CD** on Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:42 am

HighlanderAttack wrote:if u started the bases with 1 army then it becomes more even --even with 8 starting points--I still like three starting points either way--I see that not too many players were shocked with the new 8 starting points based on all the comments

I was rather amazed when I saw my opponent take an amazing amount of territories in his first turn. I agree that 8 starting points is too much. On a side note, I would like to thank you for the map, it's awesome (even if it was more awesome).

by **natty dread** on Wed Jun 29, 2011 5:06 am

mr. CD wrote:On a side note, I would like to thank you for the map, it's awesome (even if it was more awesome).

Thanks, it's nice to hear someone appreciates our work

HighlanderAttack wrote:if u started the bases with 1 army then it becomes more even --even with 8 starting points--I still like three starting points either way--I see that not too many players were shocked with the new 8 starting points based on all the comments

Yeah but that would be bad for multiplayer games - it would be hard to move out from your base except with good dice.

How about if we reduce the starting armies to 4 and cap the bases to 4?

by **isaiah40** on Wed Jun 29, 2011 9:24 am

Well it seems as nobody is happy with any of the changes we've made while in beta. I think we'll find the best solution and stick with it. I agree with natty on this being the hardest map to balance out for every game type. The problem being in attempting to balance it for every game type is that it is impossible to do so. The only possible exception to that is a map that is very symmetrical with every bonus being the same, with the same number of territories. No one wants a map like that because it is too boring.

Now the way I see this is doing it this way:
1. Reduce the starting men to 3,
2. Cap the starting bases at 4 which means:
2, 3, and 4 player games each gets 4
5 player games each gets 3
6, 7, and 8 player games each gets 2

I believe this would be the best possible solution. Starting with 3 on the bases will hopefully prevent anyone from getting too many territories at the beginning as they will only have 6 men to start with. I am thinking that maybe we should go with getting a flat 3 men per turn no matter how many territories you hold, but that may cause players to just stack on their bases.

As always, your comments are welcome. Let's just get this figured out and quenched as soon as possible.

by **natty dread** on Wed Jun 29, 2011 11:06 am

isaiah40 wrote:I am thinking that maybe we should go with getting a flat 3 men per turn no matter how many territories you hold, but that may cause players to just stack on their bases.

We already have that. Territory bonus is 3 for any amount, so the only source of troops is the land bonus (+2 for 2).

Anyway, the changes you speak of sound good to me. Starting troops to 3, starting bases to max. 4.

Here's the new XML:

antarctica5.xml: (55.12 KiB) Downloaded 1945 times

by **fairman** on Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:54 am

Hi,

I realy liked this map and used to have great results (1 tourney win and only 1 lost until today).
But since it's a 8 base start, I don't see any more interest in this map.
You start, you win ...
You already know all the start position of your ennemy.
I realy prefered the 4 bases start.
Thx for taking care of my opinion

But a big thx for the work you've done to create this map.