Moderator: Cartographers
Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, looking at it again... Tituba has a large advantage, given there's an Accuser right next door... Hm.
-Sully
cairnswk wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, looking at it again... Tituba has a large advantage, given there's an Accuser right next door... Hm.
-Sully
Yes she has, so the only thing to do there is for an impassable..i wouldn't want to lose her as starter as she was one of the original accused.
Victor Sullivan wrote:cairnswk wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:Hm, looking at it again... Tituba has a large advantage, given there's an Accuser right next door... Hm.
-Sully
Yes she has, so the only thing to do there is for an impassable..i wouldn't want to lose her as starter as she was one of the original accused.
Too true, my friend! An impassable might be okay, though it would close her off a bit.
-Sully
ender516 wrote:Are we concerned that Tituba is too close to Elizabeth Parris, or just that she is adjacent to Samuel Brabrook?
TaCktiX wrote:This is a conquest map? I just don't see it as conquest. I see it more as a standard map with dispersion bonuses. Perhaps instead of conquest just have starting neutrals to prevent freebie bonuses?
ender516 wrote:Just spitballing here: what about a road instead of a fence with a new buggy stop where Tituba, Samuel Brabrook, and Elizabeth Parris meet?
MarshalNey wrote:TaCktiX wrote:This is a conquest map? I just don't see it as conquest. I see it more as a standard map with dispersion bonuses. Perhaps instead of conquest just have starting neutrals to prevent freebie bonuses?
I agree with this strongly, but if this was meant to be a conquest map from the beginning then of course go with that.
I think some clarification needs to go into the first post. Unfortunately, the specification of neutral vs. open deployment regions on the map was left out of the map template (my fault as I didn't comment in the thread at the time it was being made). Anyway, it's a big deal as far as gameplay is concerned, and I made the assumption that the map was open deployment...
I'll wait to comment on the starting positions until I know for certain whether this is a conquest or open-deployment map.
...- Marshal Ney
MarshalNey wrote:Question 1: Yes, I think 24 works. It will join the select company of Poker Club and maybe several other maps I can't recall with several sets of starting positions... Certainly it mitigates my personal dislike for conquest maps, so I'll probably play it!
Question 2: Hard to say without more information. Now that I know we're talking conquest-style, I'd really like to see what neutral values you have in mind for the rest of the map. Did I miss it on the 1st post? If so I apologize.
-- Marshal Ney
P.S. I realize that you might want to hammer out the starting positions before tackling neutral values, but what I'm looking for is a general idea of how easily a player can (or cannot) move about the map... are the buggy stops going to be in the range of neutral 1s or 2s, or 4s and 6s? Some mapmakers like high neutrals, others low, I prefer the latter for several reasons mostly relating to game flow.
cairnswk wrote:On the buggy stops - 1 - will maintain flow around the map
Do you think these will work for other neutral values?
On Meeting houses - 3 - don't want these as too easy to get, players need to fight over them
On witch hill, prison and judges and reverends - 5 - high in order to be not easy to get until end game
On all other non-starting positions - 2 - need to be accessible after running the buggy stops
Users browsing this forum: No registered users