MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

by **MrBenn** on Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:10 pm

Here's the adjusted XML... http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2 ... exico3.xml

by **Bruceswar** on Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:47 pm

MrBenn wrote:I received this via PM:
drisk wrote:putting a tiny country's name out where the ports are is BOGUS.

Any idea what it's referring to?

Def referring to Colima

by **MrBenn** on Wed Sep 22, 2010 12:52 pm

Bruceswar wrote:
MrBenn wrote:I received this via PM:
drisk wrote:putting a tiny country's name out where the ports are is BOGUS.

Any idea what it's referring to?

Def referring to Colima

Is it something that needs fixing (and if so, how?)?
Or is it fine?

by **ender516** on Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:50 pm

It looks fine to me. Colima does not have a port symbol, it has a line. I doubt very many people will be confused. The fact that this one person used the word "bogus" in block caps doesn't mean it is a serious flaw in the map (or even a flaw at all). The only "solution" I can see, if one were needed, would involve serious distortion of the borders so that the Colima label could fit in the region.

by **fumandomuerte** on Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:57 pm

Sorry for the late nitpicks but can you change "Valle del Anahuac" to "Valle de Anahuac" MrBenn?
Other thing that changed from version 5 to beta is the junction indicated by the blue arrow:

For geographic acurracy it should change from:

To:

fm

by **natty dread** on Wed Sep 22, 2010 2:59 pm

4-way borders are a no-no in map design, Fumando. Geographic accuracy must be fudged at times to improve gameplay clarity.

by **fumandomuerte** on Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:11 pm

Indeed, I 101% agree.

by **MrBenn** on Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:16 pm

Although I could drop a mountain in there if necessary?

by **fumandomuerte** on Wed Sep 22, 2010 4:51 pm

Could work. Topography there shows 3000 m above sea level:

Click image to enlarge.

by **equalpants** on Wed Sep 22, 2010 5:03 pm

Quintana Roo is currently misspelled as "Quintina" in both the graphics and XML.

by **Commander62890** on Wed Sep 22, 2010 10:34 pm

Have the ports all been changed to neutrals?

That's bad for team play isn't it? The ports made things interesting - now, no one's going to take them.

by **ender516** on Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:47 pm

The ports give a bonus and quick access up and down the coasts. I think people will still take them.

by **Bruceswar** on Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:01 am

ender516 wrote:The ports give a bonus and quick access up and down the coasts. I think people will still take them.

Not gonna happen in most games if you ask me.

by **fumandomuerte** on Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:13 am

Giving +3 for 5 ports instead of coding neutrals could help to avoid drop bonuses and keep the appeal of the ports imo.

by **army of nobunaga** on Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:13 am

love the map, just wish monterrey could have been included somehow.. its one of the laRgest cities in north america.

but other than that top notch and great work

by **Commander62890** on Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:00 am

ender516 wrote:The ports give a bonus and quick access up and down the coasts. I think people will still take them.

Not in team games, my friend.

This completely ruined the map for team games. Really, no one agrees with me? The Sur bonus is way too good without some more small bonuses in play.

by **fumandomuerte** on Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:42 pm

Commander62890 wrote:
ender516 wrote:The ports give a bonus and quick access up and down the coasts. I think people will still take them.

Not in team games, my friend.

This completely ruined the map for team games. Really, no one agrees with me? The Sur bonus is way too good without some more small bonuses in play.

Agree. Already suggested to change the bonus requirement for the ports from 3 for +2 to 5 for +3 (or a +4).

by **Commander62890** on Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:40 pm

fumandomuerte wrote:Agree. Already suggested to change the bonus requirement for the ports from 3 for +2 to 5 for +3 (or a +4).

I'm sorry, but no one's going to be taking out 10 neutrals for a +4 bonus on a medium-sized map.

If you don't scrap the neutral ports, ports will only be used in desperation by a losing team trying to break a bonus on the other side of the map. And, since the losing team will have to go through 4 neutrals to break the bonus, it will probably only hasten their defeat.

If you're fixed on neutral ports, changing the ports to 1 neutral each, and have 2 ports be worth 2 or more armies might be okay.

Though I think that just having them as regular territories would be best.

Sorry about all this criticism, but I'm not wrong in that having neutral ports will make them a total non-factor in team games and 1v1. If this is what you're going for, fine. I just think it would be a more complex and layered map if you made the ports important.

by **fumandomuerte** on Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:35 am

Don't get me wrong. What I'm saying is that Ports should not be coded as neutrals and the bonus they give right now (+2 for any 3) must be adjusted to avoid drop advantages with a requirement of holding 5 to claim more troops, not 3.

by **Commander62890** on Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:26 pm

Sure, that would be fine.

Ports were overpowered with the previous coding, but now they're just plain useless.

I'm just saying we need to find something in between; useful but not overpowered.

Maybe hold 4 ports for +2 or +3? 5 seems like too many.

What was the thought process for changing the ports to neutral?

by **MrBenn** on Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:16 pm

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.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:22 pm

Definitely C, MrBenn

by **fumandomuerte** on Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:26 pm

I like option C too.

by **Commander62890** on Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:38 am

Hmmm not bad, but I don't like C.

It still forces you to hit a neutral, which make the bonus unusable for 1v1 and Team.

It seems like it will be hard to find the mid-way point between not being too drop-dependent on 1v1 and not being to boring on Team.

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

by **MrBenn** on Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:40 am

We'd still need to put neutrals on the map to eliminate the 12-terr advantage to player 1 on 1v1s and 3p games...

MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Re: MÉXICO [BETA] p1/18 --Sep 11th--

Who is online