Ziggurat [24/Nov/2017] v14.3 (p7)

[eddie2]

Yeah it will become the new ranchers map lol. But like u said e 01 is to powerful and to easy to take

[josko.ri]

I have completed quite a lot games on this map with score 13-6.

I like the map it indeed has new gameplay elements which no other map has.

However intention of mapmaker was that players go inside the Ziggurat and take regions up to top. It is not possible (would be bad strategy) for the reason that bases can bombard both B and C line, which is quite a big range.

I suggest to limit bases to bombard only B line, or don't have bombard function at all (my preference) in which case players will indeed have a reason to enter into Ziggurat as a beneficial move for them.

[jonofperu]

Thanks for all the feedback! It seems many complaints are related one way or another to the deploy scenario in 1v1. The original intention was that in games with 2-4 players (or 2 poly), deploy would follow this layout:

Everyone gets ONE camp per side, evenly distributed.
IF the drop were changed to these settings, I think it might also limit the stacking tendency, since you would start with only 4 camps rather than 6 and would have fewer troops per round.
Drops would also be fair.
Any advantage would come from luck against the neutrals... but can't help that.

We may have had an issue with the coding that only makes the layout I linked work with 4 players. Swifte's looking into it.

[bobdakota]

I like the map. The difference settings change the game.

3v3 there are neutral camps and i like the spin it puts on the game. It makes the game more challenging when camps are random and the player doesn't have a camp on every side. Also having no camps on a side allows a player to expand without getting bombarded. It makes it less of a stack game. With the bombarding, it is hard to move out of camp and get the level bonus. Bombarding dice are excellent. Also the auto deploy on level b and c get in the way later. All of these things make it more of a stack game.

Way to make stacking less advantages,
1. Limit camp bombard range
2. Decrease camp auto deploy
3. Change bonus on b-d from auto deploy to troop due bonus. - Although, this would make it easier when getting 2 rounds in a row from E since there are more troops to deploy.

It's fun the way it is.

Cheers,
Bob

[gigi_b]

Hi and congrats for the realease! I haven't played it extensively, but despite its simplicity I have the feel it will become a quite challenging tactical map with the right settings.

Now concerning the summit: E1. From the description, I would have expected it to be decay tert with -10 per turn. However I find it to be a killer neutral that unexpectedly resets to 1 (and not to the initial 7). Is this the intended behaviour?

[egerskydiver]

nice map!

[Mishalex]

Hello guys, good job to the map makers. I know from experiences that this is not easy and take a long time. So don't give up!

I like the fact that the map is quite different from the ones that exists already - close to Labyrinth and Antartica - and I like the fact that this is not just a reach to the objective like in Antartica where, in order to kill someone, you have to target the base... But despite that I don't like the gameplay. This is way to monotone and there is way less option than for Antartica...

Keep going guys,

[GoranZ]

The map has a weakness... its too predictable. Its basically stack, attack and kill.

How can that be fixed?
In doubles a player has 4 starting positions... make them 2
In triples a player has 2 starting positions which can be reduced to 1
In quads a player has 2 starting positions which can be reduced to 1
This way it will be harder to predict if the neighboring starting positions are occupied or not and thus it will require more planning

[GoranZ]

Another proposal for map change...
If you have for example D04 and E01 you can only bombard A05 to A08, basically the side you claimed, for other sides you will need other D's. But attack D to E should be one way, and E can revert to neutral every turn instead of losing 10 men. That way if you claimed easily you can't bombard easily and the map will be super interesting.

[hjelp]

I don't think that bases shall be able to bombard other terts.

[Swimmerdude99]

I don't think that bases shall be able to bombard other terts.

I think that Bases should at least be able to bombard the level 1 territs. IT makes sense. Some archers or something on the side. I could agree with a reduction to only the first tier of territs however. That said, I personally like its functionality as is.

The map has a weakness... its too predictable. Its basically stack, attack and kill.

How can that be fixed?
In doubles a player has 4 starting positions... make them 2
In triples a player has 2 starting positions which can be reduced to 1
In quads a player has 2 starting positions which can be reduced to 1
This way it will be harder to predict if the neighboring starting positions are occupied or not and thus it will require more planning

I think 2 is too few. I would vote for 3 on Doubles. 2 on triples, 1 on quads. I think that has the potential to make the gameplay a little more spicy. Again I'm personally loving the map but I can see the arguments above now that its in action. I also can see the middle reset, but see interesting gameplay with it both ways.

[riverj]

The map works well for multi player, team and heads up games. The use of bombardments, attacks auto deploy and minus troops makes it interesting. Would like to see some killer neutrals though

[Eddygp]

I have not played in this map, so I will avoid making very fine comments on gameplay and I'll just be a bit general with what I've seen so far.

Judging by eye and by other people's comments, the camps seem to hinder too efficiently the ascent of the ziggurat (only 9/49 regions are safe in the structure). This can be limited in two ways: either just bombard the B level or bombard only a smaller section of the B and C levels (say, in a straight line from the camps). One might argue that bombardments are not going to be that determining, but to be fair, by mid game, no autodeploy balance will be able to counter a constant bombardment by all the camps. Plus you can never win back a camp, which might be fine for 2-4 player games but with >6 players every side will have opponents and at most you'll have to bombard them at a major loss. I'm not sure, let's see how it works out in the beta.
Basically the advantage of D over C is maybe too much greater than that of C over B.

[rockfist]

This is another example of a map that should not be made, its far too luck based.

[GoranZ]

This is another example of a map that should not be made, its far too luck based.

The problem is that the map is too predictable, not that its luck based.

The map has a weakness... its too predictable. Its basically stack, attack and kill.

How can that be fixed?
In doubles a player has 4 starting positions... make them 2
In triples a player has 2 starting positions which can be reduced to 1
In quads a player has 2 starting positions which can be reduced to 1
This way it will be harder to predict if the neighboring starting positions are occupied or not and thus it will require more planning

[shocked439]

The camps can bombard too far. They should only have reach one space to either side side of the camp. It gives way too much power to the camp and reduces the lines of play available.

The naming of territories is confusing I'm not sure why but in my head it makes more sense to the sides labeled directionally to help indicate what they can hit. North camp would a, n1 or north 1 for the next level. Corners would be ne 1 for upper right most corner indicating it can be bombarded by north camp and east camp.

[GoranZ]

Any chance the number of starting positions to be reduced?

The map has a weakness... its too predictable. Its basically stack, attack and kill.

How can that be fixed?
In doubles a player has 4 starting positions... make them 2
In triples a player has 2 starting positions which can be reduced to 1
In quads a player has 2 starting positions which can be reduced to 1
This way it will be harder to predict if the neighboring starting positions are occupied or not and thus it will require more planning

As a reference I proposed the same for KC1 and KC2, and I think it turn out quite perfect for those maps... I expect the same for this one also.

[iancanton]

is there a way to also prevent nuclear and zombie spoils on the home terits?

That would be an awesome option. I hate nukes generally, but they can be so unfair if you kill a starting spot like on this map.

jon, have u decided whether u want to exclude the nuclear and zombie settings from play? if u want this to happen, then i'll set the wheels in motion.

unrelated to this, since photobucket has started to block free forum access to images hosted on its servers, u'll either have to pay to let us see the map images or, preferably, find another site to host them. no-one can comment on suggested start position layouts unless they can see what is being proposed!

ian.

[jonofperu]

My fellow map-maker, Swife, has been taking some time off from CC and I left the coding up to him. So there are still a couple problems that need to be fixed before I feel we can really evaluate the play:
1. Starting positions
2. Summit decay

Other than that, I'm open to excluding nukes and zombies. I hate them anyway, but it does make sense to exclude them from maps with unattackable starting positions.

I'll migrate my images away from Photobucket... RIP

[DaveS_WI]

Cool map been playing it a little.

Found that in the game settings "no reinforcements" can create a stalemate or at least a very frustrating game.

I would welcome bombarding my own troops right now. Game 17657377

Again thank you for creating these maps and making this site work.

DaveS_WI

[jonofperu]

Makes sense to me to exclude "No reinforcements" on a map with autodeploys like this one.

[jonofperu]

UPDATE: Well, that was annoying, but finally got all links to images updated on Flickr after Photobucket kicked the bucket.
Still waiting on XML updates...

[Captn B]

I love the look of this map, but I have a suggestion for playability, because this map can just go on forever. Instead of just being able to bomb the A level homebase-camps, it may make for a shorter game if you could own the A level camps by being able to one-way attack them from E1.

In beta, we're at round 53 with a pretty even balance of power and no potential end in sight. It's one of those "forever games," which simply has no hope of terminating. If someone is strong enough to own the Alter, then perhaps they should be able to own the camps that they bombard. Those extra +3 troops will add to the advantage so the game can eventually have an ending.

As it is, when you get on the top of the mountain (D-level) the battle for those top +3s is very challenging to hold, as others continue to work to push you off the top. In other words, when you're king of the mountain, if two battle, then the others (in 3-6 player games) have a chance to recoup and nibble at your heels, or become strong enough to then be able to be viable again (even after you'd perhaps worn them down significantly). Thus the guy who was the king of the hill, gets knocked down again, but then with the balance of power becomes even up again.

Thus it's a forever game, which is less enticing to most CC'ers, I think...at least to me it is.
[7:15 of 22 games completed, tho several wins were with bots, so my record on this map just ain't that cool.]

Also, I like the ability of the homebases on A level to be able to bombard both B and C and that whole side. Smart play-making, good job.
And yes, E level should maybe degrade 4 or something? 10 is too much. No killer neutrals needed on this map. It just needs a way for it to end in more than 2 player games.

Again, good job on this!

[Swifte]

My fellow map-maker, Swife, has been taking some time off from CC and I left the coding up to him. So there are still a couple problems that need to be fixed before I feel we can really evaluate the play:
1. Starting positions
2. Summit decay

XML UPDATE:
#1 Starting positions:

I have updated the code to define the starting positions as follows... This is exactly what I already had except that I may have had max = '1' instead of max = "1"... we'll see if that makes the difference. Based on my understanding writing it this way should say each player gets no more than 1 of the defined positions... any other territories should go neutral. If # of Players > # of positions, then all these territories will be dealt randomly evenly to all players with remained as neutrals. Hopefully that tiny change on quotes is all that is needed.. because otherwise I am completely stumped why it is giving out any additional territories in 2-3 player games.

<positions max="1">
<position><territory>A01</territory><territory>A07</territory><territory>A12</territory><territory>A14</territory></position>
<position><territory>A02</territory><territory>A05</territory><territory>A11</territory><territory>A16</territory></position>
<position><territory>A03</territory><territory>A08</territory><territory>A10</territory><territory>A13</territory></position>
<position><territory>A04</territory><territory>A06</territory><territory>A09</territory><territory>A15</territory></position>
</positions>

#2: Summit Decay "issue": I have reviewed the reported issue with the summit being a killer neutral rather than 10 decay as intended.. it is coded as intended and I have found example games where it is working as intended (2017-08-09 11:10:48 - Ukey got bonus of -10 troops added to E01)... as best I can tell it might have been that the player was in a nuke game and E01 happened to get nuked. Game 17273486
Specifically, E01 is coded as: "<bonus>-10</bonus>" not "<neutral killer="yes">1</neutral>"... so should be no issues there.

Let's give the updated version a shot to see if it fixes the starting positions.. then as jon said, open to other gameplay changes from there...

[chapcrap]

I’ve played this a couple of times and like the concept. What is waiting to push this out of beta?