Conquer Club

Age of Might Bonus modification

Talk about all things related to Conquer Club

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.

what bonus scheme do you want?

 
Total votes : 0

Age of Might Bonus modification

Postby DiM on Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:02 am

some people have complained about the game being to fast paced or it being too luck dependent, they want the bonuses changed to make it more complex and tactical. on the other hand the 73 pages of games played so far show me the map is popular. so i want the opinion of the community. vote if you want the bonuses changed or not.

A.
Code: Select all
castle +5
castle + village +2
village + resource pair + 5
castle + resource pair + 5
sanctuary +5


same fast paced action but with more incentive to expand and get resources and stuff. 1v1 will remain the same but more strategy should come in 6p games. plus by making the village + resource, castle + resource and sanctuary worth +5 it will give a chance to come back in the game to those that lost a castle and furthermore in fog games the confusion will be even higher because of the many +5 bonuses.

B.
Code: Select all
castle +5 (autodeploy)
castle + village +2
village + resource pair + 5
castle + resource pair + 5
sanctuary +5


same as previous version except the autodeploy should make the 1v1 less fast paced.


C.
Code: Select all
castle +3 (autodeploy)
castle + village +1
village + resource pair + 3
castle + resource pair + 3
sanctuary +3


same idea but lower bonuses. slow paced expansion games.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10415
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks

Postby Qyu on Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:54 am

i suggest another, based on version C :

D.
Code: Select all
castle +3 (2 autodeploy on castle, and 1 free to deploy)
castle + village +1 (free to deploy)
village + resource pair + 3 (2 autodeploy on village, and 1 free to deploy)
castle + resource pair + 3 (2 autodeploy on castle, and 1 free to deploy)
sanctuary +3 (2 autodeploy on sanctuary, and 1 free to deploy)


the ratio autodpeploy and free to deploy could be adjust

(i vote C, but i prefer D :wink: )



My opinion on this map is this is a too fast map, where starting at the beginner, the luck (because of many big neutrals), .... are too important
User avatar
Colonel Qyu
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Under my helmet

Postby MeDeFe on Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:56 am

I know, 4 identical maps with different bonus systems!
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
User avatar
Major MeDeFe
 
Posts: 7831
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:48 am
Location: Follow the trail of holes in other people's arguments.

Postby DiM on Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:00 am

Qyu wrote:i suggest another, based on version C :

D.
Code: Select all
castle +3 (2 autodeploy on castle, and 1 free to deploy)
castle + village +1 (free to deploy)
village + resource pair + 3 (2 autodeploy on village, and 1 free to deploy)
castle + resource pair + 3 (2 autodeploy on castle, and 1 free to deploy)
sanctuary +3 (2 autodeploy on sanctuary, and 1 free to deploy)


the ratio autodpeploy and free to deploy could be adjust

(i vote C, but i prefer D :wink: )



My opinion on this map is this is a too fast map, where starting at the beginner, the luck (because of many big neutrals), .... are too important


it could be interesting but i don't think it's possible
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10415
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks

Postby Selin on Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:45 am

I voted for c) in order to make it more attractive to attack neutral armies to increase you armies per turn.

But what's the idea behind auto-deploying castles? In this case adjacent games would be almost meaningless. Reducing castle bonus to 3 (or even to 2), but having the freedom to place them anywhere should be enough to hinder fast killings.

.
Brigadier Selin
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:56 am
Location: Istanbul, Turkey

Postby yeti_c on Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:59 am

I'd ignore this poll - It's a load of meaningless crap.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am

Postby yeti_c on Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:01 am

Qyu wrote:i suggest another, based on version C :

D.
Code: Select all
castle +3 (2 autodeploy on castle, and 1 free to deploy)
castle + village +1 (free to deploy)
village + resource pair + 3 (2 autodeploy on village, and 1 free to deploy)
castle + resource pair + 3 (2 autodeploy on castle, and 1 free to deploy)
sanctuary +3 (2 autodeploy on sanctuary, and 1 free to deploy)


the ratio autodpeploy and free to deploy could be adjust

(i vote C, but i prefer D :wink: )



My opinion on this map is this is a too fast map, where starting at the beginner, the luck (because of many big neutrals), .... are too important


Auto deploy only works on a territory...

You cannot have autodeploy on a continent.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9624
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am

Postby rebelman on Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:29 am

I voted for option A - as I am happy with the map in its current format and im certain there are many more out there that share a similar opinion.
Don't now why people on here don't like being cooks, remember under siege: A former SEAL, now cook, is the only person who can stop a gang of terrorists when they sieze control of a US Navy battleship.
User avatar
Private rebelman
 
Posts: 2968
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:24 pm
Location: People's Republic of Cork

Postby dominationnation on Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:03 pm

def B. solves all the problems.
Cook dominationnation
 
Posts: 4234
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:20 am

Postby wacicha on Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:14 pm

Well I agree with Rebel, BUT Dim, You should make another map using these examples on a different scenario. that would work for all.
Image
User avatar
Major wacicha
 
Posts: 3988
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:51 pm

Postby DiM on Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:27 pm

wacicha wrote:Well I agree with Rebel, BUT Dim, You should make another map using these examples on a different scenario. that would work for all.



that's exactly what i'll do. chapter 2 will be different from chapter 1 and it will include the suggestions of those that weren't happy with chapter 1.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10415
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks

Postby wicked on Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:31 pm

I think the changes you're making in #2 will satisfy what some don't like about this map, and by looking at the poll results, they're not in the majority. When both maps are up, people will have the option of which to play, so there's no need to change this one.
User avatar
Major wicked
 
Posts: 15787
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:23 pm

Postby DiM on Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:36 pm

wicked wrote:I think the changes you're making in #2 will satisfy what some don't like about this map, and by looking at the poll results, they're not in the majority. When both maps are up, people will have the option of which to play, so there's no need to change this one.


qft.

now, can a mod lock this thread?

chapter 2 is in my sig.
Last edited by DiM on Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10415
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks

Postby 3seven1 on Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:45 pm

I think Castle + resource pair should be more of a bonus. It's the same as just owning the castle.

:?

I'd be in favor of reducing the castle bonus to 3 thought. So I guess i'd vote for c IF the auto deploy was removed.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class 3seven1
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 5:24 pm
Location: Fresno, CA, USA

Postby wicked on Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:48 pm

No need to lock. You've pointed them to the Map 2 discussion, that'll suffice.
User avatar
Major wicked
 
Posts: 15787
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:23 pm

Re: Age of Might Bonus modification

Postby Blitzaholic on Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:12 pm

DiM wrote:some people have complained about the game being to fast paced or it being too luck dependent, they want the bonuses changed to make it more complex and tactical. on the other hand the 73 pages of games played so far show me the map is popular. so i want the opinion of the community. vote if you want the bonuses changed or not.

A.
Code: Select all
castle +5
castle + village +2
village + resource pair + 5
castle + resource pair + 5
sanctuary +5


same fast paced action but with more incentive to expand and get resources and stuff. 1v1 will remain the same but more strategy should come in 6p games. plus by making the village + resource, castle + resource and sanctuary worth +5 it will give a chance to come back in the game to those that lost a castle and furthermore in fog games the confusion will be even higher because of the many +5 bonuses.

B.
Code: Select all
castle +5 (autodeploy)
castle + village +2
village + resource pair + 5
castle + resource pair + 5
sanctuary +5


same as previous version except the autodeploy should make the 1v1 less fast paced.


C.
Code: Select all
castle +3 (autodeploy)
castle + village +1
village + resource pair + 3
castle + resource pair + 3
sanctuary +3


same idea but lower bonuses. slow paced expansion games.



the one with the most skill, I would need to study the map
Image
User avatar
General Blitzaholic
 
Posts: 23050
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Apocalyptic Area

Postby arizona on Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:18 am

One might notice that at the moment there are as many votes for change as there are for the the status quo, it's just that the former are spread across the three options.

Seems there's a sizable population that see this map as fun, but not as fun as it could be. Five armies for one territory is a lot! As much as North America on the Classic Map.
Lieutenant arizona
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:49 am

Postby mibi on Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:54 am

arizona wrote:One might notice that at the moment there are as many votes for change as there are for the the status quo, it's just that the former are spread across the three options.

Seems there's a sizable population that see this map as fun, but not as fun as it could be. Five armies for one territory is a lot! As much as North America on the Classic Map.


qft.


23 want to leave it.

25 want it changed.

it seems the wicked's 'majority' is out numbered.

but now that map 2 is in development, it is becoming less of any issue anyways, just unfortunate.
User avatar
Captain mibi
 
Posts: 3350
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: The Great State of Vermont

Postby Vace Cooper on Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:48 pm

how about no bonus for the first castle then +5 when you have 2
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Vace Cooper
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: MN

tink

Postby Yahoo oo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:44 pm

i think that the map is fine and should but left how it is
"Another method of eating burning coals employs small balls of burned cotton in a dish of burning alcohol"

Harry Houdini
User avatar
Private 1st Class Yahoo oo
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 7:37 pm

Postby Vace Cooper on Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:30 am

I want to be able to try and get some of the bonus's but you dont even get a chance, i think something has to change so we can really play the map. Its so big and if you want a quick game you can play a smaller map
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Vace Cooper
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: MN

Postby Arachnophobia on Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:00 am

I have yet to vote as I see the village + castle gain of +2 as extremely bad. I'd vote for B with
castle+village +1
Lieutenant Arachnophobia
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:23 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Postby arizona on Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:26 am

those wanting to leave it as is have slipped into the minority...
Lieutenant arizona
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:49 am

Postby owenshooter on Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:23 am

Vace Cooper wrote:how about no bonus for the first castle then +5 when you have 2


i like that idea. i like coopers thoughts about being able to actually grab some bonuses up before being killed. nice thoughts cooper. who knew you were a thinker?!-0
User avatar
Sergeant owenshooter
 
Posts: 13274
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:01 pm
Location: Deep in the Heart of Tx

Postby Vace Cooper on Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:03 am

age of might has 96 Terits but you only get to use about 5 or 6 of them
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Vace Cooper
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: MN

Next

Return to Conquer Club Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users