Page 5 of 14
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:54 pm
by cairnswk
Evil DIMwit wrote:There hasn't been a comment on gameplay since the last update. Does that mean everyone's distracted by the shiny graphics?
Yes i'm distracted by the shiny graphics...but i can't read the territory names on the new grass.
I must however congratulate you on your creativity with this one. Most excellent of you.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:33 pm
by AGJ12
this looks awesome, i hope it becomes a playable map
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:42 pm
by Evil DIMwit
natty_dread wrote:So I think the only solution is to increase the troop "scale"... Make all the troop numbers bigger, so the relative difference between the bonuses can be made smaller.
Not a bad idea. I'll try to find some numbers that work.
cairnswk wrote:Yes i'm distracted by the shiny graphics...but i can't read the territory names on the new grass.
Are they too light? Too dark? Too wavy?
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:08 am
by ender516
Evil DIMwit wrote:natty_dread wrote:So I think the only solution is to increase the troop "scale"... Make all the troop numbers bigger, so the relative difference between the bonuses can be made smaller.
Not a bad idea. I'll try to find some numbers that work.
cairnswk wrote:Yes i'm distracted by the shiny graphics...but i can't read the territory names on the new grass.
Are they too light? Too dark? Too wavy?
I'd say the text lacks contrast. They should either be much closer to white, or converted to a dark green or black.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:47 am
by natty dread
Alternatively, adding a dark outline to the text might help.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:10 am
by yeti_c
Evil DIMwit wrote:natty_dread wrote:So I think the only solution is to increase the troop "scale"... Make all the troop numbers bigger, so the relative difference between the bonuses can be made smaller.
Not a bad idea. I'll try to find some numbers that work.
Could consider bombard for fanatic versus capture for real station?
C.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:12 pm
by Evil DIMwit
yeti_c wrote:Could consider bombard for fanatic versus capture for real station?
C.
That wouldn't work so well, since the whole point of the remote assault is to expand mobility. If it's only a bombard, there might as well be nothing there at all.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:37 pm
by yeti_c
Evil DIMwit wrote:yeti_c wrote:Could consider bombard for fanatic versus capture for real station?
C.
That wouldn't work so well, since the whole point of the remote assault is to expand mobility. If it's only a bombard, there might as well be nothing there at all.
Well - isn't the whole idea of Pirate radio to disrupt normal radio?!
The Pirates would be a negative player - stopping the normal radio from expanding - whilst they expand at grass roots level by word of mouth - on the streets?!
(Or something like that?!)
C.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:43 pm
by Evil DIMwit
yeti_c wrote:Well - isn't the whole idea of Pirate radio to disrupt normal radio?!
The Pirates would be a negative player - stopping the normal radio from expanding - whilst they expand at grass roots level by word of mouth - on the streets?!
(Or something like that?!)
C.
Not a bad idea. In that case, though, bombarding the fanatics isn't so useful. Maybe the bombard sponsors? But to balance that, sponsors don't give you benefit if you own a pirate.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:50 am
by yeti_c
Evil DIMwit wrote:yeti_c wrote:Well - isn't the whole idea of Pirate radio to disrupt normal radio?!
The Pirates would be a negative player - stopping the normal radio from expanding - whilst they expand at grass roots level by word of mouth - on the streets?!
(Or something like that?!)
C.
Not a bad idea. In that case, though, bombarding the fanatics isn't so useful. Maybe the bombard sponsors? But to balance that, sponsors don't give you benefit if you own a pirate.
That sounds more accurate?!
C.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:43 am
by Evil DIMwit
yeti_c wrote:Evil DIMwit wrote:yeti_c wrote:Well - isn't the whole idea of Pirate radio to disrupt normal radio?!
The Pirates would be a negative player - stopping the normal radio from expanding - whilst they expand at grass roots level by word of mouth - on the streets?!
(Or something like that?!)
C.
Not a bad idea. In that case, though, bombarding the fanatics isn't so useful. Maybe the bombard sponsors? But to balance that, sponsors don't give you benefit if you own a pirate.
That sounds more accurate?!
C.
¡I hope!
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:43 pm
by Hopscotcher
First of all........ REALLY like this map! It's kind of like Madness or Space where it's not totally serious, but still has good gameplay.
I dislike Pirates Bombarding Sponsors.... I think they should be able to Take Over Fanatics. i.e. attack them
Of course, they don't really get any bonus for that, but usually Pirate Stations are more about getting the Word to the average Joe than actually Hurting regular stations. Although they do this indirectly.
Just my thoughts,
Hopper
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:28 pm
by MrBenn
Hopscotcher wrote:First of all........ REALLY like this map! It's kind of like Madness or Space where it's not totally serious, but still has good gameplay.
I dislike Pirates Bombarding Sponsors.... I think they should be able to Take Over Fanatics. i.e. attack them
Of course, they don't really get any bonus for that, but usually Pirate Stations are more about getting the Word to the average Joe than actually Hurting regular stations. Although they do this indirectly.
Just my thoughts,
Hopper
So the pirates can do more damage (attack more places) but don't give so much reward (bonus) ?
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:21 pm
by Evil DIMwit
Hopscotcher wrote:First of all........ REALLY like this map! It's kind of like Madness or Space where it's not totally serious, but still has good gameplay.
I dislike Pirates Bombarding Sponsors.... I think they should be able to Take Over Fanatics. i.e. attack them
Of course, they don't really get any bonus for that, but usually Pirate Stations are more about getting the Word to the average Joe than actually Hurting regular stations. Although they do this indirectly.
Just my thoughts,
Hopper
That's essentially what it's like right now, where pirates don't need to go through an antenna to assault Fanatics like regular stations do, with the drawback that they occupy more central and thus less easily-defensible positions. Do you think that's balanced?
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:10 pm
by Hopscotcher
I do think it's balanced and it makes sense.
On one hand, people will want them because they are powerful, but on the other hand people won't want to be a target. It's like any other powerful territory.
I. E. PAF in WWII Poland
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:39 pm
by Evil DIMwit
Hopscotcher wrote:On one hand, people will want them because they are powerful, but on the other hand people won't want to be a target. It's like any other powerful territory.
With the difference being that nobody is forced to start on the PAF. I need to make sure it's balanced as a stating territory but it's hard to say.
I could try to add some artificial balance by increasing the neutral values on all the other houses/sponsors, but that could end up seriously frustrating people in spoils battles.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:06 pm
by yeti_c
Indeed...
The fact that in an 8 player game 2 people are pirates and 6 are not - might make it suck to be a pirate (or vice versa)...
Then again... in an 8 player game - if someone gets strong early - it tends to happen that the other 7 players rein them in...
Anything over 5 player games are (fairly) self levelling - so I would concentrate on this...
4 players = 8 starts...
1) Possiblity of 1 player having 2 pirates? Is this too strong to subdue the other 3 players?
3 players = 6 starts (2 neutrals)?
2) Possiblity of 1 player having 2 pirates? Is this too strong to subdue the other 2 players?
2 players = 4 starts (4 neutrals)?
3) Possiblity of 1 player having 2 pirates? Is this too strong to subdue the other player?
My answers would be
1) No
2) Maybe (erring on the side of No - in a fog game less so)
3) Yes
Thus I would ask to enforce a positions game where in a 2 player game - the pirates are shared out.
The other 6 stations would be shared/3 - so in a 1v1 game each player would get 1 pirate and 2 normals. (which would be fair)
C.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 4:28 pm
by Evil DIMwit
A) Pirates are only start positions in 4-, 7-, and 8-player games thanks to the Clever Start Position Scheme (explained
earlier in this thread) that guarantees just that, and
B) Another effect of the CSPS is that in a 4-player game, it is impossible for one player to start with both pirates.
Therefore, yeti, I think your concerns are already addressed.
It
is possible for one team to get both pirates in a 4p or 8p team game, but I don't think that scenario is too game-breaking.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V4.1)!
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:54 am
by yeti_c
Evil DIMwit wrote:A) Pirates are only start positions in 4-, 7-, and 8-player games thanks to the Clever Start Position Scheme (explained
earlier in this thread) that guarantees just that, and
B) Another effect of the CSPS is that in a 4-player game, it is impossible for one player to start with both pirates.
Therefore, yeti, I think your concerns are already addressed.
It
is possible for one team to get both pirates in a 4p or 8p team game, but I don't think that scenario is too game-breaking.
(Bringing that post here)
MrBenn wrote:I love the fact that starting positions mess with everybody's mind
Your description above was correct - and DJ Teflon suggested an excellent implementation of it.
So:
1. All of the "standard" territories coded as neutral
2. Pirate stations NOT coded as neutral.
3. Radio stations not coded neutral
4. The 6 Radio stations coded into start positions
This means:
2p - each player will be allocated 3 radio stations. The pirates revert to neutral as there is not enough for an even deal.
3p - each player will be allocated 2 radio stations. The pirates revert to neutral.
4p - each player will be allocated 1 radio station. The pirates enter the pot to be allocated with the surplus radio stations.
5p - each player will be allocated 1 radio station. The pirates and remaining radio station revert to neutral.
6p - each player will be allocated 1 radio station. The pirates revert to neutral.
7p - the starting positions are ignored. The pirates and radio stations are allocated, with the surplus territory going neutral.
8p - the starting positions are ignored. The pirates and radio stations are allocated; 1 to each player.
This way, no single player will ever own more than 1 pirate from the drop. There is a possibility that two players on the same team (4p/8p dubs/quads) will drop both pirates, but there's not a lot that can be done about it...
This is most excellent - great work Teflon. (I'd previously missed this)
C.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:44 pm
by Evil DIMwit
Well, now that we're all cleared up, I think the only issue left to change is the contrast of the territory names...
[bigimg]http://dimagic.webs.com/ConquerClub/Woodboro_v9.png[/bigimg]
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:54 pm
by ender516
Evil DIMwit wrote:Well, now that we're all cleared up, I think the only issue left to change is the contrast of the territory names...
[bigimg]http://dimagic.webs.com/ConquerClub/Woodboro_v9.png[/bigimg]
As I said before, either much lighter text, or dark green, or even black.
And don't forget the parking lot lines.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:17 pm
by Evil DIMwit
ender516 wrote:And don't forget the parking lot lines.
Are you sure those are necessary? I can't think how they might not look awkward with the irregularly-shaped lots (and making the lots regular might not be possible given how everything needs to fit)
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:22 am
by Hopscotcher
Evil DIMwit wrote:ender516 wrote:And don't forget the parking lot lines.
Are you sure those are necessary? I can't think how they might not look awkward with the irregularly-shaped lots (and making the lots regular might not be possible given how everything needs to fit)
Aren't these Graphics issues anyway? Not Gameplay? Just sayin.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:01 am
by yeti_c
Hopscotcher wrote:Aren't these Graphics issues anyway? Not Gameplay? Just sayin.
Valid points.
C.
Re: Good Morning Woodboro (V5.1) -- Gameplay suggestions welcome
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:27 am
by ender516
yeti_c wrote:Hopscotcher wrote:Aren't these Graphics issues anyway? Not Gameplay? Just sayin.
Valid points.
C.
I wouldn't have commented on them if EvilDIMwit hadn't gone that way at the bottom of page 8. I will hold my fire until this gets moved to Graphics Workshop, which, as far as I'm concerned, could be any time now. I think the game play looks good as it stands.