Conquer Club

I must say that this map makes an awesome 5 player speed assassin map.

Regarding balancing and such, the one thing that I've noticed is that the bonus for portals rarely comes into play. Perhaps a little enhancing and/or making it easier to get (say 2 portals minimum instead of 3) might make it a more attractive option to take portals for a bonus?

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:I must say that this map makes an awesome 5 player speed assassin map.

Regarding balancing and such, the one thing that I've noticed is that the bonus for portals rarely comes into play. Perhaps a little enhancing and/or making it easier to get (say 2 portals minimum instead of 3) might make it a more attractive option to take portals for a bonus?

It may just be because hitting the deep lands is a more attractive feature than hitting 2 other portals for the same bonus, and then you only need to take 2 instead of 7 neutrals to get the same increase, with the added option of being able to reach the pinnacle later as well.

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:I must say that this map makes an awesome 5 player speed assassin map.

Regarding balancing and such, the one thing that I've noticed is that the bonus for portals rarely comes into play. Perhaps a little enhancing and/or making it easier to get (say 2 portals minimum instead of 3) might make it a more attractive option to take portals for a bonus?

yes, I agree.

I was thinking for every 2 portals owned is +3 bonus, then every portal owned after that +1?

Or for every portal owned is +1 bonus

what you think kab?

I've been having that same feeling about portals ... and that could make it better blitz. I'm cool with it

chipv wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:yes, you can do that. Instead of having 10 starting points. You change them to the only 10 playable regions (all the other will be set as neutral)

I think that this was the way chip managed to get 2 starting nobles in 1v1 for the King's Court map.

maybe chip could shed some light here...

Setting all of those to neutral would allow manual and also 1v1 gets each player 3 positions instead of 5.

would this be for 1 vs 1 games only chip?

Kabanellas wrote:I've been having that same feeling about portals ... and that could make it better blitz. I'm cool with it

ok, Kab and I agree to add a bonus of +1 for each portal all own and hold.

can you add this to the xml bunga or chip?


I was also thinking of raising the pinnacle to 10 neutrals instead of 7 to provide more balance. What you think of that Kab?

Blitzaholic wrote:

chipv wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:yes, you can do that. Instead of having 10 starting points. You change them to the only 10 playable regions (all the other will be set as neutral)

I think that this was the way chip managed to get 2 starting nobles in 1v1 for the King's Court map.

maybe chip could shed some light here...

Setting all of those to neutral would allow manual and also 1v1 gets each player 3 positions instead of 5.

would this be for 1 vs 1 games only chip?

Setting everything to neutral except current starting points and removing start positions from XML means you can manual deploy on any setting. For 1v1 the drop is different - you would get 3 starts instead of 5. Other settings would remain same.

The downside is that you cannot change the starting armies on these territories - they would always be 3 neutral or non-neutral. (Like Classic map)

Basically we came across same issue in Kings Court and we are due a change which will offer a great fix for any map in 1v1.

Now for the rest of it, the portals are a problem for which several fixes have been suggested.

Does everyone think 7 is ok for the portals given how difficult it is to secure 3 of them for a bonus?
By the time someone is powerful enough to crack through the portals, the number of neutrals becomes almost superfluous, it is in the early part of the game that might be more interesting if it were easier to break through.

Blitzaholic wrote:

chipv wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:yes, you can do that. Instead of having 10 starting points. You change them to the only 10 playable regions (all the other will be set as neutral)

I think that this was the way chip managed to get 2 starting nobles in 1v1 for the King's Court map.

maybe chip could shed some light here...

Setting all of those to neutral would allow manual and also 1v1 gets each player 3 positions instead of 5.

would this be for 1 vs 1 games only chip?

A quick question for you blitz...did you talked with kab?
Kab and myself already discussed a bit about this on msn so it should be ok now, no?

thenobodies80 wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

chipv wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:yes, you can do that. Instead of having 10 starting points. You change them to the only 10 playable regions (all the other will be set as neutral)

I think that this was the way chip managed to get 2 starting nobles in 1v1 for the King's Court map.

maybe chip could shed some light here...

Setting all of those to neutral would allow manual and also 1v1 gets each player 3 positions instead of 5.

would this be for 1 vs 1 games only chip?

A quick question for you blitz...did you talked with kab?
Kab and myself already discussed a bit about this on msn so it should be ok now, no?

I am not sure if I like it thenobodies, I just read what chip said and he said the nuetrals would all turn to 3 if we switch it, that is not good. many like it 1 vs 1 the way it is, and we dont need manual on it. send me a pm nobodies.

chipv wrote:Setting everything to neutral except current starting points and removing start positions from XML means you can manual deploy on any setting. For 1v1 the drop is different - you would get 3 starts instead of 5. Other settings would remain same.

The downside is that you cannot change the starting armies on these territories - they would always be 3 neutral or non-neutral. (Like Classic map).

the downside is not good at all, it will make the map more unbalanced, I suggest we leave it as it is.

Again, change the pinnacle to 10 neutrals instead of 7, and add +1 bonus for every portal held and owned, this will make the map be more balanced. It is a better solution then to make all lands 3 neutrals.

yes, probably better to leave everything as it is, concerning the Starting Points situation.

Portals - we're settled with 2 portals yielding 3 troops and +1 for each additional one? or 1 troop per portal? not really sure what's best....

as for the Pinnacle, don't you think that 10 might be too much? we're talking about a killer neutral - people might give up on that option and only use it when the game is perfectly won.

Based on distance from the legion and other starting points.. maybe myth can be lower than 7.. Don't know if it was already suggested with 88 pages of thread..

ICQ! wrote:Hi there,

In game 8448401 my teammate StefH holds a region called Brethren. Neverttheless the card he holds of this region is not printed fat. This is a pretty new map/ beta (Clandemonium) so i think that here lies the problem.

Thanks for your effort;

Greets; ICQ!

would our mapmakers like to decide whether to change the displayed name of the clans' grounds in the spoils list, in line with [player]icq![/player]'s enquiry?

ian.

Kabanellas wrote:I've been having that same feeling about portals ... and that could make it better blitz. I'm cool with it

super

Kabanellas wrote:yes, probably better to leave everything as it is, concerning the Starting Points situation.

Portals - we're settled with 2 portals yielding 3 troops and +1 for each additional one? or 1 troop per portal? not really sure what's best.....

+1 for each portal owned and held including deep lands.

Kabanellas wrote:as for the Pinnacle, don't you think that 10 might be too much? we're talking about a killer neutral - people might give up on that option and only use it when the game is perfectly won.

some people may give up on that option if it is 10, however, if they think real hard, they may not, why? because each deep land territory you own is +2.

iancanton wrote:

ICQ! wrote:Hi there,

In game 8448401 my teammate StefH holds a region called Brethren. Neverttheless the card he holds of this region is not printed fat. This is a pretty new map/ beta (Clandemonium) so i think that here lies the problem.

Thanks for your effort;

Greets; ICQ!

would our mapmakers like to decide whether to change the displayed name of the clans' grounds in the spoils list, in line with [player]icq![/player]'s enquiry?

ian.

hi iancanton, I think kab, bunga or nobodies with their expertise, would be better suited for this area. thx for the feedback!

Blitzaholic wrote:

iancanton wrote:

ICQ! wrote:Hi there,

In game 8448401 my teammate StefH holds a region called Brethren. Neverttheless the card he holds of this region is not printed fat. This is a pretty new map/ beta (Clandemonium) so i think that here lies the problem.

Thanks for your effort;

Greets; ICQ!

would our mapmakers like to decide whether to change the displayed name of the clans' grounds in the spoils list, in line with [player]icq![/player]'s enquiry?

ian.

hi iancanton, I think kab, bunga or nobodies with their expertise, would be better suited for this area. thx for the feedback!

At glance I would say it's more a game bug. But it needs more investigating to be sure. I'll give you more info asap.

thenobodies80 wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

iancanton wrote:

ICQ! wrote:Hi there,

In game 8448401 my teammate StefH holds a region called Brethren. Neverttheless the card he holds of this region is not printed fat. This is a pretty new map/ beta (Clandemonium) so i think that here lies the problem.

Thanks for your effort;

Greets; ICQ!

would our mapmakers like to decide whether to change the displayed name of the clans' grounds in the spoils list, in line with [player]icq![/player]'s enquiry?

ian.

hi iancanton, I think kab, bunga or nobodies with their expertise, would be better suited for this area. thx for the feedback!

At glance I would say it's more a game bug. But it needs more investigating to be sure. I'll give you more info asap.

I think I did mention earlier how it'd be nice to have some continuity along the lines of whether you use abbreviations, or just part of names etc. A key may also come in use with regards to any differences arising between drop-downs/map/spoils etc

ICQ!, If the card doesn't light up and show in bold it is probably a game bug issue, not a map bug issue. I will ask nobodies to check for clarification on this. Thanks for the heads up.


and


Leehar, are you suggesting, we name the landing point Thota for example instead of The Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and name the landing point Tofu instead of the odd fellows union, etc.?

Leehar wrote:Also, I don't like the naming of the Brethren clan ground very much. I think using the acronym Bfm would be a lot more appropriate since other applicable names like Nemesis etc have been compressed.
In regards to that as well, have you considered maybe developing a key and making those with acronyms in the map because of space constraints have their full name in the drop-down? Divine Domination, Eternal Empire etc. I think it'd be an added aid to increase those clans recognition instead of leaving it shortened everywhere just for the clan grounds.

Blitzaholic wrote:Leehar, are you suggesting, we name the landing point Thota for example instead of The Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and name the landing point Tofu instead of the odd fellows union, etc.?

Somewhat the opposite I guess? I'm not sure where you discussed the namings initially, but why have the full name for all those in the landing points but not for clan grounds? Obviously if it's because of their being less space in the clan grounds it's understandable, but for a layman, who's to know who DD or EE are? (Specially considering they aren't existing clans anymore) while BSS/ID etc are written out in all their glory. So maybe just the full names in the xml and a key to explain the differences?
But these are probably just petty foibles with regards to naming, nothing that really impacts gamesplay, but I suppose if a key changes the graphics then it's probably not worth it.
There was also the +'s missing in the legion, but again, not something worth crying tears over

Leehar wrote:

Leehar wrote:Also, I don't like the naming of the Brethren clan ground very much. I think using the acronym Bfm would be a lot more appropriate since other applicable names like Nemesis etc have been compressed.
In regards to that as well, have you considered maybe developing a key and making those with acronyms in the map because of space constraints have their full name in the drop-down? Divine Domination, Eternal Empire etc. I think it'd be an added aid to increase those clans recognition instead of leaving it shortened everywhere just for the clan grounds.

Blitzaholic wrote:Leehar, are you suggesting, we name the landing point Thota for example instead of The Horsemen of the Apocalypse, and name the landing point Tofu instead of the odd fellows union, etc.?

Somewhat the opposite I guess? I'm not sure where you discussed the namings initially, but why have the full name for all those in the landing points but not for clan grounds? Obviously if it's because of their being less space in the clan grounds it's understandable, but for a layman, who's to know who DD or EE are? (Specially considering they aren't existing clans anymore) while BSS/ID etc are written out in all their glory. So maybe just the full names in the xml and a key to explain the differences?
But these are probably just petty foibles with regards to naming, nothing that really impacts gamesplay, but I suppose if a key changes the graphics then it's probably not worth it.
There was also the +'s missing in the legion, but again, not something worth crying tears over

yeah, we needed some space pal.

these are the updated img files:

[bigimg]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Clandemonium_Final2a_img.png[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Clandemonium_Final2_img_small.png[/bigimg]


Blitz you can add them to the first post:

http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Clandemonium_Final2a_img.png
http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Clandemonium_Final2_img_small.png

Kabanellas wrote:these are the updated img files:

[bigimg]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Clandemonium_Final2a_img.png[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Clandemonium_Final2_img_small.png[/bigimg]


Blitz you can add them to the first post:

http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Clandemonium_Final2a_img.png
http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Clandemonium_Final2_img_small.png

done, but, I think both the links are the same size, small? Isn't one suppose to be large?

Isn't the first one the large one?...

And in case someone missed it, IA 2,5,6 need to be changed to neutral values of 3/4/4 respectively? (instead of 2/2/2)

Leehar wrote:Isn't the first one the large one?...

And in case someone missed it, IA 2,5,6 need to be changed to neutral values of 3/4/4 respectively? (instead of 2/2/2)

maybe just lands 05 and 06 both need to be 4? What you think kab?

good eye Leehar, and would this make it better?

It's not a bad idea, but the closest analogy I can get is actually Empire, and over there all 6 regions that enable two-stepping to the clan ground(Emp 1,12/2,8/3,7) are 3/4 neutrals. So from there it follows that IA 2,3,5 and 6 need 3/3/4/4 neutrals

Leehar wrote:It's not a bad idea, but the closest analogy I can get is actually Empire, and over there all 6 regions that enable two-stepping to the clan ground(Emp 1,12/2,8/3,7) are 3/4 neutrals. So from there it follows that IA 2,3,5 and 6 need 3/3/4/4 neutrals

I would like to get Kab's opinion before anything happens here.

Leehar is right - there were some neutral troops missing. It should be like this:

[bigimg]http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Clandemonium_Neutral_troops2_img.png[/bigimg]

ok Kab, let's add that.