D-Day: Omaha Beach! [Quenched]

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:34 am

wow this is a rather old discussion. i don't have time right now to read all the previous posts but if i remember correctly i did a bonus analysis and presented the flaws i found. it's my opinion not the community's but since i'm a member of that community i demand the needed respect and the treatment the foundry process stipulates. after i made those remarks all i was responded is that you two would rather abandon the map than implement my suggestions. that's why i called you guys immature and qwert-like.

neither you nor coleman provided real reasons(*) for not implementing my suggestions. the very least you could have done was to try and implement them, play test the map, set up a poll and see what the community decides. and when i say community i don't mean me or hulmey, i mean the whole community, because there are plenty of people that share my opinion or your opinion.

(*) 3 play tests and the fact you just don't want to do it aren't real reasons.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:42 am

KEYOGI wrote:Perhaps Coleman can organise some more play-test sessions for the map. I think I read somewhere that 3 games had been played? While I applaud Coleman for taking this step, I don't think some more play-tests would hurt. DiM seems to be able to gather a crowd for his AoM play-tests, perhaps DiM can print off the map and have some old fashioned games on the map to get a proper feel for the gameplay.

I know I'm a little uneasy about the bonuses, but unless other people can prove that gameplay is broken we'll just have to trust mibi and Coleman on this one. I'm sure neither of them would rule out updating adjusted bonuses in the future if it really was a problem.

yup. i'll see what i can do. this weekend i'll surely have time for some risk and i'll try to get the map ready by then.

as for updating the bonuses later after the map is quenched i'm not sure that's such a good idea. normally a map should not have any updates after quenching other than complete revamps after many months have passed. to release a map that might have screwy gameplay seems rather wrong. it could create a precedent and unfinished maps would just get released and updated later if necessary. all maps are carefully analyzed in gameplay and gfx aspects and aren't released unless every pixel is in it's right place and every bonus is perfect. and i don't think this map should be an exception. mibi and colemen have been asked for a change. they should either provide solid reasons for refusing it or at least offer an alternative and let the community decide.

fireedud · Post by **fireedud** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 2:45 pm

This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, but today is D-day.

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:45 pm

another bonus setups I would consider would be,

+2 each bunker
+2 each artillery
+2 both artilleries
+3 both bunkers
+4 each beach
+3 each ship
+6 all ships
-1 plane and parachute

or

+2 each bunker
+2 each artillery
+2 both artilleries
+3 both bunkers
+4 outer beaches
+5 inner beach
+3 outer ships
+4 inner ship
+6 all ships
-1 plane and parachute

giving the german grass land a bonus is unnecessary and pointless.

RobinJ · Post by **RobinJ** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:30 pm

fireedud wrote:This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, but today is D-day.

Never even thought about that - strange how it got so little coverage.

Kawg of war · Post by **Kawg of war** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:56 pm

i think the bonuses are way to high.
apart from that, the map looks great!

JupitersKing · Post by **JupitersKing** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:47 am

Optimus Prime wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I find it difficult to distinguish the red numbers and dotted-lines against that dark green background.

Ditto.

Also, are you able to attack any space along the trench, or only the 'foxholes.'

JK

PS: Who is that a picture of mibi?

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Thu Jun 14, 2007 8:55 am

MIBI_please don't confuse the foundry demands with your own. you make it sound like if someone disagrees with you, they are acting like qwert. gimme a break. qwert's issues were over graphics, the issues you have are about game play. if i changed the bonuses to what you and hulmey thought they should be it could potentially ruin the game play, espeically since you have never tested or played on the map. i think you need to drop the attitude DiM. your opinion does not represent 'community' and in this case, I would say it counts for less then the two people involved in making the map.

I must say that you dont right, like graphics,issue of game play also must get approval from cc comunity, i also have bonus problem and i give comunity to give me bonuses,of course if you have good logical explanation and satisfy people with these then ok.

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:42 pm

mibi wrote:another bonus setups I would consider would be,

+2 each bunker
+2 each artillery
+2 both artilleries
+3 both bunkers
+4 each beach
+3 each ship
+6 all ships
-1 plane and parachute

or

+2 each bunker
+2 each artillery
+2 both artilleries
+3 both bunkers
+4 outer beaches
+5 inner beach
+3 outer ships
+4 inner ship
+6 all ships
-1 plane and parachute

giving the german grass land a bonus is unnecessary and pointless.

any comment on these bonuses?

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:31 pm

the 2nd set is better with middle beach and ship getting bigger bonus

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:09 pm

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:13 pm

are u guys smoking something illegal LOL....

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:54 am

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 8:35 am

ok, bonuses updated. everyone happy now.

large

small

coleman can you update the xml and post? thanks.

RobinJ · Post by **RobinJ** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 9:47 am

mibi wrote:ok, bonuses updated. everyone happy now.

Yes

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:25 am

Robin your always happy lol

whats a outer ship and whats a inner ship????

You spelt parachute wrong in the legend??

Still not happy with bonus structure myself but if your willing to re-revise it once its live i see no problems in going full steam ahead coz this map is awesome.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:34 am

Correction...

Parachute is spelt correctly once - and incorrectly once.

C.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:47 am

i never specified its how many times it was spelt incorrctly. Im sure being a graphic designer and a little bit educated he could see that for himself LAMO

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:47 am

fixed.

if you don't see it do a hard refresh.

large

small

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:11 pm

I'll get the xml done later today (hopefully).

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:27 pm

hulmey wrote:i never specified its how many times it was spelt incorrctly. Im sure being a graphic designer and a little bit educated he could see that for himself LAMO

Chill out.

Christ anyone would think I just rammed a carrot up your ass with that attitude.

C.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:36 pm

oh yes pls

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:49 pm

New XML: http://members.cox.net/gyrigo/CC/D-Day_04.xml

For Checking Borders: http://members.cox.net/gyrigo/CC/D-Day_bt.xml

To check borders use the small map and the D-Day_bt XML, as the border checking tool has a hard time handling the large map for some reason.

forest gump · Post by **forest gump** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 1:53 pm

nice work! this looks like an awsome map and i cant wait to play it

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:03 am

I know, should have done this a long time ago.

large

small