Conquer Club

Ace Rimmer wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:

Ace Rimmer wrote:Blah you're right. Let me get those updated, stay tuned. It will prob be a few days.

A few days to turn a layer of. Bloody hell, I have heard of taking it slowly in the foundry but this takes the prize for procrastination.

Blow me. Most times I can only get on via my iphone, so it's quite difficult to get graphics files uploaded here.

First post updated with final (?) graphics.

I only said it as it is normally the other way around with map makers complaining about the mods taking there time. I just found it funny that it was going to take days to turn a layer of.
It all looks too good and cannot wait to play this one.

Beta - Quenching

---The Final Forge period has concluded for the Cuban Missile Crisis Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Beta Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready for BETA Play. After an extended period of time in BETA and once all quirks and issues have been resolved, the map will be put into Full Play (barring any Lack vetoes).

Conquer Club, enjoy!

While the map is in BETA Play, there are a couple of administrative tasks that are required of the mapmaker(s) in addition to the initial gameplay testing:

1. Please ensure that the first post of the thread contains all the necessary information to help future visitors to the development thread; it's particularly important to ensure the most recent images are there, along with any helpful guides (such as gameplay quirks/nuances or the location/size of any starting neutrals etc.)
2. Finally, it is the responsibility of the mapmaker(s) to ensure that they respond to further feedback in a timely and constructive manner.

thenobodies80

Congrats

Good to see

Congrats!!!

Someone invite me to a game.

Nice!

Hello, map is great!

I'm here to ask the creator what the suggested settings are.

Usually Free For All is my favorite modus, but this map seems more suitable for a 4v4 or 3v3 it seems. Maybe no spoils.

FYI: this is a great map, well designed.

However, on 1 vs 1 play, it's terrible. The expansive numbers of neutrals on this map in a 1 vs 1 scenario eliminate 60-70% of the gameplay. There's no point whatsoever of going for the HQ's and serious bonuses. You're left piddling around neutrals where you can, and only going through them if absolutely necessary.

This needs some rework for starting positions 1 vs 1.

You need to make sure that jamaica has at least one coded nuetral I think... maybe make it 2 nuetral ones? always?

I found a bug :
Connections between Soviets Invasion crafts and Jacksonville /Orlando are not the same on big and small map.

Very nice! Congratulations!

But...

It has some problems...at one us one it has too many neutrals.

And I am affraid nobody will attack White House, Kremlin, Hotline and the operations...becouse everybody is just playing "in the map", not "above the map", becouse it is too hard to conquer these objetives and the reward is too poor!

Thanks, regards!

I agree with swimmerdude that Jamaica needs to start with a coded neutral.

I would also like to add that Haiti should start with at least 1 coded neutral.

Started a game today, I'm taking the first turn of the game, and imagine this, the player after me dropped the Haiti bonus, so gets to start the game with +6 to our +4's.

tkr4lf wrote:I agree with swimmerdude that Jamaica needs to start with a coded neutral.

I would also like to add that Haiti should start with at least 1 coded neutral.

Started a game today, I'm taking the first turn of the game, and imagine this, the player after me dropped the Haiti bonus, so gets to start the game with +6 to our +4's.

So four of us in a row have the same complaint.

For the map to become a great map, for the objectives and real bonuses to be part of the game play of 1 vs 1 and even smaller 2 vs 2 dubs matches, things need correcting.

Looking forward to it!

Please post concrete ideas on what should be changed. I am open to any and all Suggs. I am mostly retired from cc so I am not playing much on this map.

Ace Rimmer wrote:Please post concrete ideas on what should be changed. I am open to any and all Suggs. I am mostly retired from cc so I am not playing much on this map.

Here's a concrete idea:

Rémi wrote:I found a bug :
Connections between Soviets Invasion crafts and Jacksonville /Orlando are not the same on big and small map.

Give me a fucking minute. First post updated with new gfx, pm sent to joe and sully.

Ace Rimmer wrote:Please post concrete ideas on what should be changed. I am open to any and all Suggs. I am mostly retired from cc so I am not playing much on this map.

I REALLY think that Jamaica should start nuetral, or all borders need to be starting positions... its just too easy/free. First turn, if someone owns one territ there, the bonus is thiers.

natty_dread wrote:Here's a concrete idea:

Rémi wrote:I found a bug :
Connections between Soviets Invasion crafts and Jacksonville /Orlando are not the same on big and small map.

NB: That's a bug. Not an idea. A bug.

Sarcasm fail.


Nesoi



P.S. A bug.

The suggestion I made, and others made, was to reduce the neutrals that lead to the Soviet and US objective points in the upper-right hand of the board. In smaller games like 4 player dubs or 1 vs 1, and, I presume, 3 player, the map loses it's terrific design BECAUSE those are all neutral: who would ever fight through the neutrals? It becomes a die-slug fest on the main territories.

The map has so much to offer, but the neutral starting positions hurt gameplay on smaller battles/fewer players.

Regarding Jamaica: that also is a good suggestion for correction: make them both neutral 2 rather than neutral 3. If neutral 3, players would probably never go for Jamaica. If neutral 2, it becomes fairly tempting.

These are good suggestions to make a wonderfully designed map even better.

No sarcasm. No language. Just good suggestions.

Enjoying the map. Thanks!

On the other hand, not all maps are meant for 1v1:s. Some maps are designed mainly for larger games. I don't really know what the mapmaker's intention is here, but if he wants to focus the gameplay mainly on multiplayer games, then it may not be reasonable to expect the map to play perfectly on smaller games. On the other hand, if the mapmaker wants to ensure good playability on 1v1:s, then it's best to address those issues.

natty_dread wrote:On the other hand, not all maps are meant for 1v1:s. Some maps are designed mainly for larger games. I don't really know what the mapmaker's intention is here, but if he wants to focus the gameplay mainly on multiplayer games, then it may not be reasonable to expect the map to play perfectly on smaller games. On the other hand, if the mapmaker wants to ensure good playability on 1v1:s, then it's best to address those issues.

Both can be done.

Maybe, I'm not sure as I haven't had the chance to play this particular map yet and haven't really looked into the gameplay that closely.

Generally speaking, compromises have to be sometimes made, as it isn't always possible to optimize a map for all possible game types.

natty_dread wrote:Maybe, I'm not sure as I haven't had the chance to play this particular map yet and haven't really looked into the gameplay that closely.

Generally speaking, compromises have to be sometimes made, as it isn't always possible to optimize a map for all possible game types.

Try the map out. My guess is, because there are so many neutrals and they are great in quantity, as well, even in games with up to 5 players, the objectives won't be used. Two reasons:

1) there are enough traditional auto deploys and/or standard bonuses without dealing with killing neutrals
2) to go for those neutrals, which trigger other bonuses on the map, isn't remotely worth it: what they give isn't worth what they cost.

That's the basis of the suggestions here: yes, Jamaica needs a neutral. I've already suggested it be a neutral 2 rather than 3. This encourages attacks rather than just letting it sit there as a 3 the whole game. Neutral 3's = bad. Neutral 2's = could be fun.

Reduce the neutrals in the objective positions, or/and increase what they give you when you take them to make it worthwhile.

I thought this was a concrete idea.

tkr4lf wrote:I agree with swimmerdude that Jamaica needs to start with a coded neutral.

I would also like to add that Haiti should start with at least 1 coded neutral.

It's not good for gameplay when somebody drops those easy bonuses. In my particular case, a 3 player game, player 3 dropped Haiti and 1 on Jamaica. After his second turn he had both bonuses and a significant troop presence in Cuba.

I know 3 player games aren't that balanced anyway, but I think a starting neutral should be coded into both of those small bonuses.

Thanks for bringing these things to my attention. I've reviewed the XML and found 2 errors - lack of a neutral on Nord-Est and lack of a neutral on Guantanamo Bay, which I have fixed. I've also added a neutral 3 on Montego Bay to remedy the issue with Jamaica's being to easy to conquer and hold.


-Sully