Antarctica [Quenched]

[natty dread]

Ok, me and Isaiah chatted, and we figured we'll probably remove the max. starting position setting so that everyone will start with 8 bases in 1v1, and 5 in 3 player games.

Or would it suffice to increase them to 6 for 1v1 games? This way 1v1 would start with 2 neutral bases.

[SirSebstar]

neutral basis simple mean you have removed 2 spots. with a nice drop this means a bufferzone..
remember there is no need to attack neutral bases. if you can win, you attack the real basissess first..

one more question, does the auto bonus stay on +2?

[isaiah40]

neutral basis simple mean you have removed 2 spots. with a nice drop this means a bufferzone..
remember there is no need to attack neutral bases. if you can win, you attack the real basissess first..

one more question, does the auto bonus stay on +2?

Yes the bases remain at +2 auto. As for your first point, I think I will agree that it would be better to not have the max start positions for this one.

[SirSebstar]

I think the fact that some basis border a very usefull iceshelf is going to be a huge asset. with +2 that feels overpoweringly powerfull enough that a 1st drop player gets a massive bonus out of while a second player does not care som much anymore...

[isaiah40]

Okay, I see your point. Let's agree to wait and see if the bases become too powerful with the +2. It may be that we go back to the original setup.

Thank you for your input and hopefully we can get this taken care of really soon!

[natty dread]

Thing is, with the +1 bases, the game becomes even more dependant on dice. With the +1 autodeploy, I saw 1v1 games decided purely by who gets the better dice to arrive to the SP first where it's easy to kill the other player.

We should all also remember that this map is not meant for 1v1 games only. This is meant for all game types, and multiplayer games need to be balanced as well. So we need to consider multiple perspectives before we make a decision here.

[SirSebstar]

okay, but those game that have a permament acces to an island or resetting ice thingie are really in the advantage here.

perhaps this is a good map then not to play in 1 vs 1.

IF the beses did not have acces to the icelands directly, they could only attack the area around the base, 1 terit.
Then a +2 deploy does not matter so much since you will loose 1 due to the need to forting it (with the most chosen setting chained)

But with the game I am playing now, limited bases and +2 deploy, the first player and not the second gets the bigger advantage then the map already offers. After all he gets a much better chance of getting 2 territs per base, and it is highly unlikely that the second player can 1 kill as many neutrals,2 kill enough of player A to matter and thus player A will simply walk over the other, constantly forted by the +2 in a more efficient way.
(nb attack with your normal increase of troops. But you fort your +2 autodeploy to where the opponent needs to attack to break your bonus. Meaning, it is now even more easy to win when you have the first drop.

In doubles as with any other game, going first is always more adventagious, but only with good dice. You can play doubles with +1 and still expect to win. One strategy is to wait a bit and then make a sweep once several neutral 2’s have been reduced to 1’s.
Now that tactic will never work since you get so huge an autodeploy bonus..

Tltr.. arg
Short verson. +2 sucks still.. there is no way to attack the base’s in a meaning full way. So some positions are really great game winners when having them with +2 where +1 just means better position…

[natty dread]

We should really try to find some kind of compromise here, something that allows us to keep the +2 autodeploy on the bases but addresses the problems SirSebstar brought up.

I can't think of anything at the moment, so let's wait for a while if we get any further input on this...

[SirSebstar]

it will be a while before I can play a groups game on this map... I should do that just to see how the game flows and provide imput, but its so much timeconsuming....
I'll keep an eye on this thread and report back when i get an idea.

just for my information, what was the rationale to changing the +1/+2 and the amount of bases again? Maybe I can see whats what when i can see the viewpoints..

[natty dread]

it will be a while before I can play a groups game on this map... I should do that just to see how the game flows and provide imput, but its so much timeconsuming....
I'll keep an eye on this thread and report back when i get an idea.

just for my information, what was the rationale to changing the +1/+2 and the amount of bases again? Maybe I can see whats what when i can see the viewpoints..

The rationale was that it was too easy to take someone out, ie. eliminations happened too fast - if you got bad dice and your opponent got a lead on you, it was easy for him to wipe you out. The +2 autodeploy was given to balance the game, and to give the losing players at least a chance to climb back up.

[SirSebstar]

trust me, I face an opponant with +25 vs my3. no way I am comming back... not even with +10...

[natty dread]

We have to consider more than just 1v1 games.

[perchorin]

I was disappointed when i saw the bases had been increased to +2 auto-deploy instead of +1. I thought it was fine the way it was, now it really is too much for the player who goes first. Otherwise love the map and it's unique gameplay. Also for whoever says nuclear spoils shouldn't be allowed I suggest they get more experience playing with nukes and come back later. Nuclear spoils in Antarctica, especially in team games, requires a whole new level of planning and coordination and can be extremely exciting!

[natty dread]

We have to consider more than just 1v1 games.

I would be glad to make changes that would improve the balance in 1v1 / 2v2 / etc games, but not at the cost of disrupting multiplayer games.

[SirSebstar]

I gave my 1vs1 result with +2 as a modifier and was wondering how this could be an improvement for 1vs1. it is not..
now can you please explain to me why +2 would be conductive to a multiplayer setting, because I cannot see it.

there are various bases that border a ice shelf. if you are the second player, those will give you the win for the game vice versa, if you are the first, simply wait to let the other player take his countries and strike back.

if you are faced on the entire opposie side (say right lower corner) you have nothing to fear except is a player can reach you there....
in multiplayer mode there really is a difference, but not a lot... +2 or +1 only matters to those who have a shelf next to the door otherwise it is just a hindrance.. or it is helping whomever is leading. there is NOT WAY to come back once you have taken the country next to your base and you do NOT border an ice shelf...

in multiplayer +2 combined with the above actually makes it worse. you have troops but you cannot use them in any meanigful way. I know i have tried it i have seen it. can you help me out and tell me why this would make it better?

[natty dread]

Read the thread

if you are truly interested in the reasons for the changes that have been done so far you can read back the thread to see the respective discussions that lead to those changes

[SirSebstar]

Thank you, that was not helpful.

I have found the request of Dibbler on Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:08 am

what I am really saying is that if you can slow down the player growth a bit (in terms of additional reinforments) then strategy relating to where you attack from and how you counter the opposition will mean more than luck. Or at least be a closer contest, luck can never be eliminated.

On which you replied with the +2 on the base.

Let us assume his point was only about the first starting player, you have now in effect given a +1 extra per base so he starts even better, and not less.
Dibbles proposition talks about the same as mine, once you are inaccessible, you can win because you grow much faster then your opponent. This is especially true for teamgames. So +2 on teamgames are not going to help.

You have stated that players are too easy to be taken out. I assume an 8 player game does have this affect. You can deal with this by making 16 bases so everybody has 2. again +2 autodeploy is not going to solve this. It means I am still getting +30 a turn and you +3. It does mean I am not going as fast for the centre, but instead take the time to kill your bonus, again and again. So this makes the gameplay slower, but it looks more like player hostage then a possibility of a comeback.

The a player is killed off too easy if he protecs his base not enough, there is no defence against this with only 1 base… sucks to be you!.. problem lies in the fact that there is only 1 base (sometimes) and that all bases are accessible from the centre!

Dibbler has in fact asked to reduce the bonus you build up. I can in fact see a +2 per 3 regions as a much better suggestion then tampering with the autodeploy drop.

Recap:
+2 autodeploy makes for longer games, but does NOT increase the chance a second starter can get back in the game unless the first starter has bad dice.

Base disposition: This is also dependant on base disposition…so not capping the amount of bases to start with gives the second starter a very small chance to get back in 1vs1

Shelf acces: more bases should have acces to shelf’s from their base. If this is the case, then a second starter can certainly come back…

New suggestion, change the bonus structure?

[natty dread]

Ok Sirsebstar, first of all, thank you very much for all the input you have provided, it's great to get such well thought-out feedback.

Now, I'm going to have to talk about all of this with Isaiah, but here's what I think at this point...

Territory connections will have to stay as they are, we are most likely not going to change the existing territory connections.
Bonus structure... we probably won't want to tamper with that either. +2 for 3 would be inconvenient considering the size of most of the bonus areas.

As for starting positions, we have already agreed to remove the starting position maximum, and let 1v1 games start with 8 bases each, and 3 player games with 5. The rest of game types aren't affected by the s.p. maximum, so they will stay the same.

As for the base autodeploy... I just don't know. In the games I've played with multiplayer settings, the +2 has seemed like a positive change. I'd still like to hear more input on this issue. However, if we can't figure out any better alternative, I'm willing to try reducing the bases back to +1 each.

[SirSebstar]

I would like your attention for one more thing..

Base disposition: This is also dependant on base disposition…so not capping the amount of bases to start with gives the second starter a very small chance to get back in 1vs1

it is in any way possible to NOT have a random dispersion patern for the base deployment, but instead have fixed basis. 2 opposing sides always share an bonus area?

This would accomplish the following:
No bonus becomes inaccessible on turn 1. The second player should be able to focus somewhere (with his first drop) and break a nice bonus and thus not be faced by an overwhelming majority. Right from the start. This would work in teamgames too..


i do not know if it is possible, but its the best solution to this problem of balance in this map

[natty dread]

It's not currently possible...

[natty dread]

Anyway, here's an idea: What if we remove the regular territory bonus, ie. 1 for every 3? We'll make it just 3 for any amount, this will somewhat reduce the amount of troops a player gets for having lots of territories... since you wanted the bonuses lowered, I think this could be a viable alternative for that.

[greenoaks]

Anyway, here's an idea: What if we remove the regular territory bonus, ie. 1 for every 3? We'll make it just 3 for any amount, this will somewhat reduce the amount of troops a player gets for having lots of territories... since you wanted the bonuses lowered, I think this could be a viable alternative for that.

i don't see a need for the regular territory bonus.

just about every terit we could hold is part of a region bonus. follow King's Court lead and give 3 regardless of how many you hold + region bonuses + auto-deploys

[perchorin]

Please don't change the way the territory bonuses currently work! I like this map the way it originally came out, but if it's gotta have +2 auto-deploy instead of +1 fine, but please don't go changing more especially something as fundamental as how the tert bonuses accrue!

[natty dread]

Ok, just to recap... the current plan of changes:

- remove max. starting positions limit
- remove std. territory bonus of 1 for 3 and make it 3 for any amount
- Possibly: base autodeploy -> back to +1

The bonus of +2 for 2 territories within the same bonus area won't be touched.

[isaiah40]

Ok, just to recap... the current plan of changes:

- remove max. starting positions limit
- remove std. territory bonus of 1 for 3 and make it 3 for any amount
- Possibly: base autodeploy -> back to +1

The bonus of +2 for 2 territories within the same bonus area won't be touched.

Okay, if I am to understand this right, you would get your normal 3 irregardless of how many territories you have. Plus you would get the +2 for every 2 territories within the same bonus area, right? So if I hold 4 territories in one bonus, I would get 4 (2 territories x +2) plus the 3 for a total of 7.