Lunar War [GP, G, X] files on p.1

[natty dread]

Damn a:s and e:s for looking too similar!


Also, it seems Albalegnius -> Albategnius.

[natty dread]

Ok, the objective is still not a very viable means for victory. Ideally, I would like this map to be balanced so that you could win this by either objective or elimination... I won't pursue this endlessly if it turns out the gameplay works better as it is, but I think there are still a few things that could be tried:

- objective: hold 5 mines instead of 6
- increase neutrals on missile bases (to 17-20)
- maybe both?

Opinions?

[Victor Sullivan]

Ok, the objective is still not a very viable means for victory. Ideally, I would like this map to be balanced so that you could win this by either objective or elimination... I won't pursue this endlessly if it turns out the gameplay works better as it is, but I think there are still a few things that could be tried:

- objective: hold 5 mines instead of 6
- increase neutrals on missile bases (to 17-20)
- maybe both?

Opinions?

Idk natty. Every time I've played this map the person who won won by the objective. I would definitely suggest against an objective reduction. You could go for 18 neutrals on the missile bases.

[danryan]

I don't know who you're playing with, but in about 25 games on this map I have yet to see an objective win. 15 on the base is about right. I think the map is pretty well balanced, but haven't worked out yet just how important taking a helium mine early could be.

[shocked439]

in the games i've played no one is taking the helium mine, I didn't consider doing it because I was confused in instruction boxes. One box says helium-3 and one says helium mines are +3 in my mind they negated each other. I have since decided it's easier to win by eliminating the competition rather than holding an objective

[army of nobunaga]

yeah I agree.. the helium mines seem obsolete in my games too.

[natty dread]

in the games i've played no one is taking the helium mine, I didn't consider doing it because I was confused in instruction boxes. One box says helium-3 and one says helium mines are +3 in my mind they negated each other. I have since decided it's easier to win by eliminating the competition rather than holding an objective

They are Helium-3 mines... like it says on the map you are fighting for Helium-3, not Helium... as in, He-3, the fusion fuel, not He, the balloon fuel...

Anyway, I'm thinking of this:

- objective down to shuttle + 5 mines
- missile bases up to 17 neutrals

[Victor Sullivan]

in the games i've played no one is taking the helium mine, I didn't consider doing it because I was confused in instruction boxes. One box says helium-3 and one says helium mines are +3 in my mind they negated each other. I have since decided it's easier to win by eliminating the competition rather than holding an objective

They are Helium-3 mines... like it says on the map you are fighting for Helium-3, not Helium... as in, He-3, the fusion fuel, not He, the balloon fuel...

Anyway, I'm thinking of this:

- objective down to shuttle + 5 mines
- missile bases up to 17 neutrals

Maybe take it one step at a time? Try the lowered objective, then go for the upped neutrals on the bases? Seems like it'd be an easier way to pinpoint the problem...

[natty dread]

No, I don't think either alone is going to be sufficient.

If this change swings the balance too much towards the mines, I can adjust again. But I doubt it.

[Victor Sullivan]

No, I don't think either alone is going to be sufficient.

If this change swings the balance too much towards the mines, I can adjust again. But I doubt it.

So be it.

[bamage]

Love it.

Only one suggestion and it's grammar-related: "vast resources" should read "vast reserves."

[natty dread]

Mm-hm, I agree. I'll put it on the next version.

Word/name change to-do:

Albalegnius -> Albategnius
Catharine -> Catharina
resources -> reserves

If anyone has anything else, speak now.

[Victor Sullivan]

It's official: THIS IS MY FAVORITE MAP EVAH!!!

-Sully wishes you quick quenching

[bprice174]

fdfddfdftfyhuhjui

[Victor Sullivan]

fdfddfdftfyhuhjui

No spamming please If you're going to post something, post something relatively meaningful to the thread, please. Thanks

[trapyoung]

I love the gameplay on this map. Neutral numbers seem good - my one real caution re: the map is that objective victory doesn't seem pursued or even smart to pursue. Each game I've played I had better luck pursuing eliminations than securing the objective victory. Like I said, I love how the map plays so I'm not hugely concerned with the fact objectives seem pretty pointless beside additional troops conferred and it'd probably take massive overhaul to encourage wins through securing objectives (like Das Schloss) but I'm ready for this map to go live. I've been playing esc and team games on the map which might encourage elims instead of objectives but like I said, huge fan of the map still.

[Victor Sullivan]

natty how's it going on the update, btw?

[melech14]

I agree that the objectives are much harder than just eliminating everyone. What if you needed 4 shuttles and 4 mines to hold the objective - or some other objective combo?

[natty dread]

First of all thanks for the feedback, and yes, I agree the objective doesn't come in play as much as I'd like. Ideally, I'd like the gameplay of this map to be similar to das schloss in the way that the players would have multiple viable strategies to pursue, so you could choose to either go for the objective or for eliminations.

To this end, there's an update coming, as soon as I finish the new images... I'll try to have it done by the weekend, I've been really really busy with some crazy RL stuff recently, but I'll try to clear some time to do it... the update will increase the neutrals on the bases to 17 each, and the objective will only require 5 mines instead of 6... (with the 1 shuttle still required as well.) I hope this will address the issues somewhat, if not, then I'll just leave it be - I don't want to screw with the gameplay too much seeing as so many people seem to like it.

[Victor Sullivan]

I don't want to screw with the gameplay too much seeing as so many people seem to like it.

Teehee!

Cool, looking forward to the update, I have at least half a dozen games going on currently and plan on at least 8 or 9 more

[natty dread]

Updates are ready

http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/2/7/2 ... arWar5.xml

[bigimg]http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/123/lunar38.png[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/3198/lunar38small.png[/bigimg]

[Leehar]

in the games i've played no one is taking the helium mine, I didn't consider doing it because I was confused in instruction boxes. One box says helium-3 and one says helium mines are +3 in my mind they negated each other. I have since decided it's easier to win by eliminating the competition rather than holding an objective

They are Helium-3 mines... like it says on the map you are fighting for Helium-3, not Helium... as in, He-3, the fusion fuel, not He, the balloon fuel...

Anyway, I'm thinking of this:

- objective down to shuttle + 5 mines
- missile bases up to 17 neutrals

I just noticed this, and I was wondering why it's only coming into effect after reset? (ie Missile bases reset to 17 neutals) Shouldn't it start with 17 as well instead of the 15 for balance? (Or did this come into effect mid-game or something?)
It also may be a bit misleading in foggy games

[MrBenn]

The changes have gone live - changes to neutrals (of which killers are a subset) only take effect for new games or when they reset. (the game engine doesn't check and amend the value of armies on each affected territoriy in each affected game).

This is why the map has a Beta designation

[Cyclone_23x]

So I've been playing games on here lately and I want to know what has changed.

It seems that either the bases reset to 17 or start at 17 or both? which is it?

Thanks in advance!

[natty dread]

both