Peloponnesian War [Done]

[AndyDufresne]

Lets try to reply you DJ Teflon.
Europe 1914 have 2 side in war(historicaly) and these two side have MAjor powers,and these is easy to create 2 Objectives(4 town each)
Here you have Historicaly 2 sides(delia league-pelloponesian league), now here you have Powers who is very close to each others(Lacademmonians,Corinthians,Boeotians,Athenians) these 4 can not be some other part of map,because logicaly its not possible.
If you think that is best and easy solution will be to in all territory who is border bettwen Opponents(like in Feudal war)and to be 10 neutral,then consider problem solve.
It will be great that gameplay can be tested in beta stage, and not gues in theory.What is purpose of Beta stage then. Cairnswk get chance to test hes dass schloss to see how Starting possition works,so why i can test these in same time, if game play not good,then its easy to lock map and fix problems, and these map not have protected starting possitions and will be finish much faster then Dass Schloss. Now we are in situation where Tacktix say "im 100% right" and im are wrong because he is jury.

We're trying to avoid such mishaps like Das Schloss in the future, Qwert. Ideally, Beta stage is for minor tweaks and changes, not complete overhauls of maps.


--Andy

[oaktown]

Oaktown i belive that im all ready convince community(i hope that you alone not represent community).

Qwert, I want to assure you that my opinion of this map is not relevant to the discussion at hand. As you are suspect of my opinion, I thought that it would be best to call in a jury of three members of the community to assess your map and advance it to the Final Forge stage. I do not represent the community - three members of the community represent the community.

You've been saying all along that everybody other than the CAs loves this map and thinks it is perfect. The three voices who will stamp this map are not CAs, nor are they among the individuals that you have mentioned (above) as being in league with the CAs. I am giving you exactly what you have always wanted: somebody other than the CAs is stamping your map.

If you cannot accept criticism from the CAs, and you cannot accept criticism from members of the community who are not CAs, I don't see what other options we have.

[Qwert]

i realy think that mine present here need to finish, and i hope that these will be soon, only in that way we dont have problems any more. Im very tired of costantly fight for mine ideas and 100 time repeat same things-Gameplay is balanced like rule say what you wrote or some previous CA. Now i can not figure how suddenly map need to be Assymetric and unbalanced.
Every time when i have consensus with comunity you find some people who will bring something new and create new problems. Three people is not comunity, even if some agree with me.
If i need to repeat every time i will do that,because Tacktix assymetric and unbalanced sugestion is not logical. In these way all mine job with incandenza look weird,like you want to hes stamp not worth nothing and hes oppinion and sugestion its bad.

[TaCktiX]

We apparently have differing definitions of asymmetric. DJ Teflon is closer to my definition than you are. Think New World, with its two different types of starting areas. Some are easy small territory bonuses, others are harder to get auto-deploys. Beyond that, each starting position has a different setup, allowing for virtually the same bonus start army-wise, but making positioning a lot different. It's how people take their positioning that adds the strategy to the map. There is no chance for this different positioning in Peloponnesian War right now. Everyone will end up with the same bonus setup, and the only change in position is the rough proximity to one player or another and perhaps what shields are closer.

Considering that, I understand that you have the map set up specifically for equal chance and opportunity of victory. That's great, but consider when one player gets a string of no-losses, and his immediate neighbor has utterly crap dice for 3 rounds straight. The unfortunate neighbor has no Plan B he can resort to, he MUST take the bonuses ahead of him and MUST confront his luckier opponent. At that point, he's so far behind the lucky one that he's guaranteed to lose. I ask for a Plan B.

[Teflon Kris]

Feudal War and The Symmetry Question
Symmetry is the bug sticking point here.

Quert mentionned Feudal War - isn't that a pretty symmetrical map (gameplay-wise)? Its a similar kind of set-up with the starting zones, just with more armies for castles and villages, as opposed to helmets? Here's an example: Game 4266859. Is there a fundamental gameplay difference between this map and Feudal War at the early stages of the game?

Feudal War is very popular despite some serious build-up games - Game 3073199 (and farming - Game 4280222 - but that's digressing).

I can see Quert's frustration on this - if you look back to p4 (to around p6/7) of this development thread, Quert followed advice from a gameplay discussion started by Incandenza. The result of that was the 8 similar starting zones and the creation of the gold helmets and neutral distribution (i.e. the 6s, 3s and 2s). The advice then seemed to be to go for symmetry?

Maybe Incandenza may have a good insight or suggestion or explanation?

Another Idea
Depending on the above, might more swords be a resolution to this issue? Perhaps in the inset zone (players having to go through a 6 neutral to get there)? Maybe the swords arranged so that they become more attainable / desirbale - players will then have the tactical choice of going for each other or swords or safeguarding shields (having gained a gold helmet first presumably)?

[Incandenza]

Let's talk about symmetry for a second.

In AoR or New World, the starting positions are somewhat asymmetrical. This, IMHO, is a Bad Thing. Against a skilled opponent, you can get the wrong drop on any AoR map (especially 2 and ESPECIALLY 3) and be at a substantial disadvantage. Even Feudal, while being very close to symmetrical, still has its oddities. On this map, save for a couple of very small quirks, more-or-less eliminates the drop as a point of contention. This may or may not be a Good Thing, but it's definitely something that no other conquest map offers, and it seems kinda futile to want to make a new map more like flawed, older ones.

Also, let's talk about dice.

The argument that "oh, if you have crappy dice, there's no plan B" does not, for me, hold all that much water. Quite a bit of conquest gameplay (and, honestly, quite a bit of non-hasbro world domination), comes down to luck. And if you're going to posit bad dice, well, I tell you what, it doesn't matter what the layout of the map is, if your dice are appalling, you're gonna lose. Instead, let's posit medium dice, and realize that the setup of the map gives people the perfect choice: left or right.

Finally, let's talk about bonuses.

The paucity of bonuses would not have been my first choice, but I've come to see how it adds an interesting element to the game. One of the failings of AoR games is that the bonuses can get completely out of control. Here, you can amass a big army and kick the other guy's ass, but if he holds out, he's got a chance to push you back because you don't have AoR-ish multiplying bonuses backing you.

[gimil]

In my opinion the argument over symetrical and asymetrical is simply a matter or personal taste rather than of broke gameplay. The dice will always have a large influence over the game but there will still be some sence of strategy here wether its your decide to build up and break into an opponents area quickly or you decided to collect territories for extra bonuses or in you move one territoriy at a time to collect cards. In my experience slightly different strategies at the start of the game leads to bigger differences in how the game plays out overall. Even feudal war which is close to a symetrical map.

So in short, I don't believe symertical layout isn't really as much of a problem as it is being made out to be (in my opinion).

[TaCktiX]

I certainly agree that symmetry CAN work well for strategy, but in this case there are too few bonuses for it to make a difference. Unlike in Feudal War with a potential +3 easy bonus in the early game and a Big Neutral to keep from incursions too early on, this map gives you at best a +2 (save the autodeploy, which in Adjacent forts might as well not exist after a point), and that's if you stretch your armies in two different directions against two different people. Sparse bonuses + symmetry = less strategy possible in my opinion. Keep it symmetrical if the community wants a different conquest experience, but there needs to be something else out there to get that's worth either expanding to, or hoarding up men to swipe from the guy who used all his men to get it. Giving the shields a bonus has been suggested several times, why not that?

[Teflon Kris]

That is the question, is it the case that "symetrical layout isn't really as much of a problem as it is being made out to be"?

Is this map a bit like Feudal, but without that map's build-up potential (aka Game 4266859))?

The bottom line
Referring to Andy's point above ("We're trying to avoid such mishaps like Das Schloss ... Beta stage is for minor tweaks ... not complete overhauls."), is the jury convinced that the symmetry / bonus / objective issues would create significant gameplay problems a la Das Schloss?

Reading Andy's post, if the map turns out to need 'minor tweaks and changes' then that seems to be ok.

If there is a problem, would we need to send armed helicopters in?

Incandenza raised the Das Schloss issue of not being able to eliminate an opponent (on the starting points) on p4, a few others concurred and Quert amended accordingly.

If, in Beta, it looks like the map needs some tinkering with bonuses (e.g. moving swords and helmets, adjusting size of neutral territories etc.), would that be classed as an overhaul?

The jury are concerned about gameplay and qwert is arguing that adjustments could be made at the Beta stage. Perhaps we can investigate this in a little detail.

Perhaps if qwert can give a few examples of how he could tinker with bonuses, if Beta shows the need, then the jury (given the above discussion) may be convinced that this map is not guilty of serious, overhaul-requiring bad gameplay?

Question for qwert
1. Hypothetically, could a few changes be made easily at the Beta stage if players find a problem with early-game options? And, how long would these changes take?

In fact, another question we may as well ask while we are at it, on another, related issue
2. Hypothetically, could a change be made easily at the Beta stage, say to give a shield bonus, if players find a problem with mid-game options? And again, how long would this, or an alternative, modification take?

P.S. qwert, I think your answers will conclude putting your case to the jury and we can settle legal fees later (no win no fee of course - and a cut to Incandenza and gimil). lol

[gimil]

Reading DJ Teflon,

Would the jury and qwert consider that should the map in its current form go through to beta but have changes ready to be made in beta stage should the community decide that this map doesn't work in its current form?

Would both the jury and qwert (and of course oaktown, being that the jury system is his baby) be happy with this?

[oaktown]

Would both the jury and qwert (and of course oaktown, being that the jury system is his baby) be happy with this?

The jury may do as it pleases... when they give the go-ahead, (and when I log on and have a few minutes to move the thread) the map will advance. The jury has a free hand in this.

[Qwert]

To many question,one by one

by gimil » Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:45 pm

In my opinion the argument over symetrical and asymetrical is simply a matter or personal taste rather than of broke gameplay. The dice will always have a large influence over the game but there will still be some sence of strategy here wether its your decide to build up and break into an opponents area quickly or you decided to collect territories for extra bonuses or in you move one territoriy at a time to collect cards. In my experience slightly different strategies at the start of the game leads to bigger differences in how the game plays out overall. Even feudal war which is close to a symetrical map.

So in short, I don't believe symertical layout isn't really as much of a problem as it is being made out to be (in my opinion).

Mine attemp is to create map (conquest like you say) where player moving slowly and get small bonuses(i play several games in AOR and after i lost in second round,because unbalanced gameplay and to big bonuses,i decide to not play so unbalanced maps, and definitly not to create unbalanced maps). On begining mine map whas little unbalanced(some player in begining have only 5 easy country to take in hese sphere of influence and some have 10-12),and after working with Incandenza and create balanced gameplay(ofcourse i have some disagrement with incandenza but i agree to create as much possible what he sugested).These have some similaryti with Feudal war,but dont have big bonuses.

by TaCktiX » Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:53 pm

I certainly agree that symmetry CAN work well for strategy, but in this case there are too few bonuses for it to make a difference. Unlike in Feudal War with a potential +3 easy bonus in the early game and a Big Neutral to keep from incursions too early on, this map gives you at best a +2 (save the autodeploy, which in Adjacent forts might as well not exist after a point), and that's if you stretch your armies in two different directions against two different people. Sparse bonuses + symmetry = less strategy possible in my opinion. Keep it symmetrical if the community wants a different conquest experience, but there needs to be something else out there to get that's worth either expanding to, or hoarding up men to swipe from the guy who used all his men to get it. Giving the shields a bonus has been suggested several times, why not that?

I compare Bonuses from Imperium romanum and these map-I get these result

Peloponnesian War
Bonus total
Gold Helmets-8x2=16
Gray Helmets-9x1=9
Swords-6x1=6
Territory=87=29
----------------60

Imperium romanum
Bonus Total
Cohors Praetoria-1
Classis Romanum-4
Legio romanum -4
Civitates-7
Roma-1
Territory-58=19
-----------------36

I belive that number of bonuses dont mean strategy, i mean opposite ,if you have les bonuses then you need to have strategy how to play. In aor people just run to take only territory who give big bonuses and first who take he usualy vin a game,and these i can not call strategy.

DJ Teflon
Question for qwert
1. Hypothetically, could a few changes be made easily at the Beta stage if players find a problem with early-game options? And, how long would these changes take?

1.First i must say that these map its not same like Dass Schloss,because you can kill yours opponent,and that mean that situation like in dass schloss is not possible.But if in some casses need to lock map,if beta stage show big gameplay problems,i belive that can change very fast,and all games will be finish much faster then in Dass Schloss.
Beta stage can best show how gameplay working.

In fact, another question we may as well ask while we are at it, on another, related issue
2. Hypothetically, could a change be made easily at the Beta stage, say to give a shield bonus, if players find a problem with mid-game options? And again, how long would this, or an alternative, modification take?

im not quite sure what you mean-shields or Helmets.
If you want to create that shields have some value,then need to change things in bonus box,also need to change XML. I can not be sure how long these can be(its depend also(hypoteticaly) on sugestions what value will new be) maybe 1 day,or 2 day(also depend on lack -how fast can upload new changes).

by gimil » Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:19 pm

Reading DJ Teflon,

Would the jury and qwert consider that should the map in its current form go through to beta but have changes ready to be made in beta stage should the community decide that this map doesn't work in its current form?

Would both the jury and qwert (and of course oaktown, being that the jury system is his baby) be happy with this?

Gimil we can not know how and what is need to change now, because when map go to beta stage-maybe i will get new diferent sugestion then what Tacktix sugested(hypoteticaly),maybe more people give more diferent aproach to these gameplay.

I dont know,but i belive that you notice to,when map become playabile,then people start comming and posting,what they belive is right,or wrong. These can give much more contact with more people who usualy not come in Map foundry.

[OliverFA]

Hi everybody. I have not forgotten about this map. I just didn't have time to write in the last two days. Tomorrow I will read all the answers carefully and post my opinion

[edbeard]

I'm still of the opinion that we're not here to decide how a map should play. If qwert wants a map with few bonuses and an objective that only serves to end a game earlier, that's his prerogative.

Who are we to say that his map is not allowed to behave in a certain way? Right now in regards to symmetry and how people start, we're mostly only considering 5,6,7,8 player games where people only will get 1 starting point. You might say that we should strive to make the map work well in all cases. well that's an almost impossible task in the expansion or whatever it's called (where you only get 1 territory) gameplay.

in 2,3,4 player games, people will get 2 starting points. this means 2 swords and another bonus. qwert does have quite a few territories here so there's always the emphasis on gaining many territories as a way to get more armies. it might make for a slower more methodical game but some people would probably prefer that.


let me say that personally I'd prefer something with more bonuses but I'm not gonna tell qwert what he has to do. it's his map. his name goes on it not the jury members' or the community's. as someone said, in some expansion maps you have a lot of bonuses and they pile up and people get huge bonuses. qwert is obviously not going for that and we should respect his opinion.

[Qwert]

What is going on with mine map Peloponnesian War?
Why he still not move in FF after 11 days?
Why nobody from CA dont give some answers?

I need answer,because i observe CA that posted every day in other topic and dont want to post nothing to say-yes go to FF-no its not going to FF.

[yeti_c]

What is going on with mine map Peloponnesian War?
Why he still not move in FF after 11 days?
Why nobody from CA dont give some answers?

I need answer,because i observe CA that posted every day in other topic and dont want to post nothing to say-yes go to FF-no its not going to FF.

Yawn

C.

[Qwert]

These is another thing who tell me that im must retire from these place. CA have time for these 12 days to post 50-100 times in all others topic and dont have time to post here with one simple answer"move to FF" or "not move to FF".

When some Yours map need to be moved,then you are very fast, but when i leave these place,then you can move your maps imediatly in FF,because nobody will complain.

[TaCktiX]

If the jury experiment is in the way of this advancing, I'm fine with it as is in consideration of the further revised Jury idea.

[oaktown]

Qwert, you have also let this thread sit for 12 days. As I see it there are unresolved issues regarding this map and the feedback you have received. My last post indicated that I would be fine with whatever the mapmaker and the jury come up with as a resolution - if the jury is fine with allowing this map to proceed as-is and to re-evaluate their gameplay concerns in BETA, I will respect that and Forge it.

As the jury hasn't been around here in 12 days either, I am PM'ing them to get them moving. If they don't get moving, I'll excuse the jury and deal with this myself. Meanwhile, qwert, I urge you to relax, have a glass of wine, and let the process move along at the same pace that it moves along for everybody else.

[Qwert]

by oaktown » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:47 am

Qwert, you have also let this thread sit for 12 days. As I see it there are unresolved issues regarding this map and the feedback you have received. My last post indicated that I would be fine with whatever the mapmaker and the jury come up with as a resolution - if the jury is fine with allowing this map to proceed as-is and to re-evaluate their gameplay concerns in BETA, I will respect that and Forge it.

As the jury hasn't been around here in 12 days either, I am PM'ing them to get them moving. If they don't get moving, I'll excuse the jury and deal with this myself. Meanwhile, qwert, I urge you to relax, have a glass of wine, and let the process move along at the same pace that it moves along for everybody else.

No im not let these tread to sit 12 days, im explane that gameplay can be solve in beta stage(if they any problems), and i dont see any point to every day post same things. Problem can be solve much faster in beta,then in theory, and if you want to move map to FF, you have plenty time to do that for these 12 days. I will relax enough when im finaly finish these map and go to very very very long vacation from map foundry.

[OliverFA]

I feel this accusation highly unfair. If you check my map's thread, last time that I posted in it was February 17th. That's 15 days ago. I am the first interested in seeing progress in my map. However, I have not done anything due to time constraints.

However, I don't want to be part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution. For this reason I agree with the map advancing to the Beta phase. I only have one condition. I want to play several games in Beta stage, with different settings, to check that gameplay really works as intended.

[oaktown]

I agree with the map advancing to the Beta phase.

That's two votes... I'll give the third member another day or two before I harass him again.

[Qwert]

by OliverFA » Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:17 pm

I feel this accusation highly unfair. If you check my map's thread, last time that I posted in it was February 17th. That's 15 days ago. I am the first interested in seeing progress in my map. However, I have not done anything due to time constraints.

However, I don't want to be part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution. For this reason I agree with the map advancing to the Beta phase. I only have one condition. I want to play several games in Beta stage, with different settings, to check that gameplay really works as intended.

Conditions? i belive that more people will play these map in beta stage, not only you or me.

Oak who is third member ? if you mean Edbeard i belive that he from begining whas for FF.

[oaktown]

ooh, my bad - I failed to notice that tacKtix had given a quasi-thumbs' up.

Final Forge

---The Peloponsesian War Map has reached the ‘Final Forge’ Stage. The map has passed rigorous gameplay and graphics examinations, and major concerns have been addressed. If you have any other concerns, please make your voice heard. If after a reasonable amount of time there has not been any objection or protest, the map will be deemed finished with the 'Foundry Brand' of approval and will be submitted for live play. As long as there is still discussion or posts that have yet to be commented on, the map will remain in Final Forge until said discussion has reached the conclusion that the map has reached its final and polished version.

Post questions and concerns if any.

[yeti_c]

IMO - letting maps into Play and "changing their gameplay in BETA" isn't what BETA is meant for.

BETA - is meant to catch any major errors and gameplay flaws before they are fully released.

A BETA product - is supposed to be 100% complete As Far As the Developer Knows.

So the question is...

Does this map have any gameplay problems that should be fixed before release?

C.