Good Morning Woodboro (V7.X) -- Home for the Holidays

[cairnswk]

There hasn't been a comment on gameplay since the last update. Does that mean everyone's distracted by the shiny graphics?

Yes i'm distracted by the shiny graphics...but i can't read the territory names on the new grass.
I must however congratulate you on your creativity with this one. Most excellent of you.

[AGJ12]

this looks awesome, i hope it becomes a playable map

[Evil DIMwit]

So I think the only solution is to increase the troop "scale"... Make all the troop numbers bigger, so the relative difference between the bonuses can be made smaller.

Not a bad idea. I'll try to find some numbers that work.

Yes i'm distracted by the shiny graphics...but i can't read the territory names on the new grass.

Are they too light? Too dark? Too wavy?

[ender516]

So I think the only solution is to increase the troop "scale"... Make all the troop numbers bigger, so the relative difference between the bonuses can be made smaller.

Not a bad idea. I'll try to find some numbers that work.

Yes i'm distracted by the shiny graphics...but i can't read the territory names on the new grass.

Are they too light? Too dark? Too wavy?

I'd say the text lacks contrast. They should either be much closer to white, or converted to a dark green or black.

[natty dread]

Alternatively, adding a dark outline to the text might help.

[yeti_c]

So I think the only solution is to increase the troop "scale"... Make all the troop numbers bigger, so the relative difference between the bonuses can be made smaller.

Not a bad idea. I'll try to find some numbers that work.

Could consider bombard for fanatic versus capture for real station?

C.

[Evil DIMwit]

Could consider bombard for fanatic versus capture for real station?

C.

That wouldn't work so well, since the whole point of the remote assault is to expand mobility. If it's only a bombard, there might as well be nothing there at all.

[yeti_c]

Could consider bombard for fanatic versus capture for real station?

C.

That wouldn't work so well, since the whole point of the remote assault is to expand mobility. If it's only a bombard, there might as well be nothing there at all.

Well - isn't the whole idea of Pirate radio to disrupt normal radio?!

The Pirates would be a negative player - stopping the normal radio from expanding - whilst they expand at grass roots level by word of mouth - on the streets?!

(Or something like that?!)

C.

[Evil DIMwit]

Well - isn't the whole idea of Pirate radio to disrupt normal radio?!

The Pirates would be a negative player - stopping the normal radio from expanding - whilst they expand at grass roots level by word of mouth - on the streets?!

(Or something like that?!)

C.

Not a bad idea. In that case, though, bombarding the fanatics isn't so useful. Maybe the bombard sponsors? But to balance that, sponsors don't give you benefit if you own a pirate.

[yeti_c]

Well - isn't the whole idea of Pirate radio to disrupt normal radio?!

The Pirates would be a negative player - stopping the normal radio from expanding - whilst they expand at grass roots level by word of mouth - on the streets?!

(Or something like that?!)

C.

Not a bad idea. In that case, though, bombarding the fanatics isn't so useful. Maybe the bombard sponsors? But to balance that, sponsors don't give you benefit if you own a pirate.

That sounds more accurate?!

C.

[Evil DIMwit]

Well - isn't the whole idea of Pirate radio to disrupt normal radio?!

The Pirates would be a negative player - stopping the normal radio from expanding - whilst they expand at grass roots level by word of mouth - on the streets?!

(Or something like that?!)

C.

Not a bad idea. In that case, though, bombarding the fanatics isn't so useful. Maybe the bombard sponsors? But to balance that, sponsors don't give you benefit if you own a pirate.

That sounds more accurate?!

C.

¡I hope!

[Hopscotcher]

First of all........ REALLY like this map! It's kind of like Madness or Space where it's not totally serious, but still has good gameplay.

I dislike Pirates Bombarding Sponsors.... I think they should be able to Take Over Fanatics. i.e. attack them

Of course, they don't really get any bonus for that, but usually Pirate Stations are more about getting the Word to the average Joe than actually Hurting regular stations. Although they do this indirectly.

Just my thoughts,
Hopper

[MrBenn]

First of all........ REALLY like this map! It's kind of like Madness or Space where it's not totally serious, but still has good gameplay.

I dislike Pirates Bombarding Sponsors.... I think they should be able to Take Over Fanatics. i.e. attack them

Of course, they don't really get any bonus for that, but usually Pirate Stations are more about getting the Word to the average Joe than actually Hurting regular stations. Although they do this indirectly.

Just my thoughts,
Hopper

So the pirates can do more damage (attack more places) but don't give so much reward (bonus) ?

[Evil DIMwit]

First of all........ REALLY like this map! It's kind of like Madness or Space where it's not totally serious, but still has good gameplay.

I dislike Pirates Bombarding Sponsors.... I think they should be able to Take Over Fanatics. i.e. attack them

Of course, they don't really get any bonus for that, but usually Pirate Stations are more about getting the Word to the average Joe than actually Hurting regular stations. Although they do this indirectly.

Just my thoughts,
Hopper

That's essentially what it's like right now, where pirates don't need to go through an antenna to assault Fanatics like regular stations do, with the drawback that they occupy more central and thus less easily-defensible positions. Do you think that's balanced?

[Hopscotcher]

I do think it's balanced and it makes sense.

On one hand, people will want them because they are powerful, but on the other hand people won't want to be a target. It's like any other powerful territory.

I. E. PAF in WWII Poland

[Evil DIMwit]

On one hand, people will want them because they are powerful, but on the other hand people won't want to be a target. It's like any other powerful territory.

With the difference being that nobody is forced to start on the PAF. I need to make sure it's balanced as a stating territory but it's hard to say.

I could try to add some artificial balance by increasing the neutral values on all the other houses/sponsors, but that could end up seriously frustrating people in spoils battles.

[yeti_c]

Indeed...

The fact that in an 8 player game 2 people are pirates and 6 are not - might make it suck to be a pirate (or vice versa)...

Then again... in an 8 player game - if someone gets strong early - it tends to happen that the other 7 players rein them in...

Anything over 5 player games are (fairly) self levelling - so I would concentrate on this...

4 players = 8 starts...

1) Possiblity of 1 player having 2 pirates? Is this too strong to subdue the other 3 players?

3 players = 6 starts (2 neutrals)?

2) Possiblity of 1 player having 2 pirates? Is this too strong to subdue the other 2 players?

2 players = 4 starts (4 neutrals)?

3) Possiblity of 1 player having 2 pirates? Is this too strong to subdue the other player?

My answers would be

1) No
2) Maybe (erring on the side of No - in a fog game less so)
3) Yes

Thus I would ask to enforce a positions game where in a 2 player game - the pirates are shared out.

The other 6 stations would be shared/3 - so in a 1v1 game each player would get 1 pirate and 2 normals. (which would be fair)

C.

[Evil DIMwit]

A) Pirates are only start positions in 4-, 7-, and 8-player games thanks to the Clever Start Position Scheme (explained earlier in this thread) that guarantees just that, and
B) Another effect of the CSPS is that in a 4-player game, it is impossible for one player to start with both pirates.
Therefore, yeti, I think your concerns are already addressed.
It is possible for one team to get both pirates in a 4p or 8p team game, but I don't think that scenario is too game-breaking.

[yeti_c]

A) Pirates are only start positions in 4-, 7-, and 8-player games thanks to the Clever Start Position Scheme (explained earlier in this thread) that guarantees just that, and
B) Another effect of the CSPS is that in a 4-player game, it is impossible for one player to start with both pirates.
Therefore, yeti, I think your concerns are already addressed.
It is possible for one team to get both pirates in a 4p or 8p team game, but I don't think that scenario is too game-breaking.

(Bringing that post here)

I love the fact that starting positions mess with everybody's mind

Your description above was correct - and DJ Teflon suggested an excellent implementation of it.

So:
1. All of the "standard" territories coded as neutral
2. Pirate stations NOT coded as neutral.
3. Radio stations not coded neutral
4. The 6 Radio stations coded into start positions

This means:
2p - each player will be allocated 3 radio stations. The pirates revert to neutral as there is not enough for an even deal.
3p - each player will be allocated 2 radio stations. The pirates revert to neutral.
4p - each player will be allocated 1 radio station. The pirates enter the pot to be allocated with the surplus radio stations.
5p - each player will be allocated 1 radio station. The pirates and remaining radio station revert to neutral.
6p - each player will be allocated 1 radio station. The pirates revert to neutral.
7p - the starting positions are ignored. The pirates and radio stations are allocated, with the surplus territory going neutral.
8p - the starting positions are ignored. The pirates and radio stations are allocated; 1 to each player.

This way, no single player will ever own more than 1 pirate from the drop. There is a possibility that two players on the same team (4p/8p dubs/quads) will drop both pirates, but there's not a lot that can be done about it...

This is most excellent - great work Teflon. (I'd previously missed this)

C.

[Evil DIMwit]

Well, now that we're all cleared up, I think the only issue left to change is the contrast of the territory names...

Click image to enlarge.

[ender516]

Well, now that we're all cleared up, I think the only issue left to change is the contrast of the territory names...

Click image to enlarge.

As I said before, either much lighter text, or dark green, or even black.

And don't forget the parking lot lines.

[Evil DIMwit]

And don't forget the parking lot lines.

Are you sure those are necessary? I can't think how they might not look awkward with the irregularly-shaped lots (and making the lots regular might not be possible given how everything needs to fit)

[Hopscotcher]

And don't forget the parking lot lines.

Are you sure those are necessary? I can't think how they might not look awkward with the irregularly-shaped lots (and making the lots regular might not be possible given how everything needs to fit)

Aren't these Graphics issues anyway? Not Gameplay? Just sayin.

[yeti_c]

Aren't these Graphics issues anyway? Not Gameplay? Just sayin.

Valid points.

C.

[ender516]

Aren't these Graphics issues anyway? Not Gameplay? Just sayin.

Valid points.

C.

I wouldn't have commented on them if EvilDIMwit hadn't gone that way at the bottom of page 8. I will hold my fire until this gets moved to Graphics Workshop, which, as far as I'm concerned, could be any time now. I think the game play looks good as it stands.