thehippo8 wrote:Well Natty, I did ask you to make some suggesstions regarding what you meant about alternates to Koontz' dot suggestion. Seems you are a little intent on being antagonistic. Can I suggest we get back to the issue now? If you have no alternate suggestions then Koontz dot idea seems the best on the table.
I've been making suggestions. I suggested a collection bonus which would work great for this type of map, much better than an undervalued, hard to defend bonus that will practically be useless.
As to whether this map works is fun and gets supporters well ... hay ... that's what Beta is for.
No, that is NOT what beta is for. You are supposed to have a finished map for beta, one that you believe 99% will work. Beta is not a tool to be used to test a map concept. It is only there to iron out any unforeseen flaws your map gameplay/graphics might have.
You might disagree with this, but that's how the foundry works currently. I've long advocated some kind of mechanism to play-test maps before beta, but lackattack doesn't want to implement such, because he doesn't listen to the people who produce content on his site.
But either way, beta-testing is not meant to be some kind of "get out of arguments" card for the gameplay stage. You can't respond to every criticism with "well if it doesn't work I'll change it in beta". That's just not productive, nor is it how the foundry process works.
koontz1973 wrote:If that was the case, games would of stayed the same over the last couple of thousand years. There are many different styles of games with many more copies of those games, but every one of those games is different. Do you get that?
No, it wouldn't. You can still create games that are different and unique, but if they do not work as a game, if they are not fun to play, they will soon be forgotten and no one will play them. That's why all the classic games created throughout the history are games that are fun to play, games that function well as a game. If you can't provide a fun playing experience, it doesn't matter how unique your idea is, no one will play it.
So yeah, the best classic games are fun to play and balanced. We also have games that are pretty much pointless after you figure them out. Take tic-tac-toe, the classic version with 3x3 grid. As a very small kid the game may have some challenge for the first few times, but once you figure it out, every game ends up in a tie. That's why no one plays that game seriously after that, or they enhance the rules (adding a larger grid and requiring more crosses/zeros in a row, or adding more dimensions).
koontz1973 wrote:I see no reason why a larger bonus would benefit the map. The pay off may be small but it is the only pay off available so players will not ignore them. They may take there time, going for them, holding them, using them, but I see no reason why that cannot be a style of game play. Not every map has to have the ability to be finished of in round 3.
I don't see why you equate "larger bonus" with "short games". That's not the reality of CC gameplay. There are many maps that are bonus heavy that can have games last for ages. Take king's court, or lunar war.
And the point is, no one is going to go for those bonuses as they are now. The blue one can be forgotten right out - it's 12 territories with 12 borders. No one will ever hold it unless they have already won the game. Then there are the 3 with 4/4 each. When you consider you have to go through several more territories just to take them all, as the territories are not directly connected thanks to your "knight rule", but the opponent only has to break one territory to break the bonus... they're not worth it.
In any 2-player game, or 2-team team game, as the gameplay stands now... no one would go for the bonuses. Everyone would focus on taking down the enemy, because trying to hold a bonus is just a waste of troops with the current gameplay. They're undefendable. That's just the reality of how 2-player/2-team games are played. Even on regular maps, even relatively small neutrals are ignored in those game types, and no one goes for large bonus areas, because it's much more efficient to focus on killing your opponent.
koontz1973 wrote:All you will get with the +2 for 3 squares is a land grab style of play (same as in Antarctica). Players moving forward as quickly as they can to get as much as they can in the hope that in round 2 they have a larger troop count to play with. That is not the style of GP for this map. This is another reason why the reinforcements will be set at a level of 3 or 5.
No, that's not true. Antarctica is a totally different type of map and there's no comparison between that map and this that you could make. On this map, there's no features that force you to move out, unlike on antarctica. There's no losing condition or decaying territories that force you to constantly push forward. Look at feudal war, which has a collection type bonus... and yet the main strategy for many game types is to sit tight and build stacks.
As for this map... With a collection bonus, like "+2 for every 3 blue squares, +2 for every 3 red squares, +3 for every 3 green squares", you could scatter those coloured squares over the middle area. Then each player would have to strategize how they spend their resources, which squares they go for and how they plan on defending them. You could do many, many strategically interesting things with the placement of those coloured squares alone.
koontz1973 wrote:With the +2 for 3 squares, you get the huge problem of where to put the squares. As all the squares in the centre two rows can be attacked by the front row of knights, you could only put a set number on either side.
But no player starts with a whole row of knights. The starting positions are mixed in the 2 bottom/top rows, are they not?
koontz1973 wrote:it would be very easy to grab one in round one if you make a land grab. Any game that would allow that to happen would be over in round 2 as no one would be able to come back from that.
Nope - if it's that easy to take the bonus (as you think) then it'd be equally easy for the opponent to break it. Easier, even, as to break it the opponent only needs to take one territory, where as to hold it you need to hold 3.
Also, that raises another point: just because you can take a bonus at round 1, doesn't mean you should or that it's a smart move - usually, you shouldn't take bonuses you're unprepared to defend, as it only wastes troops. Unless you're playing a fog game where you can sneak up on bonuses.
I think you're making a good effort to develop good gameplay here, but you have some misconceptions on the game dynamics... the difference on what you think works "on paper" and how it actually plays out in practice can be really jarring, I've seen it happen multiple times - it gets better over time when you get more experience with mapmaking, though.
Not many, but it does get played.
