Rorke's Drift. [QUENCHED]

[DiM]

Any idea when it will be back online? I love this map and miss it. lol

all active games must finish first before the new version is uploaded.

[koontz1973]

Any idea when it will be back online? I love this map and miss it. lol

all active games must finish first before the new version is uploaded.

Hopefully not to long. But there is still a 111 games going. It will likely be in a couple of weeks.

[DiM]

Any idea when it will be back online? I love this map and miss it. lol

all active games must finish first before the new version is uploaded.

Hopefully not to long. But there is still a 111 games going. It will likely be in a couple of weeks.

i'm doing my best to kill everybody in my games

[koontz1973]

Knew this was coming so did that already. There is one game though at round 50 odd with normal spoils. Anyone's game so the time limit will really put a cat among the pigeons there.

[Fazeem]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

the map is perfect the way it was/is

[DiM]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

the map is perfect the way it was/is

considering the fact you're one of the people who's been exploiting the map it's safe to assume the map wasn't perfect.

[koontz1973]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

the map is perfect the way it was/is

considering the fact you're one of the people who's been exploiting the map it's safe to assume the map wasn't perfect.

No he was not DiM. He played 67 games on the map with the settings, only 10 of those went under 5 rounds. Considering he has played many more games than this on classic with the same settings and lots of other maps with the same amount, stop seeing conspiracies with every player who plays these settings.

Only 73 more games to go.

[Fazeem]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

the map is perfect the way it was/is

considering the fact you're one of the people who's been exploiting the map it's safe to assume the map wasn't perfect.

what in flaming hades do you mean by that guy? I play the same settings on most maps and this map in discussion is great the way it is

[DiM]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

the map is perfect the way it was/is

considering the fact you're one of the people who's been exploiting the map it's safe to assume the map wasn't perfect.

what in flaming hades do you mean by that guy? I play the same settings on most maps and this map in discussion is great the way it is

i'm talking about games like this one: Game 10102933 where you deploy everything on 1 terit then go for the objective.

[Fazeem]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

the map is perfect the way it was/is

considering the fact you're one of the people who's been exploiting the map it's safe to assume the map wasn't perfect.

what in flaming hades do you mean by that guy? I play the same settings on most maps and this map in discussion is great the way it is

i'm talking about games like this one: Game 10102933 where you deploy everything on 1 terit then go for the objective.

and what is wrong with that? I play the same setting on every map If there is an objective I go for if there are easy to take bonuses and no objective I go that route like the other guys and I said I play the same setting on just about every map you pulled one example of me goig from jump for the objective out of 67 games and even doing so on that one or even lets say 6 of them what is wrong with that I play primarily sequential so there is always the ability for the other player to make the same moves if they follow map rules. I do not get why you guys want to mess up a good map because some chumps suck at playing it.

[DiM]

I play primarily sequential so there is always the ability for the other player to make the same moves if they follow map rules.

with the manual setting there are 2 types of games.
1. one player goes straight for the objective and gets it while the other is clueless and goes for other bonuses and loses (this is the exploit)
2. each player goes straight for the objective and it all comes down to whoever has the best dice.

either way it doesn't make a fun game.

I do not get why you guys want to mess up a good map because some chumps suck at playing it.

it's not about the chumps that suck it's about the chumps that exploit the map's flaw that allows the bonus to be easily taken to make thousands of points.
map rank apparently doesn't work for closed maps but there are certain people who create hundreds of 1v1 manual fog games on this map and use only the tactic of deploying close to the objective and going for it from round 1. i can't remember exactly who but somebody managed to get a profit of over 3400 points just from doing this. as soon as map rank works for this map you can check for yourself players like boudicia king_herpes, isn2 and others.



PS: also the map is screwed up in non-manual 1v1 where the person who goes first always wins if he gets a bonus in round 1.

[Fazeem]

I play primarily sequential so there is always the ability for the other player to make the same moves if they follow map rules.

with the manual setting there are 2 types of games.
1. one player goes straight for the objective and gets it while the other is clueless and goes for other bonuses and loses (this is the exploit)
2. each player goes straight for the objective and it all comes down to whoever has the best dice.

either way it doesn't make a fun game.

I do not get why you guys want to mess up a good map because some chumps suck at playing it.

it's not about the chumps that suck it's about the chumps that exploit the map's flaw that allows the bonus to be easily taken to make thousands of points.
map rank apparently doesn't work for closed maps but there are certain people who create hundreds of 1v1 manual fog games on this map and use only the tactic of deploying close to the objective and going for it from round 1. i can't remember exactly who but somebody managed to get a profit of over 3400 points just from doing this. as soon as map rank works for this map you can check for yourself players like boudicia king_herpes, isn2 and others.



PS: also the map is screwed up in non-manual 1v1 where the person who goes first always wins if he gets a bonus in round 1.

aww but there in lies the flaw in your logic, since you have picked through my games you should have already seen the majority of them noone takes the objective rather we eliminate the other player win or lose in my favor and I have played with multiple opponents who use the same tactic of utter annhilation rater then objective that should show some type of precedent where your logic is applied to a small minority who get slammed going for objective from jump against those experienced on the map. That said you are butchering a great map because some chumps have not figured out the game play and lost a bunch of points, there is always the ability to exploit in manual deploy fog regardless of the map.

[DiM]

That said you are butchering a great map because some chumps have not figured out the game play and lost a bunch of points,

wrong

there is always the ability to exploit in manual deploy fog regardless of the map.

and wrong again.

the biggest flaw of this particular map is that you can take the objective in round 1. in manual deployment you have a 97.7% chance of successfully taking the objective in round 1 and if the opponent is unaware of this exploit then you win in round 2.

unless you can show me one other map where you can do this this discussion is useless.

[koontz1973]

Lets stop this. The map will go live in a few days and has not been butchered. I removed one territ and changed a few neutrals. As for non manual 1v1, I cannot say what the difference will be. DiM does not like it for 1v1 but I made the map for larger games. 1v1 was only put there as it has to be.

[Fazeem]

Lets stop this. The map will go live in a few days and has not been butchered. I removed one territ and changed a few neutrals. As for non manual 1v1, I cannot say what the difference will be. DiM does not like it for 1v1 but I made the map for larger games. 1v1 was only put there as it has to be.

Was not trying to offend just saying I loved the map if anything it was a compliment in regards to the map and I love 1 on 1 on maps designed for large games as it creates another level of depth in game play most of the time and when both player are good a very interesting game emerges. anyways i hope you are right and changes are not a butchering.

[koontz1973]

Fazeem, not to worry, it pisses me of that some abused the map. It also pisses me of that when ever someone plays this map now on these settings, they are likely to get accused of this. All info for the changes is in post one and I will put it also in the dispatch next issue.

[DiM]

Lets stop this. The map will go live in a few days and has not been butchered. I removed one territ and changed a few neutrals. As for non manual 1v1, I cannot say what the difference will be. DiM does not like it for 1v1 but I made the map for larger games. 1v1 was only put there as it has to be.

i actually like the map on 1v1 that's why i'm fighting for change. the map has the potential to be a great 1v1 map with a lot of strategies. i'm pretty sure the new version will kick ass.

[Dukasaur]

Lets stop this. The map will go live in a few days and has not been butchered. I removed one territ and changed a few neutrals. As for non manual 1v1, I cannot say what the difference will be. DiM does not like it for 1v1 but I made the map for larger games. 1v1 was only put there as it has to be.

It's a great map. I'm sure it will still be a great map after your changes!

It's too bad that there aren't options to just disable certain settings for a map.

[DiM]

It's too bad that there aren't options to just disable certain settings for a map.

true. i've asked for such a thing and i've been denied. apparently it's not possible but somehow i doubt it. if we can restrict some maps to just 2-6 players and others to just 1v1 then surely restricting maps to certain settings is doable.

and in my opinion this would be a natural step in the evolution of the foundry. the creation of specialised maps. since we already have 200 generic ones.
i'd love to see some maps especially designed for quad games where each team has preset starting positions.
or a map where you can only play with fog to keep the mystery on each player's mission (like the pirates and merchants map)

[natty dread]

true. i've asked for such a thing and i've been denied. apparently it's not possible but somehow i doubt it. if we can restrict some maps to just 2-6 players and others to just 1v1 then surely restricting maps to certain settings is doable.

I'm sure it's doable. I'm only speculating here, but I think one reason why lack is reluctant to allow it is that it would make the game selection more difficult - you couldn't just choose any map and any settings, when maps would have restrictions on what settings you could use... so I guess it'd require some changes to the game creation interface first.

And maybe categories for maps as well...

[DiM]

true. i've asked for such a thing and i've been denied. apparently it's not possible but somehow i doubt it. if we can restrict some maps to just 2-6 players and others to just 1v1 then surely restricting maps to certain settings is doable.

I'm sure it's doable. I'm only speculating here, but I think one reason why lack is reluctant to allow it is that it would make the game selection more difficult - you couldn't just choose any map and any settings, when maps would have restrictions on what settings you could use... so I guess it'd require some changes to the game creation interface first.

it would be as easy as making some of the options greyed out. for example when the first 1v1 map gets to beta and you'll try to make a game, probably the buttons for 3-8 players will be grey and you won't be able to click them.
something similar could be done for everything else. or if lack is lazy he can just leave the interface as it is and we'll simply get an error.
try to make an 8p triples game or a 3 player doubles and you'll see what i mean.
greyed out buttons would be nicer and more userfriendly though.

a more complex variant would be conditional settings. for example manual deployment is not allowed in 2-3 player games but it is allowed in 4-8 player games.

And maybe categories for maps as well...

you still think that is ever gonna be made? it's been 5 years since it was suggested.

[natty dread]

for example when the first 1v1 map gets to beta and you'll try to make a game, probably the buttons for 3-8 players will be grey and you won't be able to click them.

Do you know this for sure? Because currently, the maps that can't be played for 7-8 player games, don't have greyed out buttons for those game types.

you still think that is ever gonna be made? it's been 5 years since it was suggested.

Clickable maps were suggested something like 5 years before they were implemented as well... Things do get done here, it's just they get done in slow-motion... it's kind of like watching paint dry, or watching the grass grow...

[koontz1973]

i actually like the map on 1v1 that's why i'm fighting for change. the map has the potential to be a great 1v1 map with a lot of strategies. i'm pretty sure the new version will kick ass.

High praise indeed. And here I was thinking you hated it.

[DiM]

for example when the first 1v1 map gets to beta and you'll try to make a game, probably the buttons for 3-8 players will be grey and you won't be able to click them.

Do you know this for sure? Because currently, the maps that can't be played for 7-8 player games, don't have greyed out buttons for those game types.

of course i don't i was merely speculating on a better yet simple to do alternative to the error system that we have now.
as i said before "if lack is lazy he can just leave the interface as it is and we'll simply get an error"

you still think that is ever gonna be made? it's been 5 years since it was suggested.

Clickable maps were suggested something like 5 years before they were implemented as well... Things do get done here, it's just they get done in slow-motion... it's kind of like watching paint dry, or watching the grass grow...

5 years too late and it still sucks compared to clickable maps
so if we do get map categories it will probably be in 2020 and it will be worst than the worst suggestion ever made about this.
probably lack will split the maps in 2 pages. first half of the alphabet and second half of the alphabet

[natty dread]

5 years too late and it still sucks compared to clickable maps

Matter of opinion... In fact I find them much more user-friendly than the old CM plugin.

so if we do get map categories it will probably be in 2020 and it will be worst than the worst suggestion ever made about this.
probably lack will split the maps in 2 pages. first half of the alphabet and second half of the alphabet

Well that's kind of a bleak view on things... I hope there will at least be categories for standard, conquest and complex maps.