The New World [Quenched]

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:06 am

I didn't think it was thread jacking, I am just demonstrating that this isn't our reality. I'm assuming superposition is true and this is an alternate universe to allow for our inconsistencies in quantum theory.

Anyway, there will be extensive gameplay testing but I'm sure it will be hard to comment on gameplay right now since we haven't shown you starting neutrals yet.

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:09 am

Coleman wrote:I didn't think it was thread jacking

But i like thread jacking

Coleman, the guy who wont let me jack this thread wrote: I am just demonstrating that this isn't our reality. I'm assuming superposition is true and this is an alternate universe to allow for our inconsistencies in quantum theory.

I assume that all the time

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:23 am

We're (well okay I'm, I think gimil's decide on his own what starting neutrals ought to be) open to people suggesting starting neutral values.

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:33 am

100 each!!

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:35 am

bryguy wrote:100 each!!

Okay... We're open to people suggesting useful starting neutral values.

Our current thought process is 2's inside natives, with 5 on borders. Europe not fully decided yet. Probably 4 on landing zone, maybe more maybe less.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:38 am

Coleman wrote:We're (well okay I'm, I think gimil's decide on his own what starting neutrals ought to be) open to people suggesting starting neutral values.

thats hurtful, ive not decided, i jsut didnt like your suggestion

for a frame of reference colman wanted 10 on ALL the boarders hehe

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:48 am

Coleman wrote:
bryguy wrote:100 each!!
Okay... We're open to people suggesting useful starting neutral values.

Our current thought process is 2's inside natives, with 5 on borders. Europe not fully decided yet. Probably 4 on landing zone, maybe more maybe less.

how about 10 on all borders, and 20 on all the inside ones?

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:56 am

bryguy wrote:
Coleman wrote:
bryguy wrote:100 each!!
Okay... We're open to people suggesting useful starting neutral values.

Our current thought process is 2's inside natives, with 5 on borders. Europe not fully decided yet. Probably 4 on landing zone, maybe more maybe less.
how about 10 on all borders, and 20 on all the inside ones?

bryguy enought with hte stuppid sugestions, wasting my time reading alot of bull . . .

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am

gimil wrote:
bryguy wrote:
Coleman wrote:
bryguy wrote:100 each!!
Okay... We're open to people suggesting useful starting neutral values.

Our current thought process is 2's inside natives, with 5 on borders. Europe not fully decided yet. Probably 4 on landing zone, maybe more maybe less.
how about 10 on all borders, and 20 on all the inside ones?
bryguy enought with hte stuppid sugestions, wasting my time reading alot of bull . . .

well the 10 was a real one

ok how about this, 5 on ports, 4 on borders, and the rest 2 or 3

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:01 pm

4 on borders is too low I think, especially if you end up making ports more as it would discourage people from ever using them. I still say 5-6 for natives, possibly more for Europe since their round 2 count will be higher if they have any manner of luck at all.

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:03 pm

Coleman wrote:4 on borders is too low I think, especially if you end up making ports more as it would discourage people from ever using them. I still say 5-6 for natives, possibly more for Europe since their round 2 count will be higher if they have any manner of luck at all.

true

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:04 pm

bryguy wrote:
gimil wrote:
bryguy wrote:
Coleman wrote:
bryguy wrote:100 each!!
Okay... We're open to people suggesting useful starting neutral values.

Our current thought process is 2's inside natives, with 5 on borders. Europe not fully decided yet. Probably 4 on landing zone, maybe more maybe less.
how about 10 on all borders, and 20 on all the inside ones?
bryguy enought with hte stuppid sugestions, wasting my time reading alot of bull . . .
well the 10 was a real one

ok how about this, 5 on ports, 4 on borders, and the rest 2 or 3

The ports need a lower number to encourage people to use them, my thoughts where 3

like i said to coleman having rather large numbers on the boarder makes for boaring gameplay.

Id rather keep this conversation to one side till the next update with proposed starting neutrals on it.

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:05 pm

Sir. Ricco · Post by **Sir. Ricco** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:18 pm

I really like how you did this. It is a really good looking map.
Here a suggestion. Maybe you could have six or eight European countries and that would be were you start. You could only attack the new world and you objective are to conquer your colony and one other.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:22 pm

Sir. Ricco wrote:I really like how you did this. It is a really good looking map.
Here a suggestion. Maybe you could have six or eight European countries and that would be were you start. You could only attack the new world and you objective are to conquer your colony and one other.

It essentail means reworking the whole map. (wasting a nights work) and changing the idea coleman is going for. He wants an oppertunity to change history. What if the aztecs suppressed the european colonies?

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:28 pm

More to the point, I don't think it's any fun to get the same exact experience every time with a player count. Like in the current 6 player conquest maps everyone has the exact same gameplay at first. And the fact that it's 6 player you can be sure somebody started at each start location so the mystery in fog is diminished.

With 9 locations in a lot of player counts you can't be sure if someone is there or not. And with 2 types you can get a different experience more so then a new start location. The natives and Europe feel different when you play them. Which for me is more of a draw then you get to be some Europe country going someplace always.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:32 pm

Version 3:

I think we need to show more popularity before a move, so 3 people need to show up and say something neat that haven't talked yet.

Lone.prophet · Post by **Lone.prophet** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:55 pm

can the europe countries attack eachother?

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:56 pm

Lone.prophet wrote:can the europe countries attack eachother?

No, they need to go through the other landing areas and then back up them.

This will be obvious when you are playing, but perhaps we should add something to the map saying that. Like Europe has a no crossing borders agreement.

gimil and I also had an internal argument over these current neutrals, they will be changing next version.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:07 pm

Coleman wrote: gimil and I also had an internal argument over these current neutrals, they will be changing next version.

we kissed and made up though

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:16 pm

First, I'm not gay. There was no kissing.

Second, Version 4:

Um, we had a little accident in Mapuches, when it's coded the inlands will be 2 and the borders 4.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:17 pm

Coleman wrote:First, I'm not gay. There was no kissing.

there was lots of kissing . . .

(im not gay either, although coleman was rather tender)

Unit_2 · Post by **Unit_2** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:21 pm

Can you please just change the name of the "Iroquois" to somethign else? it just buggs me so bad...lol

Lone.prophet · Post by **Lone.prophet** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:22 pm

i think the colors should be more clear to distiguish

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:23 pm

Unit_2 wrote:Can you please just change the name of the "Iroquois" to somethign else? it just buggs me so bad...lol

Suggestions? Do you think Souix would be better?