Moderator: Cartographers
pmchugh wrote:Remember Pearl Harbour? It got changed and no one liked it.
pmchugh wrote:I agree with agentcom in that a bad drop is annoying but part of the map.
pmchugh wrote:I would also be willing to hazard a guess that first turn advantage would be stronger in 1v1 anyway.
nagerous wrote:I like this map the way it is...
benga wrote:Don't change!
koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.
koontz1973 wrote:Just make them starting territs with a cap of 4. Do not underline the territs with neutrals and your drops, while still random in all games will make the drops far better. So in 1v1 games, both sides will recieve 4 in the decay (8) and the remaining 4 with then go into the random drop. So the odds of getting 2 extra over your opponent is very small. Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.
nolefan5311 wrote:koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.
We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.
And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.
koontz1973 wrote:nolefan5311 wrote:koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.
We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.
And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.
That is the foundry of today nole. If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them. Even classic has to have some. When will it all end. Do we really need to go through the process of making all maps even more the same or can we leave some maps that have quirks like this one alone. Considering this map has 77 games waiting for players or playing now, 16 1v1 games, this does not seem to be an unpopular map as it is. If these changes where truly needed, it would of come up a lot sooner considering this map was quenched in 2008.
@MrBenn, read it and it would not work.
koontz1973 wrote:With 212 maps available, not playing some is not really a problem though is it. Would you play it again if the drop had gone the other way? I doubt that this is a popular map but my point is, why have every map the same? Can we not have a little variaty?
koontz1973 wrote:If someone requested it and permission was given, then why ask for opinions about it and just do it. But considering one player in 5 years has seen this as a problem, does this really make it a problem.
chapcrap wrote:pmchugh wrote:Remember Pearl Harbour? It got changed and no one liked it.
No, I don't remember Pearl Harbour. I know the Pearl Harbor map and it's great.pmchugh wrote:I agree with agentcom in that a bad drop is annoying but part of the map.
That's a ridiculous statement. It doesn't have to be part of that map. That's the whole point.pmchugh wrote:I would also be willing to hazard a guess that first turn advantage would be stronger in 1v1 anyway.
You mean like this game? Game 10926098 You went first, but had 5 in the decay area. The other guy only had 1. You lost.nagerous wrote:I like this map the way it is...
You have played 12 games total on it and only 4 1v1. You haven't played since 2010. Do you even remember the map?benga wrote:Don't change!
Why? You've lost 4 of your last 5 on the map. Probably because of drops.
nagerous wrote:Part of the fun of this map is the unpredictability of it.
koontz1973 wrote:If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them.
benga wrote:Don't change!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users