Moderator: Cartographers

You should have plenty of "balls" to bowl then.the.killing.44 wrote:This map is hilarious.
Game 7602890
2010-09-08 15:36:03 - Game has been initialized
2010-09-08 15:36:05 - the.killing.44 received 1 troops for holding Max Kevin MK6
2010-09-08 15:36:05 - the.killing.44 received 3 troops for holding Batter 2 MK6
2010-09-08 15:36:05 - the.killing.44 received 8 troops for 24 regions
2010-09-08 15:36:17 - ManBungalow received -1 troops for holding Batter 1 Leg Gully
2010-09-08 15:36:17 - ManBungalow received -1 troops for holding Batter 1 Square Leg
2010-09-08 15:36:17 - ManBungalow received -1 troops for holding Batter 1 Mid-Wicket
2010-09-08 15:36:17 - ManBungalow received -1 troops for holding Batter 1 Wicket-keeper
2010-09-08 15:36:17 - ManBungalow received 8 troops for 24 regions


You're welcomeNephilim wrote:Game 7602250

I guess you mean Richie Benaud. No. This is supposed to a match being played at Lords MCC.greenoaks wrote:why is it Mike Atherton and Tong Greig ?
wouldn't Richie be a more iconic option ?

He might be an English TV Caller, but he also does it here, and you might like to check this page out.greenoaks wrote:Richie is an English tv caller, he started there and then channel 9 hired him for down here as well.
its a pretty good gig, when its winter here he goes north for the English summer and when it gets a bit cold up there he flys south for the Australian summer.

TheSaxlad wrote:The Dice suck a lot of the time.
And if they dont suck then they blow.
This too. I was going to suggest it, but it slipped my mind.natty_dread wrote:Why not just make the batters neutral?
Easy break from batter 1 to MK 6 though, isn't it?khazalid wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=7602250&full_log=Y
:/
Why don't you just try, others have. It might improve things for others looking at you also.b00060 wrote:Easily the worst map on CC. I would love to be more constructive and start to list the reasons why, but there are way to many.

And by the way, I got the bowler in the drop, but I have not won.2010-09-10 00:22:17 - ender516: Say, cairnswk, the legend says "Add four runs on same line, bonus increases to +2", but BOB is telling me I have the -1 for Batter 2 and Deep Mid-On and the 2 for same plus Long-On 4.
2010-09-10 00:23:05 - ender516: Should the bonus with four runs override the basic batter/fielder negative bonus?
I guess there's more of the story to tell.b00060 wrote:You drop plus 4 and you win, end of story.
Thanks for offering suggestions....I'm not sure that a lot cn be done about the Mosa-Lefu border. I had already jiggled with all that area from previous versions and the border configuration there is necessary to stop that from being a chain-link border layout. Unfortunately the available space also limits the configuration.ManBungalow wrote:Okay Cairns,
As you might realise, I'm a great fan of your maps on this site. Just looking at the image, I think that this map has potential to be great fun and make use of some fairly unique gameplay features.
In my opinion, the only real issues entail the various bonuses in the field itself (and the Mosa-Lefu border).
OK. dropping the auto-deploy to +2 is achievable.I feel that the Bowler should start neutral every time or have a lower auto-deployment bonus. Being able to begin with 4 bonus troops really punches a hole in the strategic aspect of this game. And due to the sheer number of borders that region has, it seems likely to affect a large number of games.
This is not a good option since there would nobody playing in the field, which would mean you'd have to code all the batting team neutral also.But as has already been made clear, the biggest flaw in the gameplay is the ability to begin your first turn with a whole bunch of negative bonuses for holding the fielders.
There are four solutions to this issue which I can suggest:
1] All fielders start neutral
This probably isn't such a good idea, as no player will have much incentive to attack any of the regions on the field.
Mmmm. Has merit, but if we can achieve something better without having to code the xml, 'twould be better.2] Each player starts with an equal number of fielders as defined by the XML
A better option this time, but still makes it possible for a player to play late in round 1 and have only 2 troops to deploy. (unlikely, but you never know).
It doesn't achieve the game if you code the fielders neutral. And if you code orange 4 regions into the mix that would destroy the object of gaining a "4".3] Fielders start neutral and each player begins with an equal number of 'Deep' (orange) regions
My favourite option. Having these troops in the field gives a player incentive to take fielders and other associated bonuses. It also makes the +2 (Bat, Field, Four) bonus much more useful and interesting.
Yes, it would destroy the gameplay objective of the batter being "caught out" for -1, if the batter gets stuck on the feilding position, and fails to take the "4" also.4] Remove the negative bonus aspect
This could work nicely, but it might affect the gameplay plan you had in mind more than the other suggestions I have listed.
Appreciate your desire to improve, well done.With all that said, this is your map - to change it or not is your decision. I'm just trying to help you push this into the realms of 'quality maps'.

Yes well. if you've played any of my more challenging maps you'll also find them confusing. But that also makes people think what is possible outside the box, which is why as you know, we have a lot of the inventive technologies that engratiate our lives.b00060 wrote:Ok, for starters, you can have so many negative bonuses you don't even get a deploy.
The map is confusing as hell,
the negative bonuses are an important part of the overall objective of gameplay.as are the bonus structures which can end a game before it even begins based on the initial deploys. I can't think of two more important aspects to a successful map than that. You can actually start with upwards of an 8 troop differential on initial deploy. All the negative bonuses are ridiculous. You drop plus 4 and you win, end of story.
