Tribal War - Florida v14.2 [31 Jan 2012] pg27

[Gilligan]

Perhaps make chiefs start neutral?

[VicFontaine]

Seamus, it's a good map. Don't fret the accusations. I know it's hard, but some people have a reputation for being...well...being certain ways. As is, it's a welcomed addition, and I'm investigating doing a similar-style Mississippi map inspired by yours. Not so much to the detail or originality, but simpler and similar. Thanks for the hard work. It shows.

[Seamus76]

We should be getting up a new update soon which will fix a double bonus problem we had in the XML, as well as fixing the number of starting territories for 1v1 games, which should be 8 per person, not 14. This should lower the chances of drop bonuses, which we've seen in a couple of games because of the additional starting territories.

Two other issues I need some feedback on:
- Are the bonuses for the Choctaw and Creek a little too much? From what we've seen those have been the focus of a lot of games, and once held provide enough troops to pretty much take the game. We were thinking maybe lower Choctaw to +2, and Creek to +3 or even both to +2.
- Along those lines it seems Apalachee might be a big of a clog, specifically JE-2, making it very difficult to break any bonus on Creek, which again might be a little much at +4. Our thought on that would be to change the border allowing CH-C to attack CR-1, as well as changing the border between CH-C and JE-2 to allow CH-C to attack AP-3. This will give players a second way to get into that area, and make AP-3 a viable option. Right now it seems AP-3 is pretty much never attacked.

These are just a few early observations, but might help keep the games a little more even, and open the gameplay up a bit in that area. We would like the focus to be more on the War Zone and not the bonuses in the Northwest.

Thoughts?

[natty dread]

b00060, your accusations are totally ridiculous. If you set up public games, anyone can join them, and if you set up games on a beta map, you know you take a risk of playing an untested, unknown map.

Of course mapmakers will want to play as many games as possible on their new map - it's called beta-testing! Some make private games, others make/join public ones, it's up to the mapmaker. But claiming that they are "farming" or something is a totally ridiculous accusation. Actually, mapmakers usually suck on their own maps.

It's a game, man. It's supposed to be played for fun. You win and lose points, and even if you lose it's not the end of the world. You won't starve in real life if you lose some game points. Get some damn perspective.

[b00060]

Obliviously you didn't see my real gripe which was vj taking advantage the fact he knew BOB would freeze me in a freestyle game and taking advantage. They wanna play yes, perhaps set up their own games or ask permission would be great, but that is not the complaint. The complaint was him taking advantage of a KNOWN issue that only he knew about at the time, so for you to say that is totally ridiculous is totally ridiculous.

[AndyDufresne]

We should probably take discussion about etiquette and conduct to the Foundry Discussion or General Discussion forums. Lets leave the map topic about how best to improve the map while in BETA.


--Andy

[Flapcake]

Obliviously you didn't see my real gripe which was vj taking advantage the fact he knew BOB would freeze me in a freestyle game and taking advantage. They wanna play yes, perhaps set up their own games or ask permission would be great, but that is not the complaint. The complaint was him taking advantage of a KNOWN issue that only he knew about at the time, so for you to say that is totally ridiculous is totally ridiculous.

I dont understand what you try to achieve in this thread, You seem to have an issue you are not happy with, take it with mods in private and let them decide if it is okay or not, we've heard what you had to say, but let it rest for now.

This thread are about changes / improvements to the map, not to express anger about personal problems, sorry for my straightforward way.

[ender516]

Is there a problem with BOB and this map? I have seen no report in either the BOB thread or the Tools Suggestions and Bugs forum.

[b00060]

Yes BOB does not work on this map.

[ender516]

Maybe you could post what exactly is wrong? I am not playing any games on this map right now, but I entered Game 9933015 and BOB seems to do what I would expect: highlighting, text map, etc.

[thenobodies80]

Yes BOB does not work on this map.

Please if you have problem with tools, discuss this issue in the tools section of the site. The map topic is just to talk about possible improvement the map or possible issues of the map, just that. Tools are not related with the foundry. Said that I see ender516 knows about your problem, then you're in good hands, just you have to move in the right section of the site.

Obliviously you didn't see my real gripe which was vj taking advantage the fact he knew BOB would freeze me in a freestyle game and taking advantage. They wanna play yes, perhaps set up their own games or ask permission would be great, but that is not the complaint. The complaint was him taking advantage of a KNOWN issue that only he knew about at the time, so for you to say that is totally ridiculous is totally ridiculous.

It's not related with the map development, if you think there's something wrong please use the appropriate forum for this issue.
Must be said that it doesn't seems to me a known issue, at least here in the foundry, moreover if like ender516 said the BOB problem is just for you.
Anyways, also this one it's not a foundry thing so I don't want to derail the topic in the wrong way.
Please come back to talk about the map and how to improve it

Thanks in advance for your collaboration,
Nobodies

[Seamus76]

by Seamus76 on Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:44 pm
We should be getting up a new update soon which will fix a double bonus problem we had in the XML, as well as fixing the number of starting territories for 1v1 games, which should be 8 per person, not 14. This should lower the chances of drop bonuses, which we've seen in a couple of games because of the additional starting territories.

Two other issues I need some feedback on:
- Are the bonuses for the Choctaw and Creek a little too much? From what we've seen those have been the focus of a lot of games, and once held provide enough troops to pretty much take the game. We were thinking maybe lower Choctaw to +2, and Creek to +3 or even both to +2.
- Along those lines it seems Apalachee might be a big of a clog, specifically JE-2, making it very difficult to break any bonus on Creek, which again might be a little much at +4. Our thought on that would be to change the border allowing CH-C to attack CR-1, as well as changing the border between CH-C and JE-2 to allow CH-C to attack AP-3. This will give players a second way to get into that area, and make AP-3 a viable option. Right now it seems AP-3 is pretty much never attacked.

These are just a few early observations, but might help keep the games a little more even, and open the gameplay up a bit in that area. We would like the focus to be more on the War Zone and not the bonuses in the Northwest.

Thoughts?

Yes, thank you TNB80, let's please get back on topic. I need some help with the ideas above. And also we just found out that the Tomahawks are showing up as a +2 auto-deploy, instead of a straight up +2 bonus, which I have let V.J. know to fix ASAP. That is a major one we will fix right away. But please let me know about the ideas to open the Northwest terrts up, and reducing their bonuses. Thanks.

[koontz1973]

Seamus, posted this in the game we have going on, but I think keeping the T/H and B/A as an auto deploy works better. Gives someone who does not get that top left an option to grab some armies. As in a lot of the games (1v1), one player will get more of those territs than the other. An easy bonus to grab with some nice dice and one got, easy to hold.

The three bonuses top left need to come down for balance reasons alone. 2,2,3 would be my suggestion.

[Seamus76]

by koontz1973 on Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:47 am
Seamus, posted this in the game we have going on, but I think keeping the T/H and B/A as an auto deploy works better. Gives someone who does not get that top left an option to grab some armies. As in a lot of the games (1v1), one player will get more of those territs than the other. An easy bonus to grab with some nice dice and one got, easy to hold.

The three bonuses top left need to come down for balance reasons alone. 2,2,3 would be my suggestion.

I agree on the bonuses. Hopefully once the week starts we'll get a little more feedback in the thread on that, and maybe changing some of the borders I mentioned. As for the auto deploy of +2 on the Tomahawks and Bows, instead of +2 bonus, I'm not a fan of that, plus the +2 is still a way for people to get extra armies to better take out bonuses by being able to place them in other areas and not just on the auto deploy.

[koontz1973]

If you keep them as a normal bonus, then you will need to increase there amount. A 3 territ continent with that many borders is worth more than two. Also, you need to make them attractive for players to grab hold off.

[Bostonguitah]

This question was probably already asked but are the T/H's & B/A's +2 auto-deploy??? The map is unclear and I'm wondering if I wasted a turn on them.

[Seamus76]

by Bostonguitah on Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:54 pm
This question was probably already asked but are the T/H's & B/A's +2 auto-deploy??? The map is unclear and I'm wondering if I wasted a turn on them.

They are supposed to be a +2 bonus, not auto deploy, but currently they are auto deploying instead, which will be changed in the next update. Sorry about that.

[koontz1973]

Seamus, the shell mound ruins is spelt wrong in the xml.

And no, you would not of kicked my arse in that game. Good game though.

[ender516]

My only suggestion right now is to make some cosmetic changes to the names in the XML: use the hyphens in the territory names to match what is seen on the map, avoid all caps on the tribe continent names, and spell out "ConqRuins" as, say, "Conquistadors and Ruins" or even "Conquistadors and Shell Mound Ruins".

[Industrial Helix]

Uh... on this game I'm holding BA-2 but not getting + 2.

Hmm, now thast I look t the log, I see its an Autodeploy... whivh I think should be specified in the legend that its not +2 but autodeploy 2.

[ender516]

Uh... on this game I'm holding BA-2 but not getting + 2.

Hmm, now thast I look t the log, I see its an Autodeploy... whivh I think should be specified in the legend that its not +2 but autodeploy 2.

Look back here:

by Bostonguitah on Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:54 pm
This question was probably already asked but are the T/H's & B/A's +2 auto-deploy??? The map is unclear and I'm wondering if I wasted a turn on them.

They are supposed to be a +2 bonus, not auto deploy, but currently they are auto deploying instead, which will be changed in the next update. Sorry about that.

[thenobodies80]

by Bostonguitah on Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:54 pm
This question was probably already asked but are the T/H's & B/A's +2 auto-deploy??? The map is unclear and I'm wondering if I wasted a turn on them.

They are supposed to be a +2 bonus, not auto deploy, but currently they are auto deploying instead, which will be changed in the next update. Sorry about that.

Current status of this update?
When done, please post here and/or send me a PM and I'll forward it to lackattack asap.

[Industrial Helix]

Ah ok... sooo daaat's what dat is

[Industrial Helix]

I just noticed on tiny itsy bitsy thing, on the XML Shell Mound Ruins says Shell Maund Ruins. I think the XML is incorrect but I could be wrong.

[Nola_Lifer]

Ah ok... sooo daaat's what dat is

Who dat?

Is it possible to enlarge all text a little. Even on large map it is difficult to see and read.