I missed your edits while we were playing, but I apologize for making you wait so long earlier and dragging it out so badly that your family got annoyed.
Dude, you're better than me. I barely held you back in either game. Go forth and win! If you don't I'll be pissed. I think I would do better without FoW... lol. I need to read the manual.
Ball Island is just a huge pain in the ass and takes forever. I think it could be good if we went 1-1 and had it for the tiebreaker, since its a pretty epic map, but right off and after playing it against TheLawinator it kinda sucks.
I just S-ranked all the missions in the single player. I think that means I've been playing this game too much.
I'd challenge one of you guys to an online battle, but it's a little late. Maybe later. I definitely want in on the next tournie, even if my single player AI-abuse skills don't really transfer over to multiplayer.
I'm ready for a game, Akira. Let me know when you are.
Though as BM I am kind of screwed on Ball Islands. OS has an extra city and a temp sea port, while cities on BMs island are a bit non-existant at the western beach which is pretty much an invitation to invade me. Well, I won't go down without giving a proper fight, that I guarantee.
Heh, I just looked at Ball Islands. Have fun with that match. The map looks like its designed for a long, drawn out stalemate, what with the huge amount of resources and the total lack of anything resembling a potential forward base for an aggressor. You need like four turns just to get a naval unit out of the port and to the front lines, and two or three for an aerial unit...cripes. Hello, indirect attack units and cruisers, how I have missed you.
Would anyone be interested in a quickish exhibition match? I need a break from all the reading I've been doing.
It may be a bit premature, but should we start planning for the next AW tournament? I think the main thing that will need work is creating and selecting maps that will be viable for fair competition.
So why not make a contest out of the affair? Depending on the rules of the next tournament (such as if it is single elimination, double elimination, or swiss, and if COs can be selected differently depending on map) some of the map guidelines will need to be changed, but at the very least we can agree on some rules to employ in map design. In order to keep game lengths down to a reasonable length, we need to set a limit on the map size. My initial hunch was to restrict map sizes to those that had 200 to 300 squares, which includes maps of (up to) 10x30, 12x25, 15x20, and 17x17, but maybe letting maps of 300 to 400 squares would also work (examples: 12x30, 15x26, 18x22, 20x20). If we want maps that allow use of ground, navy, and air simultaneous, we'll need the larger map sizes, but if we allow people to change COs between matches that'll increase the freedom we can have with how maps are designed.
Of course, the main problem is how to put up the maps for viewing and voting. I don't quite have a solution for that yet, since there really aren't any map tools out yet that are updated for Days of Ruin, but if it seems like a good idea, I could probably figure out something myself. What do people think of the idea?
I think the problem we've been having is precisely that we've been limiting ourselves to land/air/sea maps. The problem with those is that they HAVE to be big and stalemate-y by their very nature. Air and sea units are both wicked expensive, and you have to have a fair deal of resources to want to use either at all - much less both in the same game. And if the map has limited resources or a small size, then it really favors ground units, who are cheap, effective, and can (on small or even medium-size maps) put up an early pressure that prevents the production of expensive units altogether. So on land/air/sea maps, you HAVE to have lots of cities and a large swath of sea between the two players, or else one or both of the types of units become unviable.
That's why, I think, you see a lot of the maps being just ground, or ground and either air or sea. It's much easier and more cost-effective to produce air units when you know that their sea counters won't be available (and have to be dealt with), and visa versa. In those maps, you can have a small-to-medium size and still make SOME use of the non-ground units, because their expense can be justified. Meanwhile, you don't have to worry about providing an environment that's advantageous to all 3 types of units - you're stuck with using just the 2, and they both work well on the map.
I was thinking that for the next tournament we would go with a pick/counterpick system. It would go like this:
Round 1: Player 1 picks the CO for Player 2
Round 2: Player 2 picks the map
Round 3: Player 1 picks his own CO, who cannot be the same as Player 2's
So an example would be something like this:
Blarney picks ChopperDave's CO: Lin
ChopperDave chooses stage: Zero Wood
Blarney picks own CO: Brenner
This way, we can use some of the smaller land-only or land/sea - land/air maps without it openly disadvantaging anyone. Player 1 gets to pick Player 2's CO, which he can use to his advantage. If I know, for example, that Player2 is typically aggressive with his strategy, I might saddle him with Gage or Brenner just because I know the two are generally more advantageous to defensive players. Or, I might simply give Player2 the CO I'm most comfortable dealing with. Player2 then gets to pick a map where he can use the CO he's been assigned to his advantage. Finally, Player1 gets to pick another CO that he believes best counters Player2's CO/map combo.
The only problem I see with this system is that it will probably discourage use of the specialists, i.e. Greyfield and Waylon (I can see Tasha still being a Round1 pick, seeing as she sucks :P). People aren't going to want to give Player2 one of those guys because the map counterpick will then seriously favor sea/units, and quite a few of the other COs do best when sea or air is eliminated from the equation, IMO. But we'll see - I guess it's still pretty plausible that we'd see some Gage v Greyfield or Tasha v Waylon games.
Well said. I think I can agree to all the points you've made. Maybe I'll think of some additional points afterwards, but at first glance the counterpick system seems like a good idea. Two minor points did just come to mind on that fact, though. Tabitha may have to be treated as a special case, and CO selection will have to consider that not all players have unlocked all the COs yet (I'm still on mission 23 for some reason).
Player 1 will likely have an unfair advantage by being able to pick the COs. I honestly think it'll be more managable by picking a random map and let the players decide for themselves.
Also, I have a couple of ideas for balanced, custom maps, though one is 20x30 which is pretty big.
Next tournament will be using our own maps, and chances are I won't be as anal when it comes to getting all three theaters. Chances are it'll be random map selection and you choose your CO each match.
I'd agree if any if the COs really countered each other. This iteration seems to be more about playing to your own CO's strengths than capitalizing on your opponent's "weaknesses." I mean, you can counter Gage's increased indirect unit defense/power by using Brenner's increased defenses to push through, or Will's increased mobility in his COP to smash him with a tank blitz, or Tasha's increased firepower to bomb them (and any AA guns nearby) into the ground, or Greyfield's nasty naval capabilities to Battleship him, or...
I think that map choice is a way bigger thing, especially when you give someone the opportunity to choose a map that would be considered his CO's "home turf." I'm fairly confident that a Lin player would more than well for herself on a map like Zero Wood, even against someone like Gage or Tabitha, and that's a big enough advantage in and of itself.
I agree with you that it would be nicer to just have a set of maps to randomly choose from, and let the players choose their COs from there - I doubt people would want to have their COs chosen for them. But I think a pick/counterpick system would lead to some more interesting matches, and probably less hours-long stalemate situations. It'll also let the players decide whether or not they want to do a map with ports, airports, or both rather than just assigning them a random map, which is nice.
I have a map that I made for the next tournament if anyone wants to help me test it out/provide criticism sometime. It's balanced, but not exactly beautiful.
Groovy. I don't really feel like playing the games out completely, just mainly enough to see how the maps play out and if there is anything glaringly bad about them.
Posts
Edit: Sorry for taking so long, my family is distracting me. I may be pulled away. I hatez them.
Edit again: We've been at this for 5 hours, my family is be pissed.
Final Edit: Take the win, you deserve it, I can't stand playing AW for 6 hours, and my family annoying me. Good luck.
Asian name Finals... on!
Good luck. I, as Gage, lost to Chen.
First map is Ball Island. Hop to eet.
Is Equal Island alright with you guys?
I'd challenge one of you guys to an online battle, but it's a little late. Maybe later. I definitely want in on the next tournie, even if my single player AI-abuse skills don't really transfer over to multiplayer.
Though as BM I am kind of screwed on Ball Islands. OS has an extra city and a temp sea port, while cities on BMs island are a bit non-existant at the western beach which is pretty much an invitation to invade me. Well, I won't go down without giving a proper fight, that I guarantee.
Would anyone be interested in a quickish exhibition match? I need a break from all the reading I've been doing.
So why not make a contest out of the affair? Depending on the rules of the next tournament (such as if it is single elimination, double elimination, or swiss, and if COs can be selected differently depending on map) some of the map guidelines will need to be changed, but at the very least we can agree on some rules to employ in map design. In order to keep game lengths down to a reasonable length, we need to set a limit on the map size. My initial hunch was to restrict map sizes to those that had 200 to 300 squares, which includes maps of (up to) 10x30, 12x25, 15x20, and 17x17, but maybe letting maps of 300 to 400 squares would also work (examples: 12x30, 15x26, 18x22, 20x20). If we want maps that allow use of ground, navy, and air simultaneous, we'll need the larger map sizes, but if we allow people to change COs between matches that'll increase the freedom we can have with how maps are designed.
Of course, the main problem is how to put up the maps for viewing and voting. I don't quite have a solution for that yet, since there really aren't any map tools out yet that are updated for Days of Ruin, but if it seems like a good idea, I could probably figure out something myself. What do people think of the idea?
I think the problem we've been having is precisely that we've been limiting ourselves to land/air/sea maps. The problem with those is that they HAVE to be big and stalemate-y by their very nature. Air and sea units are both wicked expensive, and you have to have a fair deal of resources to want to use either at all - much less both in the same game. And if the map has limited resources or a small size, then it really favors ground units, who are cheap, effective, and can (on small or even medium-size maps) put up an early pressure that prevents the production of expensive units altogether. So on land/air/sea maps, you HAVE to have lots of cities and a large swath of sea between the two players, or else one or both of the types of units become unviable.
That's why, I think, you see a lot of the maps being just ground, or ground and either air or sea. It's much easier and more cost-effective to produce air units when you know that their sea counters won't be available (and have to be dealt with), and visa versa. In those maps, you can have a small-to-medium size and still make SOME use of the non-ground units, because their expense can be justified. Meanwhile, you don't have to worry about providing an environment that's advantageous to all 3 types of units - you're stuck with using just the 2, and they both work well on the map.
I was thinking that for the next tournament we would go with a pick/counterpick system. It would go like this:
Round 1: Player 1 picks the CO for Player 2
Round 2: Player 2 picks the map
Round 3: Player 1 picks his own CO, who cannot be the same as Player 2's
So an example would be something like this:
Blarney picks ChopperDave's CO: Lin
ChopperDave chooses stage: Zero Wood
Blarney picks own CO: Brenner
This way, we can use some of the smaller land-only or land/sea - land/air maps without it openly disadvantaging anyone. Player 1 gets to pick Player 2's CO, which he can use to his advantage. If I know, for example, that Player2 is typically aggressive with his strategy, I might saddle him with Gage or Brenner just because I know the two are generally more advantageous to defensive players. Or, I might simply give Player2 the CO I'm most comfortable dealing with. Player2 then gets to pick a map where he can use the CO he's been assigned to his advantage. Finally, Player1 gets to pick another CO that he believes best counters Player2's CO/map combo.
The only problem I see with this system is that it will probably discourage use of the specialists, i.e. Greyfield and Waylon (I can see Tasha still being a Round1 pick, seeing as she sucks :P). People aren't going to want to give Player2 one of those guys because the map counterpick will then seriously favor sea/units, and quite a few of the other COs do best when sea or air is eliminated from the equation, IMO. But we'll see - I guess it's still pretty plausible that we'd see some Gage v Greyfield or Tasha v Waylon games.
Also, I have a couple of ideas for balanced, custom maps, though one is 20x30 which is pretty big.
I think that map choice is a way bigger thing, especially when you give someone the opportunity to choose a map that would be considered his CO's "home turf." I'm fairly confident that a Lin player would more than well for herself on a map like Zero Wood, even against someone like Gage or Tabitha, and that's a big enough advantage in and of itself.
I agree with you that it would be nicer to just have a set of maps to randomly choose from, and let the players choose their COs from there - I doubt people would want to have their COs chosen for them. But I think a pick/counterpick system would lead to some more interesting matches, and probably less hours-long stalemate situations. It'll also let the players decide whether or not they want to do a map with ports, airports, or both rather than just assigning them a random map, which is nice.
Cooode?
My map's done too. I'm looking forward to seeing it in motion.
edit: online now. Sorry for the delay.
edit: There we go. Hooray Powerbooks and your ability to become Wireless access points.
That would help a LOT for the next tournament.