Maelstrom and I came to the conclusion that, given the number of issues being brought up, we should break down the threads into new ones with general topics. Since I apparently do nothing but look at Clan War maps, I'm starting the Layouts one
| Massive Assault http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/ |
|
| 2nd Clan War Layouts http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1325 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Artanis [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 2nd Clan War Layouts |
Maelstrom and I came to the conclusion that, given the number of issues being brought up, we should break down the threads into new ones with general topics. Since I apparently do nothing but look at Clan War maps, I'm starting the Layouts one
|
|
| Author: | Artanis [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:54 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | |||
Originally posted: Artanis, http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1167&start=80 Well then, I guess I'll just have to get this thread back on its (apparent) topic, of course! 
It looks to me like a major problem with the clan war map is that so many necessary/desirable options seem mutually exclusive. I think I've found a layout that will get a good feel for the "big picture", an easy way to add new clans, AND the equality that I've harped on for the entirety of three threads. Basically, the current Clan War map (or a variant of it, such as the Star configuration for territories) would be copy/pasted to make 2 "War Zones", and one of the War Zones would be scrambled around. Clans would have territory in each War Zone, and each clan would have a bridge between their territories in the form of a wormhole. I've managed to lay out the new clan additions in such a way as to ensure as much equality as possible for each established clan while giving new clans an easier time. New clans would be added to the appropriate space in BOTH War Zones simultaneously (so that every clan always has a (starting) territory in each War Zone). P.S., an idea that might be kind of neat: use different territory shapes in each War Zone, like the Stars in one and Diamonds in the other....but we can blow up that bridge when we get to it.
|
|||
| Author: | Artanis [ Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Originally posted: Enforcer, http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1167&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 an diea for a new clan starting layout.. http://www.massiveassault.com/clans/nwo/messup.jpg ignore the yellow and red systems, the other 3 are in the right layouts. |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Thu Jun 24, 2004 6:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
looks like 2 areas to fight in is the popular choice, and from the poll the current hex grid idea seems popular, so now we know what kind of map we're after we need to decide some other bits so some more ideas needed on.. number of systems for each clan, number of planets in each system (maybe not same rmber for all systems), rules for including man only maps, income for each planet, r the current storing rule fine, r the current availability rules fine, do we need harsher time limits? (in the lcw if a game reached 14days it's an automatic loss for the offending person. That is unless I get told that they are on hols etc. Also the only games taht can be reassigned are ones that are still on turn 1.) |
|
| Author: | Mrakobes [ Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
know what...i dont like the current clanwar systems layout because New Paradize used only for capitals...that means that nobody ever plays Paradize and that bad i think there should be regular NP planets in systems. |
|
| Author: | Maelstrom [ Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sounds like a good idea to me! NP doesn't take too much longer than Wasserland to play, and Wasserland is all over the place in the current layout. |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
or we could create the system layouts, then let each clan pick their home system/planet. |
|
| Author: | Quitch [ Tue Jun 29, 2004 4:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sounds good, so long as all capitals generate the same income regardless of size... and they'd need to be marked in some way different to other planets (letter in the corner?) |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Tue Jun 29, 2004 4:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
yea i'd say with a star of something, also how aobut if the clans who ahvne;t got 1 make a small 24 x 24 gif logo, we could put little flgs over planets or something 
|
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Thu Jul 08, 2004 9:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ok we need to start making some firm decisions regarding the next war, the RN-FOR capitol strike should be becoming clear who's gonna win soon, the GT are coming very close to attacking NWO's capitol so cahnces are the war might be over soon. So 1st decision is map this is the current plan.. 2 maps, with all clans being next to each clan at last once somewhere in the maps. 1 map will have a layout similar to the current one. The other will have a new layout shaped like a star. Now 2 maps obviosuly gives us the questions about do we run each seperately with seperate income etc, i'd vote no as it's gonna be a pain to manage it. I suggest each clan picks 1 planet in the middle of 1 of their 2 starts to be their capitol. While the middle of the otehr formation is just some planets. This would mean that in 1 map the clan would only face losing income, while in the other they could face losing their capitol. Now 2 starting systems is gonna create more income than we have atm, so do we need to reduce the income / increase the costs? Or would more battles be a good thing? I think we need to decide these few things before we move onto other things. Ideas plz. |
|
| Author: | Maelstrom [ Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Considering our discussion on how to resolve the snowball problem (half of cash still goes to defender, or one of the other solutions), I would say we would want to change the cash flow somewhat. Each planet should have an even amount of cash, so smalls would provide 2, and mediums either 4 or 6 (maybe we should divide it into smalls, mediums, and larges for this result). To reduce the total cash flow because of this big increase, we can tone the capitol income down to 10 or something like that. As far as increasing the battle costs, I would say that would be a good idea, otherwise, with so many planets out there we can easily be overwhelmed with battles. Right now I have something like 12 clan war battles active, and thats way too many for me to get to every day. As far as the layout, I really like the star layout. The ring that was suggested is a good idea, but I don't see how its feasible with 5 active clans. Also with the two-map layout, how would we transfer resources between the two maps? Warp gates? Where would they be located? Perhaps in 3 of the systems directly adjacent to each homeworld we can have warp gates. That way, there is a possibility of taking someone else's warpgates, and attacking to the other map. |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
ppl weren't keen on the old warpgates linking stuff idea, so we could just keep it as 2 seperate wars that share resources. As for there being too many fights, while u guys ahve 12 games, For players have a max of 2 each (at least 2 of us don't have any) Maybe u guys need more players? How about number of planets per system? And should they be sumetrical like the current war? Or should ti be random eg each setup has a set number of each planet but is random what's in what system. Also I'm assuming u want the new man maps in this so we'll need some rules for the ma only players as well as sie clasifications for the man maps. |
|
| Author: | Artanis [ Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Maelstrom wrote: Considering our discussion on how to resolve the snowball problem (half of cash still goes to defender, or one of the other solutions), I would say we would want to change the cash flow somewhat. Each planet should have an even amount of cash, so smalls would provide 2, and mediums either 4 or 6 (maybe we should divide it into smalls, mediums, and larges for this result). Sounds decent. Maelstrom wrote: To reduce the total cash flow because of this big increase, we can tone the capitol income down to 10 or something like that. As far as increasing the battle costs, I would say that would be a good idea, otherwise, with so many planets out there we can easily be overwhelmed with battles. Right now I have something like 12 clan war battles active, and thats way too many for me to get to every day. In addition to Enforcer's comment...I point to my idea for becoming available for finishing a match. Maelstrom wrote: As far as the layout, I really like the star layout. The ring that was suggested is a good idea, but I don't see how its feasible with 5 active clans. I pretty much gave up on the idea of a ring when I thought of the current layout idea (the double-map idea that I have a picture of at the top of the page). The point of the ring was to try to make it fair, which the double-map idea does a decent job of. Maelstrom wrote: Also with the two-map layout, how would we transfer resources between the two maps? Warp gates? Where would they be located? Perhaps in 3 of the systems directly adjacent to each homeworld we can have warp gates. That way, there is a possibility of taking someone else's warpgates, and attacking to the other map.
I figured just have it be just like it is now, with each clan just having a supply of money, and none of this "transferring between maps". Also, the idea I had was to have the warp gates replace where the capitals otherwise would be, and instead have the capital laying somewhere in limbo between the warp gates. |
|
| Author: | Artanis [ Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Enforcer wrote: ppl weren't keen on the old warpgates linking stuff idea, so we could just keep it as 2 seperate wars that share resources. People didn't seem to mind the idea of warpgates in and of themselves so much as the breaking up of the map that they could signify. At any rate, I thought a good way to do it would be to replace the capitals in each layout with warp gates, and instead have the capital be somewhere in limbo between each side of the gates. It would essentially be 2 wars that share resources, but with 1 objective between them. Enforcer wrote: As for there being too many fights, while u guys ahve 12 games, For players have a max of 2 each (at least 2 of us don't have any) Maybe u guys need more players? *snicker*  Enforcer wrote: How about number of planets per system? And should they be sumetrical like the current war? Or should ti be random eg each setup has a set number of each planet but is random what's in what system. I think if territorial layouts are going to be asymetrical, then each clan should still have the same layout. i.e., if FoR is going to have a Brimstone/Antarcticus/Rust on one end of its diamond and a Anubis/Rust/Emerald on the other, then all the others should have a Brimstone/Antarcticus/Rust on one end of their diamonds and a Anubis/Rust/Emerald on the other. Enforcer wrote: Also I'm assuming u want the new man maps in this so we'll need some rules for the ma only players as well as sie clasifications for the man maps.
I say make Crateus worth $200/week
Seriously though...perhaps if a clan has no MAN players available, they could use any MAN player's next availability early? Example: NWO attacks FoR on Crateus. FoR has no MAN players available, so they are allowed to use Artanis to defend Crateus. When they run out of available players (thus making them all available again), Artanis does not regain his availability. This would work great with my idea to have finishing a match grant extra availability. |
|
| Author: | Maelstrom [ Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Simple way to deal with MAN maps, just have maps have a dual purpose, with the defender choosing between two maps if both are MAN players. Anubis or Noble Rust could be linked with Twin Islands, and Antarticus could be linked with Craetus |
|
| Author: | Magistr Honna [ Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think it`s not yet time to include twin islands in the war.Map should be tested a bit.At least right now I don`t like it...Crateus on the other hand is very good. |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Thu Jul 08, 2004 2:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
we won't include TI until they add in that missing forest But if all clans could post here the number of man/non-man players they have, then we'll see wether having man only planets is fesable.
|
|
| Author: | Rocklizard [ Sun Jul 11, 2004 11:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
RN has all three players on MAN. Why this obsession with intelocking hex maps? Why not just decide on the number of systems that you want in each starting position and the number of links to each other clan then draw in the lines calling them whatever you want: star lanes, warp gates or just links. Why not something like: a home world, an inner ring of n-1 systems (where n is the number of clans at any time) and an outer ring of n-1 systems. Each inner ring system would link to two outer ring systems and the HW. Each outer ring system have its links to the two inner ring systems and two links to an outer ring system of another clan. In this way each clan would be able to attack (and be attacked from) precisely two systems of each of the other clans. Currently there are five clans so there would be four systems in the inner and outer ring. If a new clan joins then every clan receives a new inner and outer ring planet and two links are randomly reassigned (one to another clan and one to the inner ring planets) for each clan so that the usual symetry is maintained. For the number of planets per inner, outer and homeworld system please see my post in the 2nd Clan War Rules Forum since I am suggesting a radical simplification of the rules! Mike |
|
| Author: | Enforcer [ Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
this idea as been kind of suggested before, and the general preference has been to use the hex map, I like both map ideas
|
|
| Author: | Rocklizard [ Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Is there any chance that someone with more computing ability than me (i.e. some at all  ) could mock up the layout I have suggested so that it is easier to visualise - please? 
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
