Antarctica [Quenched]

[natty dread]

I think the South pole should reset to something Way lower the 30.

If I'm reading the legend right the only way to win the game is by attacking through the SP to attack the bases until every opponent is defeated. So in an 8 player game theoretically you'd have to attack through it 8 times.

Who says you only have to attack one player when you hold the SP...

Either way, check out the discussion in the last few posts, we are considering changes to the gameplay.

[carlpgoodrich]

This is similar to Arms Race except with a twist: if someone takes one sector you get hit by massive decays.

Unfortunately, autodeploys (and hence, decays which are just negative autodeploys) cannot be made conditional.
We could have it like this, though:

- sectors are regular neutrals
- sp is a high neutral, assaults all bases
- sp + sectors gives a huge bonus, but sp without all sectors gives a huge negative bonus

I'm not sure how well this would work though.

Sorry if I was unclear, I did not mean a conditional autodeploy. I meant that the decay is there regardless, but if you manage to hold all 4 sectors and the SP you will get the massive bonus that will do much more than offset the decays. The risk is that if someone takes 1 sector you will not get the huge bonus but the decay will still be in effect.

[natty dread]

So in this case... we'd have sectors that decay -3, and SP that decays -10, and let's say that SP+sectors gives you +25 troops. Good. Well, a player takes them, then leaves SP with only 1 but puts 10 on all sectors. Now if nobody takes a sector from him, he'll lose 3*4 = 12 troops, and gain 25, a net gain of 13 troops. If someone takes one of the sectors, he'll have lost the 10 troops he put there... and he'll lose 9 troops to the decay, to a total of 19.... without getting the SP bonus.

Hm, I guess it could work... but then I'm not sure how well it would work with the lands also having a significant decay. If we do this, I think the land decays should only be -1, otherwise people will just keep their stacks on their bases and try to hold land areas with 1:s... also I think land territories should have only 2 neutrals to encourage spreading out.

Isaiah, where do you stand on this?

[natty dread]

What are we going to do now?

[isaiah40]

So in this case... we'd have sectors that decay -3, and SP that decays -10, and let's say that SP+sectors gives you +25 troops. Good. Well, a player takes them, then leaves SP with only 1 but puts 10 on all sectors. Now if nobody takes a sector from him, he'll lose 3*4 = 12 troops, and gain 25, a net gain of 13 troops. If someone takes one of the sectors, he'll have lost the 10 troops he put there... and he'll lose 9 troops to the decay, to a total of 19.... without getting the SP bonus.

Hm, I guess it could work... but then I'm not sure how well it would work with the lands also having a significant decay. If we do this, I think the land decays should only be -1, otherwise people will just keep their stacks on their bases and try to hold land areas with 1:s... also I think land territories should have only 2 neutrals to encourage spreading out.

Isaiah, where do you stand on this?

Sorry for taking the slow boat to China so to speak. No we don't want players to just stack on the bases, we want them to move above the frozen wasteland, so this would be the ideal situation I believe.

Aren't we having fun figuring out the gameplay on this one!

[natty dread]

Ok... if I understand correctly, we agree on these changes...
Here's another summary of all the gameplay changes to-do. Let me know if they're all ok, so I can get on updating the map...

- bases autodeploy +1 and can be assaulted from SP only.
- all land territories have -1 decay.
- bonus area bonuses are dropped, we'll still keep the areas though to keep the naming scheme of the territories. We can drop the minimap in this case, just the list of abbreviations will do, since the abbreviated names are already on the map itself.
- feudal style collection bonus: +1 for each 2 territories in the same area, in addition to regular territory bonus.
- sectors decay -3 troops each, start with 3 neutrals
- south pole decays -10 troops, starts with ... still 30?
- sectors + south pole gives a 25 troops bonus
- land territories will have 2 neutrals

[carlpgoodrich]

Ok... if I understand correctly, we agree on these changes...
Here's another summary of all the gameplay changes to-do. Let me know if they're all ok, so I can get on updating the map...

- bases autodeploy +1 and can be assaulted from SP only.
- all land territories have -1 decay.
- bonus area bonuses are dropped, we'll still keep the areas though to keep the naming scheme of the territories. We can drop the minimap in this case, just the list of abbreviations will do, since the abbreviated names are already on the map itself.
- feudal style collection bonus: +1 for each 2 territories in the same area, in addition to regular territory bonus.
- sectors decay -3 troops each, start with 3 neutrals
- south pole decays -10 troops, starts with ... still 30?
- sectors + south pole gives a 25 troops bonus
- land territories will have 2 neutrals

Not sure if you were just asking Isaiah or everyone, but my two cents (actually, might be closer to cent 7 and 8 ): Good with everything, although I think someone mentioned that maybe land territs should start with 1 neutral to help encourage expansion. I think thats a good idea. Also, will +25 for holding the SP + sectors be enough? The Arms Race bonus is much higher... Especially with the auto deploy on the bases and the decay on the SP and sectors, would something in the 50-75+ range be more appropriate?

[natty dread]

50 seems a bit much... I think, we don't want the bonus to be an immediate game ender, just something that gives a good advantage and is worth taking. Players already have incentive to go for the south pole, it being the only way to eliminate others, so I think the bonus only needs to be large enough to make holding it worthwhile.

So maybe... 35 or so?

I think we should start relatively low, and then increase it if needed, in beta.

[carlpgoodrich]

Sounds fair.

[isaiah40]

Not sure if you were just asking Isaiah or everyone, but my two cents (actually, might be closer to cent 7 and 8 ): Good with everything, although I think someone mentioned that maybe land territs should start with 1 neutral to help encourage expansion. I think thats a good idea. Also, will +25 for holding the SP + sectors be enough? The Arms Race bonus is much higher... Especially with the auto deploy on the bases and the decay on the SP and sectors, would something in the 50-75+ range be more appropriate?

I agree with natty, 50 is a little high. I'd say lets start with +25 and we can adjust it from there in beta if needed.

[natty dread]

Ok, so let's go with 25 for now, and increase if needed. I'll get working on the changes asap.

[natty dread]

Ok, here it is. Haven't updated the neutral values yet... but do we have an agreement on them yet?

Anyway, map update picture in this post right after the words stop.

Click image to enlarge.

[ender516]

From earlier discussion, I believe I understand correctly that islands do not count as far as "Each 2 land territories within the same area gives +1 troop." From the way the legend is laid out, should I also understand that the islands do not lose 1 troop each turn?

[natty dread]

I think so yeah...

[isaiah40]

Correct.

[ender516]

Then perhaps the legend should read "Each 2 mainland territories within the same area gives +1 troop." and "Each mainland territory loses 1 troop per turn." I'm not sure that it is enough to allow you to drop the "Islands not included" line, but it might help.

[AndyDufresne]

Would it be possible to move the mini-map away from the bottom legends (to decrease clutter and increase legibility and space for that pertinent gameplay information), and say put it between South Orkney and Ronne Shelf towards the above? Reordering the gameplay information at the bottom might be worthwhile as well.


--Andy

[natty dread]

Then perhaps the legend should read "Each 2 mainland territories within the same area gives +1 troop." and "Each mainland territory loses 1 troop per turn." I'm not sure that it is enough to allow you to drop the "Islands not included" line, but it might help.

Problem with that is that the bases, sectors & southpole are also on "mainland"...

Would it be possible to move the mini-map away from the bottom legends (to decrease clutter and increase legibility and space for that pertinent gameplay information), and say put it between South Orkney and Ronne Shelf towards the above? Reordering the gameplay information at the bottom might be worthwhile as well.

Sure, but I think we should get the GP stamped before working on the layout and graphics more...

[AndyDufresne]

Then perhaps the legend should read "Each 2 mainland territories within the same area gives +1 troop." and "Each mainland territory loses 1 troop per turn." I'm not sure that it is enough to allow you to drop the "Islands not included" line, but it might help.

Problem with that is that the bases, sectors & southpole are also on "mainland"...

Would it be possible to move the mini-map away from the bottom legends (to decrease clutter and increase legibility and space for that pertinent gameplay information), and say put it between South Orkney and Ronne Shelf towards the above? Reordering the gameplay information at the bottom might be worthwhile as well.

Sure, but I think we should get the GP stamped before working on the layout and graphics more...

Right I understand, I mention it now because moving it enhances the legibility of the legend, which I think direct impacts the clarity of the legend and gameplay, more than say "Oh, this needs a texture" (which I agree would be a strict graphic concern).


--Andy

[Joodoo]

How does a player "get out" of the N base? It seems like the base and the territory is separated from the rest of the continent by impassable ice.

[natty dread]

Oh, there should be a sea route there. Somehow it must have slipped my mind...

[natty dread]

Would it be possible to move the mini-map away from the bottom legends (to decrease clutter and increase legibility and space for that pertinent gameplay information), and say put it between South Orkney and Ronne Shelf towards the above?

I tried this... the minimap looks kinda weird in the middle of the map. I think we need to figure out something else, and frankly I still think it can wait until graphics shop...

[natty dread]

Forgotten sea route added

Click image to enlarge.

[isaiah40]

Add in that one way from AP5 to AP3

[natty dread]

Will do..