Pearl Harbor: Twist or Stick?

[MrBenn]

What is the consensus on the changes to the Pearl Harbor map? Is it more balanced since the gameplay was adjusted towards the end of last year, or was the gameplay better prior to that? Both cairns and I would like to see this put to bed, and the options facing us are

• a) stick with the adjusted (current) version.
  b) revert to the original version.

I'll keep checking on the poll in this thread as a barometer of opinion, but would welcome discussion about the relative merits (or otherwise) of tweaking maps once they're up into live play.

--MrBenn

[cairnswk]

There's been plenty of debate, but my preference is to see the original version restored.
The current combination is quite...oh hum!
It's lost it's Japanese attack appeal

[danryan]

There's been plenty of debate, but my preference is to see the original version restored.
The current combination is quite...oh hum!
It's lost it's Japanese attack appeal

Absolutely go back to the original. It is a plain vanilla map now, before it was incredibly exciting with the crazy drops you could get. A gem of a map.

[freakns]

keep todays version. two reasons. first one, its much more balanced, second, dan likes the first version.

[Qyu]

i vote for a revert

but i would prefer with plane bonus like :
2 planes : +1
3 planes : +2
4 planes : +3
all planes : +6/7 (like now)

[Riazor]

Back to the original! I barely play it anymore, because it has just become a whole lot less fun, to me at least.

[jbrettlip]

Count one more return to original for Owen, who is forum banned adn can't vote.

[Robinette]

Although i consider myself quite the expert on the current version...
---i have played the current version not just once, but TWICE ---
but i never got a chance to play the original version...

Although, from all i've heard, the original sounds like it had a more interesting game play...

[johnkelly00]

Can someone explain the differences? What changes were made?

[shidarin]

Original all the way.

[cliffaspinall]

Keep them both. Call one the Original Pearl Harbor and the other Pearl Harbor 2 (or something similar).

[pmchugh]

More balanced doesn't always mean better map.

[flexmaster33]

I find the new version to be much easier to read and the play flows better. I avoided the original Pearl Harbor, but I enjoy this new one.

[fumandomuerte]

Is this new version a fair 1vs1 option? The original wasn't (only played the map once because I hated the drop).

[MarshalNey]

I loved the original Pearl Harbor more than any other map, and the changes were bewildering to me. The original was an extraordinary team map- so what if it wasn't perfect for 1v1 play?

The bottom line is, how could you diminish the importance of the planes- and by extension the AAs- in a map called Pearl Harbor? The bonus requirements might not seem that different, but it has had a huge effect on the way games are played. I would always see planes getting shot down by the AAs, now it's hardly worth the bother.

There's just no central thematic gameplay here anymore.

There are more balanced maps out there than the original version- but that doesn't mean that the original was badly balanced, just that it wasn't at the top of the pile... The old map was fun, the new one is merely safe. I'll value fun over a few measly points any day.

Oh, I voted to keep the original, in case anyone didn't guess

[ahunda]

i vote for a revert

but i would prefer with plane bonus like :
2 planes : +1
3 planes : +2
4 planes : +3
all planes : +6/7 (like now)

This sounds pretty good to me.

[jwithington]

The first one was fun, but it was also incredibly goofy with the drops. I haven't played the new one because the original was so awful.

[King_Herpes]

C.) Cut it in half and give one side to the hopeless romantics and the other to the hopeless saps carrying a deep seeded sense of entitlement.

[MyTurnToWin]

I vote for the new version.

Please note I also liked the suggestion regarding changing the bonus structure on planes listed previously in this thread.

[MrBenn]

There are a plethora of alternative suggestions that could be tabled in relation to adjustments, but the line will have to be drawn somewhere at sometime... There are only two options because the to-ing and fro-ing could theoretically last indefinitely, and I'm keen to draw a line beneath it.

I'm still keeping my eyes on this barometer of opinion, but at the moment it appears to be 3:2 in favour of reverting to the former map - alongside the vast majority who would appear to care neither way (judging from the 500+ views and ~80 votes)...

[ahunda]

There are a plethora of alternative suggestions that could be tabled in relation to adjustments, but the line will have to be drawn somewhere at sometime... There are only two options because the to-ing and fro-ing could theoretically last indefinitely, and I'm keen to draw a line beneath it.

That different bonus structure has been suggested & discussed in the foundry thread too though. And I believe, it had quite some support.

Seems to me, it could actually be a good compromise: Addressing the problem of lop-sided drops, but preserving the unique nature of the map.

Then again I am not one of the hardcore fans of the map & haven´t played it that often, that I would be overly concerned.

[Robinette]

C.) Cut it in half and give one side to the hopeless romantics and the other to the hopeless saps carrying a deep seeded sense of entitlement.

Such hopeless wisdom from our great King...

[Timminz]

Pardon me, I don't keep up on the foundry as much as some, but why in the hell would you have changed a perfectly good map like Pearl Harbour?

[Robinette]

There are a plethora of alternative suggestions that could be tabled in relation to adjustments, but the line will have to be drawn somewhere at sometime... There are only two options because the to-ing and fro-ing could theoretically last indefinitely, and I'm keen to draw a line beneath it.

I'm still keeping my eyes on this barometer of opinion, but at the moment it appears to be 3:2 in favour of reverting to the former map - alongside the vast majority who would appear to care neither way (judging from the 500+ views and ~80 votes)...

I do not think this is a valid assumption....

This thread has been up about 5 days, and there are about 80 people who are interested enough in this topic to vote, I must presume those same 80 folks are checking in to see where the vote count is, and what the comments are... so 80 passionate people checking once a day for 5 days = 400 views... and then there are the obsessive people who check every hour... well, you get the point...

unless those are "unique" views, but i believe the counter clicks off each and every time someone clicks on the thread...

[rlcfast1]

i play this map constantly and even though i don't have any fancy strategic reasons, i thought the original was more fun.