CRICKET: SILLY MID-ON

[mr. CD]

Have to play a few games first, but I'm afraid that although this does make it slightly more balanced it also takes away a lot of fun. One of the great things of this map was that you had to fight for the field every turn as well as trying to get and break bonuses around. Now the field is hardly interesting anymore in the first few turns turning it in just another go get the bonuses map. Actually this might not make the drop less important, now I come to think about it. The player starting the game doesn't have to worry about the field anymore, there's not gonna be happening anything interesting down there anyway, so he can just focus on the bonuses. If you ask me a great part of the fun in this map has been taken away without getting much back for it.

[anonymus]

Have to play a few games first, but I'm afraid that although this does make it slightly more balanced it also takes away a lot of fun. One of the great things of this map was that you had to fight for the field every turn as well as trying to get and break bonuses around. Now the field is hardly interesting anymore in the first few turns turning it in just another go get the bonuses map. Actually this might not make the drop less important, now I come to think about it. The player starting the game doesn't have to worry about the field anymore, there's not gonna be happening anything interesting down there anyway, so he can just focus on the bonuses. If you ask me a great part of the fun in this map has been taken away without getting much back for it.

this seems to be a vazlid point, but also I will get back to you after trying a few games with the neutral bowler..

maybe just make the bowler a neutral 1 to give some incentive to get the field-war going?

in anything above 4player dubs i wouldnt hit a neutral 2 for a +2 autodeploy since to many chanses to lose it before they payout..

just some thoughts, and as i said ill get back to you after ive played it in the new version..

/

[Ickyketseddie]

As above really. Like Anonymus said i wouldn't hit it n2 in a team game unless the field was secure first, and by the time you've done that it'll have cost you other bonus' around the map and likely not pay off.

Seems like your taking away the 1 feature that stops it being played like most other non-objective based territ maps?

IMO the bowler features as a early objective to play for and isn't that unbalenced since you always have a presence on the infield and a oppertunity to gain control (Slightly less so if the player with the bowler goes first). However even if the other players/team secure the bowler and infield this doesn't guarentee an automatic victory, there's plenty of ways to counter. Personaly I think the map will become a bit dull without it. (well in team games anyway which is 95% of what i play, i can't comment on larger standard games)

All of this of course is subject to trying the new format.

[ckyrias]

well i will get the chance to play the new version extensivly with mr CD as w eare teamed up in a dubs tourney and cricket is our home map!

any way i totally agree in pronciple with CD and anonymus.
fast posted by icky and i agree with him as well.

i am not sure it will affect 6 or 8 player standard games. but in general the map loses its difficulty lvl with the bowler starting neutral hence it becomes a standard non objective terit map. which sucks because i love this map and i liked the way it was played before. now all the field becomes useless unless someone gets 8 spots there which is unlikely. any way i will have to play it a bit with the new format but i am pretty sure this map is losing interest with this change

[mr. CD]

It is of course true that in some cases it makes the game very unbalanced, but in many cases it doesn't, there's a reason why a lot of players or teams use this as a home map. I have a rather high winning percentage on it in both team games and 1v1, not because I regularly drop the bowler, but because I know when I should get the bowler back or go for other bonuses.
I have tried it for a bit now and it seems like it got very boring and not a bit more balanced with a neutral bowler. I had two doubles where the opponents is close to quite some bonuses, this is hardly possible to counter by strategy, since I'd always need good dice. While with a bowler I could make sure they'd have to choose between the presence in the field or a bonus.

anonymus' idea for a neutral bowler of 1 seems most reasonable although I'd still prefer it to be not neutral.

[Ickyketseddie]

'n1' is a better idea, but realisticly it just means whoever goes first will take it and your back in the same situation as if some one dropped it?

I think i'll fall into the same camp as ckyrias, i'll probably loose interest if this stays this way.

[cairnswk]

Guys, this was done in response to previous page postings that no-one bothered to counter with alternate views so here yo-u have it.
I don't think it is the end of the world, PLay the new style games for a while and see what the results are, and then if it cotinues to be totally wrong then we can change it back or alter it again.

[mr. CD]

Guys, this was done in response to previous page postings that no-one bothered to counter with alternate views so here yo-u have it.
I don't think it is the end of the world, PLay the new style games for a while and see what the results are, and then if it cotinues to be totally wrong then we can change it back or alter it again.

Yes, well there were a few people who posted something with rather large pauses between them, in 3 and a half month just a few people said something about it, which happens on any map. Nothing was said about implementing it and I don't have the time to give alternate views everywhere. If it'd actually be asked to a few frequent players, you might get alternate views, like you've got 4 in a few hours instead of just a few in some months.

[jimboy]

This map is now going to lose its uniqueness and is going to be just another boring map. This is really unfortunate that this change has been made. I don't care for the new style at all because it had eliminated the need for certain strategies needed to deal with the bowler and has now made it boring. Before this change I felt this map was one of the best on CC and I really don't feel that way about it anymore. Who is making these pro nuetrals anyways? My guess is people that can't handle the strategy required to deal with anything that's out of the normal realm. This is a sad sad mistake to change a great map

[Spino]

Hi all !

This map is one of my favorite, and here's what I think:

The bowler looks to give a big advantage to the player who controls it. But I think the map was well designed to balance this:

Indeed, from the bowler you can only assault neutral PC's, other fielders or big neutral batter. Thus, there is no easy extra-bonus to take from it. In addition, you should better not play batter AND fielders at the same time because of -1 bonuses, and if you succeed to take it, the fielder bonus is not easy to protect from all sides.
Then, my opinion is that even if a +2 auto-deploy is always nice to control, and even if it is often good to fight for it, loosing it does not give mean that you loose the game. A +2 or +3 bonus is always better to hold than an isolated +2 auto-deploy.

Making is start 1 neutral is no good idea, it would just give a free spoil to the first player in addition of the bowler.

The presence of the bowler is the glamor and the uniqueness of this map as said Jimboy. Please leave it as is

[benga]

Hi all !

This map is one of my favorite, and here's what I think:

The bowler looks to give a big advantage to the player who controls it. But I think the map was well designed to balance this:

Indeed, from the bowler you can only assault neutral PC's, other fielders or big neutral batter. Thus, there is no easy extra-bonus to take from it. In addition, you should better not play batter AND fielders at the same time because of -1 bonuses, and if you succeed to take it, the fielder bonus is not easy to protect from all sides.
Then, my opinion is that even if a +2 auto-deploy is always nice to control, and even if it is often good to fight for it, loosing it does not give mean that you loose the game. A +2 or +3 bonus is always better to hold than an isolated +2 auto-deploy.

Making is start 1 neutral is no good idea, it would just give a free spoil to the first player in addition of the bowler.

The presence of the bowler is the glamor and the uniqueness of this map as said Jimboy. Please leave it as is

Just stumble on this change and I must agree!

Bowler was good to have but not crucial.

There is difference between 1v1 and team games, but controlling bonuses was more important.

[jimboy]

Hi all !

This map is one of my favorite, and here's what I think:

The bowler looks to give a big advantage to the player who controls it. But I think the map was well designed to balance this:

Indeed, from the bowler you can only assault neutral PC's, other fielders or big neutral batter. Thus, there is no easy extra-bonus to take from it. In addition, you should better not play batter AND fielders at the same time because of -1 bonuses, and if you succeed to take it, the fielder bonus is not easy to protect from all sides.
Then, my opinion is that even if a +2 auto-deploy is always nice to control, and even if it is often good to fight for it, loosing it does not give mean that you loose the game. A +2 or +3 bonus is always better to hold than an isolated +2 auto-deploy.

Making is start 1 neutral is no good idea, it would just give a free spoil to the first player in addition of the bowler.

The presence of the bowler is the glamor and the uniqueness of this map as said Jimboy. Please leave it as is

I could not agree more. Not only does the -1 help to combat the bowler but the other way that this is balanced is that it is much easier to attack into the middle to go after the bowler than it is to attack with the bowler outwards. Even though it may seem making the bowler a nuetral to give balance, I for one think this change takes the balance away

[Nola_Lifer]

Hi all !

This map is one of my favorite, and here's what I think:

The bowler looks to give a big advantage to the player who controls it. But I think the map was well designed to balance this:

Indeed, from the bowler you can only assault neutral PC's, other fielders or big neutral batter. Thus, there is no easy extra-bonus to take from it. In addition, you should better not play batter AND fielders at the same time because of -1 bonuses, and if you succeed to take it, the fielder bonus is not easy to protect from all sides.
Then, my opinion is that even if a +2 auto-deploy is always nice to control, and even if it is often good to fight for it, loosing it does not give mean that you loose the game. A +2 or +3 bonus is always better to hold than an isolated +2 auto-deploy.

Making is start 1 neutral is no good idea, it would just give a free spoil to the first player in addition of the bowler.

The presence of the bowler is the glamor and the uniqueness of this map as said Jimboy. Please leave it as is

+1 No, neutral bowler.

[natty dread]

"Uniqueness" is not necessarily a good thing.

[QoH]

Hmm.. I like the thought of a neutral bowler. It would make it a better fight over the center of the field. If you start with the bowler, and you go first, you're almost assured to get the middle under control, and by eliminating everyone form the middle, you're very close to the fielder bonus.

I'd be interested with testing out the bowler starting neutral.

[VampireM]

i cant tell u how many times we have played team games, and won the game against quality teams when we didnt hold the bowler... Teams get so focused on that +2 autodrop bonus that they have tunnel vision.. it made the outside of the map so valuable... now were looking at the field being useless, its just an area to clear at the end.. even if one team dominates the field.. there is never a reason to take the bowler unless u are really desperate...

i would of suggested dropping the bowler to a +1 auto deploy or making it a neutral 1 or 2... or some combination of the two.. the map was a great quad map... it was never a good 1v1 map.. there is just way to many bonuses to be dropped... now it seems to be average...

[dragon dor]

in 1v1 or 2v2 bowler give large advantage when start so i think is better to take him neutral or only 1 auto drop

[jimboy]

I am really curious how many of these posts that are in favor of the nuetral bowler are coming from players that don't normally play the map and have not figured out the strategies needed to handle the bowler? I have now played this a few times and I feel this map has been ruined and that this is now just another standard territory map that is decided by the flawed random dice that CC offers. I used to feel that this was a map that was built in a way that you could strategize your was around some untimely dice but sadly I don't feel that way anymore. The field is now useless and might as well be made 100% nuetral because it's nothing more than a pain in the ass to clean up after the game has already been decided. I am in the group of people that will probably stop playing this map altogether because of this change

[iancanton]

only 12 1v1 games with the bowler coded as neutral have actually finished, so it's too early to judge objectively whether this alone is a good or bad move. of these, player 1 has won 5 and player 2 has won 7, therefore no significant advantage is gained by going first. the bowler was conquered in 9 games and ignored in 3; the latter was not the intention when this map was designed. in 3 games, one player started with either the calypso kings or beige brigade bonus, which is a very high percentage.

while we wait for more games to finish, what we can say is that, if we keep a neutral-starting bowler, then either the bowler auto-deploy must be increased from +2 to +3 or the starting neutral has to be reduced from n3 to n1 or n2, while the PC2 and PC3 starting neutrals ought to be moved to dell and tawera. it might also help for all of the neutral 1-run bonuses to start as n2 instead of n3, since no-one ever seems to want them.

ian.

[alt1978]

I was one who posted before the change to alter the neutral...i have played the board in team games and i thought the +2 auto deploy was rough holding it off the rip. A +1 neutral should negate this...and not alter the flow of the board too much...although i know what folks say about the outside areas. If it were a plus one...it wouldn't change the way i play the board from before but maybe i didn't play it that well.

[Ickyketseddie]

Just wanted to update now (incase anyone actually reads this) i've played a fair few games with the bowler change. Personally for me the map has no real gameplay. Everyone fights for the border regions, and the game is won or lost there. Theres little point to taking the pc's or umpires except to clear the field if your not there at the end.

Personnally doubt i'll be playing it anymore, just doesn't seem any fun? Be interested to hear other opinons on it?

[benga]

Map lost its charm, we used to use it in wars, don't see it anymore used.

Bowler gave the balance in team games.

Only problem was 1v1 I guess, all other types didn't suffer from auto-drop.

[chapcrap]

Yes, I didn't see a lot of need for the change, but I don't think it messed with gameplay that much.

[QoH]

change it back. there's no dynamic gameplay anymore.

[jimboy]

This map has become completely boring for team games. Instead of being a dynamic map it might as well be Luxembourg now.