All Your Base Are Belong To Us

[Victor Sullivan]

9% is the minimum, but 17+% is suggested, I think.

Techs look classy by the way. Props to Winged Cat.

-Sully

[Winged Cat]

Techs look classy by the way. Props to Winged Cat.

Thanks.

One thing I tried to keep in mind was the ability of certain techs to attack back to the map, as well as being starting positions for research. For example, TANK and GAS: does it make sense that human bases can strike directly at TANK, while if you have GAS you can then strike at places on Earth? Same question for all 7 other level 1 pairs, since any of them can be flipped (If, for example, it makes more sense for bases to go directly to GAS and for TANK to attack back out of R&D).

Likewise for the mid-tier level 2 and 3 techs. 2.5-2.8 are beginnings of understandings of how to systematically attack the enemy, thus they can attack enemy research. 3.1-3.4 carries this further, to where you can now attack enemy bases using any of these techniques. 3.5-3.8 are simply wide scale techniques, intended more for complete eradication of the other side than for attacking anything so small as one base (yes, even that immortality tech, which strikes at the very concept of being able to exterminate humanity).

Just some thoughts, if anyone wants to revise the tech list.

[DiM]

i see nobody has commented on the quote bellow. so i guess nobody has anything against me implementing those points in my next update, right?

NP-4 is screwed. All other bases have at least one area they can expand to where they are not immediately in conflict with another player. AS-6 could do nothing but take out any land area NP-4 tries to expand to. Further, NP-4 only has 2 land expansion routes; all other bases have 3 or 4. Also, it seems a bit harder for the humans to get to all the DNA labs than for the aliens to get to all the nuke silos. One possible fix:

* Rotate AS-6, PA-3, and NA-3. That is, make PA-3 a human base, NA-3 a DNA lab, and AS-6 a nuke silo. Disconnect AS-3 and AS-5 (Himalayas border) if you don't want 2 nuke silos connected that closely.

* Have PA-2 and SA-3 connect.

* Have PA-1 connect to PA-2 and PA-4.

* Have AU-1 be able to assault PA-4, and (more importantly) SP-1 be able to assault SP-4 (to guard SP-3 vs. AU-1) and NP-4 be able to assault PA-2.

[Victor Sullivan]

They all sound reasonable to me at a quick glance. It'll be easier to tell once their implemented, though.

-Sully

[isaiah40]

i'm also thinking of making the above image as small and making the large at 1100*889.
right now i think everything is perfectly visible but if i reduce the current image to make the small then the text might be very problematic.
thoughts?
do i need to make another approval request?

I don't think there will be a problem. First can you please reduce it down to 840x679 which should be about 17% difference in size (if my math is correct), and then edit your supersize application and send me a pm so I know you got it done. This way it will be the first thing I do before anything else. Thanks.

isaiah40

i'm not sure but i think i am missing something. what's the 17% about?
i thought the small has to be at least 9% (but no more than 33%) smaller than the large.
the current map i have is 990*800. if i consider this small and make a large that's 1100*889 then my small map would be 10% smaller than the large which is within the 9%-33% limits.

I'm saying to make the small at the 840x679. The 17% is my approximation of the size difference between the large and small. Reduce the large down to that size, edit your supersize application and pm me that you got it done because I always check my messages first. I will then take a look at it. But if you get it done this weekend, I will be unavailable until about the 29th or 30th, so I will not be able to look at it.

isaiah40

[DiM]

what i didn't understand was why 17%? why not 18? or 15? as far as i know i'm allowed to resize the small to within the 9%-33% margin. so why 17%?
is this a must? or is this just your personal choice/suggestion?

[isaiah40]

what i didn't understand was why 17%? why not 18? or 15? as far as i know i'm allowed to resize the small to within the 9%-33% margin. so why 17%?
is this a must? or is this just your personal choice/suggestion?

No I took your image size and then scaled it down to the 840x679 and it comes out to approximately 17%, that is all.

[DiM]

what i didn't understand was why 17%? why not 18? or 15? as far as i know i'm allowed to resize the small to within the 9%-33% margin. so why 17%?
is this a must? or is this just your personal choice/suggestion?

No I took your image size and then scaled it down to the 840x679 and it comes out to approximately 17%, that is all.

ok, but i don't want to scale it down to 840*679. i want to make the small at 990*800 and the large at 1100*889. is that ok?

[DiM]

V11:
*increased the size
*made some more connections on the map, however i did not make all the connections requested because frankly i do not want every single base to be the same. i want some to be better and some worse. not by much, but just enough to make people adapt and think of different strategies each time they play. if i make everything perfectly balanced then i'm sure some of the flavour of the map will be reduced.

Click image to enlarge.

[Danyael]

That is one beaut of a map
with a very fun looking game play
well done

[DiM]

That is one beaut of a map
with a very fun looking game play
well done

cheers, thanks

[Victor Sullivan]

I'm satisfied with the gameplay, I think. One small thing: match your fonts! The land territory fonts need changed to match the legends. Also, I think if you label the rows of the tech trees, it will shorten the text in the legend a lot and improve clarity, methinks.

-Sully

[koontz1973]

*made some more connections on the map, however i did not make all the connections requested because frankly i do not want every single base to be the same. i want some to be better and some worse. not by much, but just enough to make people adapt and think of different strategies each time they play. if i make everything perfectly balanced then i'm sure some of the flavour of the map will be reduced.

Completely agree here. gimil has the same thing in Feudal War. Which he changed in Feudal Epic to what DiM is opposed to and finds it now ruined the map for fog games. Nothing wrong with a bit of difference as long as it is not to much.

Nice map by the way.

[DiM]

*made some more connections on the map, however i did not make all the connections requested because frankly i do not want every single base to be the same. i want some to be better and some worse. not by much, but just enough to make people adapt and think of different strategies each time they play. if i make everything perfectly balanced then i'm sure some of the flavour of the map will be reduced.

Completely agree here. gimil has the same thing in Feudal War. Which he changed in Feudal Epic to what DiM is opposed to and finds it now ruined the map for fog games. Nothing wrong with a bit of difference as long as it is not to much.

Nice map by the way.

just my thoughts. feudal epic sucks because it's too symmetric. gimil went ahead and balanced the map so much that it lost it's flavour. as long as the differences aren't too big then i'm totally for various advantages/disadvantages. right now i also think it's ok but only beta will tell if i'm right or wrong.

since the general consensus on gameplay seems to be that everything looks fine i'll go ahead and come up with a few versions of the small size map just to let people see which one looks legible. this will be done tomorrow. or later tonight if i finish dead island on xbox and the night is still not over.

[DiM]

as promised here are a few small size images.

1. 840*679

Click image to enlarge.

2. 900*727

Click image to enlarge.

3. 990*800

Click image to enlarge.

[koontz1973]

as promised here are a few small size images.

Apart from the sizes, what is different between the three? The smallest is as easy to read/understand as the biggest one. And did you get all of your zombies killed?

[DiM]

Apart from the sizes, what is different between the three? The smallest is as easy to read/understand as the biggest one.

many people complained the instructions are hard to read so i'm providing a few alternatives so that everybody can choose and see on what map they feel more comfortable.

And did you get all of your zombies killed?

yes i did. tonight it's deus ex: human revolution and i feel like it's gonna take quite a few nights before i finish this one

[Victor Sullivan]

*nostalgic sigh* I miss the days when I could go to the arcade and spend a quarter for an hour's worth of Galaga.

On a map-related note, it looks like 840x679 will work just fine for the small.

-Sully

[Winged Cat]

NP-4 still seems screwed - and that's not a matter of "things aren't perfectly symmetric", but a matter of AS-6 being able to easily thwart any land advances NP-4 tries.

I see your point about not overconnecting and not making things too symmetric, so...maybe remove AS-6/PA-1? That should resolve the problem, and make NP-4 more of a contender for the PA spots (if SP-1 and SA-2 aren't on their toes about it).

[DiM]

NP-4 still seems screwed - and that's not a matter of "things aren't perfectly symmetric", but a matter of AS-6 being able to easily thwart any land advances NP-4 tries.

I see your point about not overconnecting and not making things too symmetric, so...maybe remove AS-6/PA-1? That should resolve the problem, and make NP-4 more of a contender for the PA spots (if SP-1 and SA-2 aren't on their toes about it).

np-4 is not screwed.
remember that besides a human/alien base a player will also start with several other terits on the map.
so even if you get np-4 you'll still be able to deploy in af-1 for example and from there attack the dna lab in sp-3.

if the human/alien bases were the only starting positions then you're right, np-4 would be a pretty bad starting point.
but it's not so as i said before you can just use your other terits to get dna labs or nuke silos and from np-4 simply focus on getting tech lvl 1

[Winged Cat]

Ah. Yes, I had missed that. Thanks.

[natty dread]

How about making the one-way arrows a different colour than the other connections?

[isaiah40]

I agree with Sully, the 840x679 looks good and readable. I say go with that one for the small.

[DiM]

How about making the one-way arrows a different colour than the other connections?

i'm afraid that would confuse people.
the arrows should be enough to show the direction of attack.

[DiM]

I agree with Sully, the 840x679 looks good and readable. I say go with that one for the small.

k