ok last chance, the shit stops here. DiM has been aggressive but only been out of line once and he know that. Its been delt with. Now you say youve addressed his concerns well see if thats true. But its not my responsibility to get your thread under control, its in this state because you all fight fire with fire, you are all as bad as each other.
If any of you throw your toys out your pram again im putting the thread on a 24 hour freeze, I dont care whos fault it is. Try me.
my last post in this thread. i have presented a gameplay problem. if you (seamus) want to solve it or not it is strictly your decision. i'm out of here because i think my time can be better consumed by helping other map makers that are willing to actually listen to advice instead of ignoring them.
cheers.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
seamusk wrote:the objective documentation doesn't support him.
I have to disagree. I do not think your test games count as objective documentation. Nor have the "test games" undergone any peer review. They may be good for helping you make decisions on how to develop your map but they cannot be used as evidence against criticism as to why someone is wrong and you are right unless the process used for the "test games" has been vetted.
seamusk wrote:the objective documentation doesn't support him.
I have to disagree. I do not think your test games count as objective documentation. Nor have the "test games" undergone any peer review. They may be good for helping you make decisions on how to develop your map but they cannot be used as evidence against criticism as to why someone is wrong and you are right unless the process used for the "test games" has been vetted.
I'm not talking about test games (though they are certainly contributing evidence). Before I ever published the map here and at various times since I do gameplay charts which I've learned about from board game design experience. They are effective at identifying this kind of thing.
Yes, but that evidence is not displayed here for discussion purposes.
If it's not submitted for our own analysis then how can anyone take that as proper rebuttal?
Basically you're asking us to take your word on it and we're asking you to show your work in a way that we can all verify. I don't think that's too much to ask.
snapdoodle wrote:Yes, but that evidence is not displayed here for discussion purposes.
If it's not submitted for our own analysis then how can anyone take that as proper rebuttal?
Basically you're asking us to take your word on it and we're asking you to show your work in a way that we can all verify. I don't think that's too much to ask.
They don't have to. I summarized the results of that information at least twice in the thread.
if you are using a process for analysis on your own end then really you need summarize every instance and not just twice. your process is not transparent enough to count.
this also assumes we trust your summary and that you are not just making things up. this is basic peer review. in any project it is never ok to just submit the summary and assume everyone will believe you are performing the tests properly. if the world of peer review were built like that we would believe cigarette company funded research about the effects of smoking and cancer. am i wrong?
snapdoodle wrote:if you are using a process for analysis on your own end then really you need summarize every instance and not just twice. your process is not transparent enough to count.
this also assumes we trust your summary and that you are not just making things up. this is basic peer review. in any project it is never ok to just submit the summary and assume everyone will believe you are performing the tests properly. if the world of peer review were built like that we would believe cigarette company funded research about the effects of smoking and cancer. am i wrong?
Why wouldn't you trust me? Everything that anyone has asked for I've provided. I've explained every rationale for everything and 80-90% of what is suggested I do. Just like any normal map maker. If you want to see the examples, fine , just ask. I've been in the process of transcribing them for a couple of days now anyhow. Why on earth would I make anything like that up? And how is two summaries with numbers and examples any less credible than some guy ranting and ignoring responses? As for vetting the test games, help yourself. Every die roll and result is in this thread for all eyes to see. How is that not transparent?
snapdoodle wrote:if you are using a process for analysis on your own end then really you need summarize every instance and not just twice. your process is not transparent enough to count.
this also assumes we trust your summary and that you are not just making things up. this is basic peer review. in any project it is never ok to just submit the summary and assume everyone will believe you are performing the tests properly. if the world of peer review were built like that we would believe cigarette company funded research about the effects of smoking and cancer. am i wrong?
Why wouldn't you trust me? Everything that anyone has asked for I've provided. I've explained every rationale for everything and 80-90% of what is suggested I do. Just like any normal map maker. If you want to see the examples, fine , just ask. I've been in the process of transcribing them for a couple of days now anyhow. Why on earth would I make anything like that up? And how is two summaries with numbers and examples any less credible than some guy ranting and ignoring responses? As for vetting the test games, help yourself. Every die roll and result is in this thread for all eyes to see. How is that not transparent?
Just give them right seamusk if they wish for us to change it we change it as we talked about its easy to fix.
It's really not a matter of trust overall. It's about verifiable proof and logical thought. Every process needs to have them because humans are fallible. None of us are perfect. Some of us forget to carry the 1. But if you provide the work that's been done, something we can duplicate and test for ourselves, it gives authority when 3rd parties can verify your claims.
So when DiM says, this map has a gameplay flaw, because in x scenario with y armies you get z, you can refute that claim by showing your work in a way that we can all look at and go, "oh, yeah, seamusk is right. that scenario won't happen." or we can go, "oh it will happen! we better figure out a way to fix this." because what would be worse... having DiM criticize you harshly now... or having a broken map that no one plays in the end?
snapdoodle wrote:It's really not a matter of trust overall. It's about verifiable proof and logical thought. Every process needs to have them because humans are fallible. None of us are perfect. Some of us forget to carry the 1. But if you provide the work that's been done, something we can duplicate and test for ourselves, it gives authority when 3rd parties can verify your claims.
So when DiM says, this map has a gameplay flaw, because in x scenario with y armies you get z, you can refute that claim by showing your work in a way that we can all look at and go, "oh, yeah, seamusk is right. that scenario won't happen." or we can go, "oh it will happen! we better figure out a way to fix this." because what would be worse... having DiM criticize you harshly now... or having a broken map that no one plays in the end?
Well I think I did do that. I specifically explained about how many armies would be left under the worst case scenarios and how small an advantage (if not an outright disadvantage) player one gets for trying to do that. And yes, I will when I can provide more detail but I cannot do it instantaneously. My charts were done by hand and I've gotta address any changes I hvae in the works while I update them electronically. I could say more but I am more interested in moving forward with map production right now. I've got some updates to work on. Thanks for visiting my map thread.
Androidz wrote:I callenge the dude the wom i promised not to talk with. to a test game. Prove me your point pliss.
androids i have already challenged seamus to a test game. but he did not want to play it. if you want to play it then please read below:
DiM wrote:here we go. 1v1 sequential unlimited fortifications. i'm red you are blue the map looks like this: notice i have made a perfectly even distribution of starting locations. things could have been much worse for player 2 but i'm keeping it balanced
i go first and get 3 armies deployed to each goalie plus another 3 armies (for number of terits owned) to deploy wherever i want
so i deploy like this:
i conquer 6 fullbacks and end turn in this position. notice i have lost 3 troops while killing 6. a perfectly normal outcome considering i always attacked 3v1.
i now have 6 fullbacks meaning a +6 bonus. now it's your turn and i am pretty sure you have a huge mountain to climb. not only that all your attack choices have 2 or more armies on them so pretty big chance of losing but you also have to break all 6 fullbacks to prevent me from taking a bonus.
please take your turn and post here. also please don't give yourself fantastic dice. you lose half of what you kill when attacking 3 dice vs 1 and you lose 75% of what you kill when attacking 3 dice vs 2.
example. you have 10v4 you lose 3 to kill 4.
edit// unless you get absolutely perfect dice you will not be able to break all my bonuses so i have an advantage because next round i'll start with at least 3-4 fullbacks and further reinforce my positions.
also it's woth mentioning that 2-3 bad rolls for you will mean you won't be able to break anything thus allowing me to keep my whole bounus. and 2-3 bad rolls are very possible. i have lost 6v2 battles a lot of times and looking at the map i see you have some nice 6v2 battles to take.
one more problem is if by chance (it can happen) each plaer starts with 3 goalies on each side. then it will simply be a battle of who has the better dice when fighting neutrals. pretty crappy, no?
Having read this post and analysed it several times - I fully endorse every gameplay comment DiM has made...
So - how to change it?
a) Reduce the Goalies autodeploy. b) remove the players bonuses to something more staggered... e.g. 0 for full backs +1 for half backs +2 for mids + 3 for half forwards + 4 for forwards. c) Decrease the "minimum reinforcements" to 1 (minimum level) (This gives DiM 2 less armies at the start) d) increase the neutrals on Fullbacks so that the first turn player has less chance of running over all of them.
also it's woth mentioning that 2-3 bad rolls for you will mean you won't be able to break anything thus allowing me to keep my whole bounus. and 2-3 bad rolls are very possible.
I had at least 5 bad rolls when I initially accepted this test game and broke 3 with 12 armies left over (which was my goal). Player two has 21 armies to break a bunch of twos. And if you carry it out 4 or 5 moves in you realize that player one has completely screwed themselves by spreading themselves thin. It just doesn't follow. Now read my responses to DiM please. As I've already covered ALL of this.
Edited to add that we are making a change anyhow. So folks should really wait for the next update...
also it's woth mentioning that 2-3 bad rolls for you will mean you won't be able to break anything thus allowing me to keep my whole bounus. and 2-3 bad rolls are very possible.
I had at least 5 bad rolls when I initially accepted this test game and broke 3 with 12 armies left over (which was my goal). Player two has 21 armies to break a bunch of twos. And if you carry it out 4 or 5 moves in you realize that player one has completely screwed themselves by spreading themselves thin. It just doesn't follow. Now read my responses to DiM please. As I've already covered ALL of this.
Edited to add that we are making a change anyhow. So folks should really wait for the next update...
Can you show your test game in an image please? (Or link to it if you already have)
a) Reduce the Goalies autodeploy. b) remove the players bonuses to something more staggered... e.g. 0 for full backs +1 for half backs +2 for mids + 3 for half forwards + 4 for forwards. c) Decrease the "minimum reinforcements" to 1 (minimum level) (This gives DiM 2 less armies at the start) d) increase the neutrals on Fullbacks so that the first turn player has less chance of running over all of them.
yes, waterloo is a very confusing map... how come it got to be quenched and everyone is saying that this will never work and is a noob farming map? (at least some people say the last thing...) i tried waterloo once and will never try it again. however, this one i will probably play more than once. plus it will be like the only sports map, so many sports fans will probably play it... my opinion...
i also agree with yeti_c's suggestions, and am looking forward to your update.
best: place 2349; points 1617; GP 216; GW 102(47%); Lieutenant
I've looked at the map several times and I have two questions: 1.Is the only way to win is by achieving the objective? 2.Can Goalies be bombarded? Because if they can't then it'll be impossible to win an assassin game in this map.
Joodoo wrote:I've looked at the map several times and I have two questions: 1.Is the only way to win is by achieving the objective? 2.Can Goalies be bombarded? Because if they can't then it'll be impossible to win an assassin game in this map.
Yes, the only way to win is to achieve the objective. Assassin games will play just like normal games - you have to get the objective to win.
I haven't been able to work on this for a couple of days and it might be a couple more so the update probably won't get done until early next week. I also just needed a couple of days off from the forum.
and i have 2 answers: 1) yes the only way to win is by the objective. 2) no they cannot be bombarded. it's like Das Schloss. no assassin or terminator games. only objective can be played
best: place 2349; points 1617; GP 216; GW 102(47%); Lieutenant
rocky mountain wrote:and i have 2 answers: 1) yes the only way to win is by the objective. 2) no they cannot be bombarded. it's like Das Schloss. no assassin or terminator games. only objective can be played
Actually this is incorrect.
2) no they cannot be bombarded. it's like Das Schloss. assassin or terminator games can be played - however you cannot win by the alternative methods of victory (i.e. killing people) thus only objective victories can be gained.
rocky mountain wrote:and i have 2 answers: 1) yes the only way to win is by the objective. 2) no they cannot be bombarded. it's like Das Schloss. no assassin or terminator games. only objective can be played
Actually this is incorrect.
2) no they cannot be bombarded. it's like Das Schloss. assassin or terminator games can be played - however you cannot win by the alternative methods of victory (i.e. killing people) thus only objective victories can be gained.
C.
but how about for team games? if in a quadruples game me and three team members each control one goal for one round does that mean we win? or does it have to be held by one individual player?
rocky mountain wrote:and i have 2 answers: 1) yes the only way to win is by the objective. 2) no they cannot be bombarded. it's like Das Schloss. no assassin or terminator games. only objective can be played
Actually this is incorrect.
2) no they cannot be bombarded. it's like Das Schloss. assassin or terminator games can be played - however you cannot win by the alternative methods of victory (i.e. killing people) thus only objective victories can be gained.
C.
but how about for team games? if in a quadruples game me and three team members each control one goal for one round does that mean we win? or does it have to be held by one individual player?
