Age of Might Bonus modification

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:02 am

some people have complained about the game being to fast paced or it being too luck dependent, they want the bonuses changed to make it more complex and tactical. on the other hand the 73 pages of games played so far show me the map is popular. so i want the opinion of the community. vote if you want the bonuses changed or not.

A.

Code: Select all

castle +5
castle + village +2
village + resource pair + 5
castle + resource pair + 5
sanctuary +5

same fast paced action but with more incentive to expand and get resources and stuff. 1v1 will remain the same but more strategy should come in 6p games. plus by making the village + resource, castle + resource and sanctuary worth +5 it will give a chance to come back in the game to those that lost a castle and furthermore in fog games the confusion will be even higher because of the many +5 bonuses.

B.

Code: Select all

castle +5 (autodeploy)
castle + village +2
village + resource pair + 5
castle + resource pair + 5
sanctuary +5

same as previous version except the autodeploy should make the 1v1 less fast paced.

C.

Code: Select all

castle +3 (autodeploy)
castle + village +1
village + resource pair + 3
castle + resource pair + 3
sanctuary +3

same idea but lower bonuses. slow paced expansion games.

Qyu · Post by **Qyu** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:54 am

i suggest another, based on version C :

D.

Code: Select all

castle +3 (2 autodeploy on castle, and 1 free to deploy)
castle + village +1 (free to deploy)
village + resource pair + 3 (2 autodeploy on village, and 1 free to deploy)
castle + resource pair + 3 (2 autodeploy on castle, and 1 free to deploy)
sanctuary +3 (2 autodeploy on sanctuary, and 1 free to deploy)

the ratio autodpeploy and free to deploy could be adjust

(i vote C, but i prefer D :wink:

)

My opinion on this map is this is a too fast map, where starting at the beginner, the luck (because of many big neutrals), .... are too important

MeDeFe · Post by **MeDeFe** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:56 am

I know, 4 identical maps with different bonus systems!

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:00 am

Qyu wrote:i suggest another, based on version C :

D.
Code: Select all
castle +3 (2 autodeploy on castle, and 1 free to deploy)
castle + village +1 (free to deploy)
village + resource pair + 3 (2 autodeploy on village, and 1 free to deploy)
castle + resource pair + 3 (2 autodeploy on castle, and 1 free to deploy)
sanctuary +3 (2 autodeploy on sanctuary, and 1 free to deploy)
the ratio autodpeploy and free to deploy could be adjust

(i vote C, but i prefer D )

My opinion on this map is this is a too fast map, where starting at the beginner, the luck (because of many big neutrals), .... are too important

it could be interesting but i don't think it's possible

Selin · Post by **Selin** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:45 am

I voted for c) in order to make it more attractive to attack neutral armies to increase you armies per turn.

But what's the idea behind auto-deploying castles? In this case adjacent games would be almost meaningless. Reducing castle bonus to 3 (or even to 2), but having the freedom to place them anywhere should be enough to hinder fast killings.

.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:59 am

I'd ignore this poll - It's a load of meaningless crap.

C.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:01 am

Qyu wrote:i suggest another, based on version C :

D.
Code: Select all
castle +3 (2 autodeploy on castle, and 1 free to deploy)
castle + village +1 (free to deploy)
village + resource pair + 3 (2 autodeploy on village, and 1 free to deploy)
castle + resource pair + 3 (2 autodeploy on castle, and 1 free to deploy)
sanctuary +3 (2 autodeploy on sanctuary, and 1 free to deploy)
the ratio autodpeploy and free to deploy could be adjust

(i vote C, but i prefer D )

My opinion on this map is this is a too fast map, where starting at the beginner, the luck (because of many big neutrals), .... are too important

Auto deploy only works on a territory...

You cannot have autodeploy on a continent.

C.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:29 am

I voted for option A - as I am happy with the map in its current format and im certain there are many more out there that share a similar opinion.

dominationnation · Post by **dominationnation** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:03 pm

def B. solves all the problems.

wacicha · Post by **wacicha** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:14 pm

Well I agree with Rebel, BUT Dim, You should make another map using these examples on a different scenario. that would work for all.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:27 pm

wacicha wrote:Well I agree with Rebel, BUT Dim, You should make another map using these examples on a different scenario. that would work for all.

that's exactly what i'll do. chapter 2 will be different from chapter 1 and it will include the suggestions of those that weren't happy with chapter 1.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:31 pm

I think the changes you're making in #2 will satisfy what some don't like about this map, and by looking at the poll results, they're not in the majority. When both maps are up, people will have the option of which to play, so there's no need to change this one.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:36 pm

wicked wrote:I think the changes you're making in #2 will satisfy what some don't like about this map, and by looking at the poll results, they're not in the majority. When both maps are up, people will have the option of which to play, so there's no need to change this one.

qft.

now, can a mod lock this thread?

chapter 2 is in my sig.

3seven1 · Post by **3seven1** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:45 pm

I think Castle + resource pair should be more of a bonus. It's the same as just owning the castle.

I'd be in favor of reducing the castle bonus to 3 thought. So I guess i'd vote for c IF the auto deploy was removed.

wicked · Post by **wicked** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:48 pm

No need to lock. You've pointed them to the Map 2 discussion, that'll suffice.

Blitzaholic · Post by **Blitzaholic** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:12 pm

DiM wrote:some people have complained about the game being to fast paced or it being too luck dependent, they want the bonuses changed to make it more complex and tactical. on the other hand the 73 pages of games played so far show me the map is popular. so i want the opinion of the community. vote if you want the bonuses changed or not.

A.
Code: Select all
castle +5
castle + village +2
village + resource pair + 5
castle + resource pair + 5
sanctuary +5
same fast paced action but with more incentive to expand and get resources and stuff. 1v1 will remain the same but more strategy should come in 6p games. plus by making the village + resource, castle + resource and sanctuary worth +5 it will give a chance to come back in the game to those that lost a castle and furthermore in fog games the confusion will be even higher because of the many +5 bonuses.

B.
Code: Select all
castle +5 (autodeploy)
castle + village +2
village + resource pair + 5
castle + resource pair + 5
sanctuary +5
same as previous version except the autodeploy should make the 1v1 less fast paced.

C.
Code: Select all
castle +3 (autodeploy)
castle + village +1
village + resource pair + 3
castle + resource pair + 3
sanctuary +3
same idea but lower bonuses. slow paced expansion games.

the one with the most skill, I would need to study the map

arizona · Post by **arizona** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:18 am

One might notice that at the moment there are as many votes for change as there are for the the status quo, it's just that the former are spread across the three options.

Seems there's a sizable population that see this map as fun, but not as fun as it could be. Five armies for one territory is a lot! As much as North America on the Classic Map.

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:54 am

arizona wrote:One might notice that at the moment there are as many votes for change as there are for the the status quo, it's just that the former are spread across the three options.

Seems there's a sizable population that see this map as fun, but not as fun as it could be. Five armies for one territory is a lot! As much as North America on the Classic Map.

qft.

23 want to leave it.

25 want it changed.

it seems the wicked's 'majority' is out numbered.

but now that map 2 is in development, it is becoming less of any issue anyways, just unfortunate.

Vace Cooper · Post by **Vace Cooper** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:48 pm

how about no bonus for the first castle then +5 when you have 2

Yahoo oo · Post by **Yahoo oo** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:44 pm

i think that the map is fine and should but left how it is

Vace Cooper · Post by **Vace Cooper** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:30 am

I want to be able to try and get some of the bonus's but you dont even get a chance, i think something has to change so we can really play the map. Its so big and if you want a quick game you can play a smaller map

Arachnophobia · Post by **Arachnophobia** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:00 am

I have yet to vote as I see the village + castle gain of +2 as extremely bad. I'd vote for B with
castle+village +1

arizona · Post by **arizona** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:26 am

those wanting to leave it as is have slipped into the minority...

owenshooter · Post by **owenshooter** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:23 am

Vace Cooper wrote:how about no bonus for the first castle then +5 when you have 2

i like that idea. i like coopers thoughts about being able to actually grab some bonuses up before being killed. nice thoughts cooper. who knew you were a thinker?!-0

Vace Cooper · Post by **Vace Cooper** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:03 am

age of might has 96 Terits but you only get to use about 5 or 6 of them

Age of Might Bonus modification

what bonus scheme do you want?

Age of Might Bonus modification

Re: Age of Might Bonus modification

tink