You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

CTW NetCampaign
Moderated by alincarpetman

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.60 replies, Sticky
Rise of Nations Heaven » Forums » CTW NetCampaign » Suggestions & Bug Reports
Bottom
Topic Subject:Suggestions & Bug Reports
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 10-24-05 04:44 AM EDT (US)         
Please post your suggestions and Bug Reports Here!

Thanks

AuthorReplies:
KIWI_Georgie
Member
posted 04-25-06 09:06 PM EDT (US)     51 / 60       
It's getting a little late, but statistics exams be damned!

I was reading Sims's resignation thread, which derailed into general commentary on the rules, and so I decided to formulate my thoughts and post 'em here...

Map absolutely shouldn't be random. Here's why:

Some map combos, like the previously mentioned Incans + Mesa/Himalayans, are nearly impossible to be defeated. How can a nation that receives massive economic bonuses from mining and is protected from raiding by the constricted map be beat? It takes a very large difference in skill to overcome that, one that cannot be found between most good players.

Some maps are broken. For instance, after going undefeated against a certain player, we drew Great Lakes in a 1v1. There were rougly 10-11 fish in reach of his cities, compared to an empty lake and a lake with 1 fish on mine. Needless to say, I had no chance. Great Lakes isn't always like that, but it can be.

Some maps require different strategies: for instance, Amazon Rainforest has many more ruins than most land maps. A scouting-heavy start with Iroquois, Spanish, Chinese, or even Lakota can easily be successful there, but it would have little chance on the more ruin-scarce Australian Outback. But you cannot select your nation in anticipation of that with random maps...

Basically, just like random nations can screw a match up with a bad mis-match, so can random maps. My proposed solution? Just assign every territory a map. E.G, The Andes and the Himalayas could both be himalayans, Ethiopian Highlands could be mesa, Indonesia could be East Indies, etc. This way, the tourney could represent all the RoN maps, and because the players know the map in advance, they can plan and pick nations accordingly.

Secondly, the small map size is too big. Although it's not a good reason per se, the preferred 1v1 size of the community is arena. (Also in most tournaments too) So, most of the good players, who, after the opening rounds, will still be playing, will have plenty of experience with arena play, but not small. Why not go with them? Make it arena, and hopefully the quality/level of play will go up correspondingly.

Now, this is just my experience, and is all huge generalizations...

Arena sized play on land maps is usually a fast 1-1-1-1, 0-1-1-1, or 1-1-1-2 tech start in most circumstances leading up to a fast classical era. From there, lots of raiding with cavalry and incursions/ambushes with the smallish armies of the time goes back and forth between both players. The game is often decided then (nearly as often though, one player hits medieval early and the large cities postpone the critical city battles), but a few more ages will typically be seen as one player goes for the finish. It's a high intensity, high combat situation that starts pretty early on.

Small sized play, although I don't have nearly as much experience with it, has so far, seen early fighting much diminished in importance, because of the large distance between the two playeres. Even if you can obtain a military advantage early, often reinforcements take so long to arrive that nothing can be held. Placing the third city is much easier because of the extra resources on the map, and usually happens before any major battles. Often large-scale fighting doesn't start until the medieval age. Basically, it's like arena, but there's an extra 2-5 minutes before decisive combat occurs.

Finally, when there's an imbalance of rare resources, nation/map combos, they can often still be overcome with fast, early raiding that attempts to shut down the economy of the other nation before their advantages accumulate. On a small map, raiders will arrive 20-40 seconds later, giving economic players a better chance to defend their advantages, exacerbating the imblanace. While that's not neccessarily a bad thing, it's not what most players are accustomed to...

So, in conclusion, arena sized map with assigned maps per territory.

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 04-25-06 11:45 PM EDT (US)     52 / 60       
now if say arena maps have those basic tech upgrades to suceed but small maps have less emphasis on a quick military...wouldnt it make sense to vary the map size more, at least between small and arena (if the other map sizes are too big). because if we just go arena then all the experts will just essentually do the same tech upgrades that u outlined for arena.

what i dont want to do is just have a map size or style that everyone is used to. war to me is about tackling the situation that you're given, and sometimes geography just isnt on your side.

now the problem with "broken" maps, or civ + certain maps which create unbeatable combos. thats a concern. but i dont think making people play on maps that they arent used to is bad, in fact that should be what we should do more of, so people arent just using the same old strategies.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 04-25-2006 @ 11:49 PM).]

KIWI_Georgie
Member
posted 04-26-06 10:13 AM EDT (US)     53 / 60       
Well yeah, variety is good. That\'s how assigning every territory a map would help. Nothing wrong with playing a map you\'re unfamiliar with... as long as you can pick a nation and prepare for it accordingly. Varying maps between arena/small sizes seems like a good idea. Definitely not medium/large/huge, though. At those sizes, it\'s almost equivalent to turning on the no rush rules for 10-15 minutes...
PlayForFun
Member
posted 04-26-06 11:40 AM EDT (US)     54 / 60       
Bear in mind that there aren't many players playing RON nowadays. While variety is good (at least, to me), it is not the taste of the majority of the small RON community. Assuming the goal of the tournament is to be a hugely successful event with maximum possible participation, one that is appealing to most of not all, changing the map size from small to arena for 1v1 games is probably the way.

As for Georgie's suggestion to have pre-set map type, I think it's a fine idea. To enhance the variety element, I would suggest that each player be limited to use a certain no. of nations, say, 2? Otherwise, all the mesa maps will be fought by inca v inca which can be boring. If each player can only use 2 nations for the whole tourney, then the chance of that happening will be lower (assuming that you distribute the pre-set map types evenly).

Another suggestion, is that we can even set up default nations on certain lands, say, if an invasion is from Persia to Nubia, the nation match-up will automatically default to Persia v Nubia. Now only a truly versatile player who can pick wisely the nations to play in most map types, who can adapt to play a certain civ under a particular match-up, etc will have the edge. Just some thoughts.

One_Dead_Angel
Seraph in Absentia
(id: One_Dead_Villy)
posted 04-26-06 05:44 PM EDT (US)     55 / 60       
one thing i am working on is some kind of territory / tech development. so besides having say a fixed map for different territories, (and possibly occasionally small vs arena map for some of these territories).

i am thinking in terms of like if someone develops their territory to mil 4 vs someone who has lower mil tech level, then each map has like a base map type, but if u have a higher tech level in military u can choose to play on the alternate map type/size. kind of to reflect like great generals in history who were able to select the battlefield they forced their opponents to engage them on.

this of course will involve a lot more complex gameplay/ economy and scripting on the strategic map level.

as far as retrictingt civs to territories on that map, thats one idea. although i'd be hardpressed to figure out what civ to put in greenland or nunavut ... the other idea i had that is linked to the territory development idea, is to make people buy access to various civs. so like recruiting an army of nubians etc. then i can possibly weight each civ with different costs to even things out on the strategic level. so that people who wanna play nubian on a map may have to pay more to be able to use them, which may effect their development of the territory in other respects that is a give and take and makes them say easier to be attacked by others.

like i would have people develope the 4 basic techs, mil/civ/com/sci .... and u would need say to have level 6 mil to gain access to a max of 6 armies (or army points), and that would if u win your challenge (if they had like 8 civ tech levels then) u'd just reduced their # of cities by 6 and get some plunder, but u need to send 2 more points of armies in a second attack to take over the territory.

but then maybe later add in abilities to spy on people's territories, so that u know ahead of time how many army points u need to spend to take it over. rather then risk not taking it out completely. or maybe u just want to raid or whatever.. basically add a new level of play on top of the simple challenge and conquer.

[This message has been edited by One_Dead_Angel (edited 04-26-2006 @ 05:53 PM).]

M33CH0
Member
posted 06-26-08 02:24 PM EDT (US)     56 / 60       
yo how do i even get into a campain??

posted on da ave

305
jamesm54
Member
posted 03-02-09 12:38 PM EDT (US)     57 / 60       
when i host ron it lets no one join any one had this happen to them. thanks a lot in advance
Red Revolution
Member
(id: master silver)
posted 03-14-09 03:08 PM EDT (US)     58 / 60       
Yes, try creating or new account or joining other peoples games instead. Also make sure all internet protection such as fire walls are off.

Amity/Enmity
sargonthegreat
Member
posted 07-11-09 02:48 PM EDT (US)     59 / 60       
We should seriously do a CTW Net-Campaign again. While there aren't the numbers that there used to be, it could start a real "RoNH Renaissance."
The Pirate of AE
Member
posted 07-14-09 10:55 PM EDT (US)     60 / 60       
I agree
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Rise of Nations Heaven | HeavenGames