I strongly believe mineral counts should stay private- keeping up a supply of mins to defend attackers is a very effective strategy. Do this enough and people won't attack you, even if you have 0 mins, because they think you do. Making this knowledge public just decreases depth and adds very little in return. Please add a vote to allow this if public mins are implemented!
Personally, I think displaying minerals takes away from the manipulation, diplomacy in risk.
You will be happy to know that I've decided not to implement public minerals in the current mode. The original map did include public mineral and gas displays but I believe that it would detract from the advantage of saving and springing units on the enemy.
I did however in the most recent patch (Patch 2.1.2013) include a Tech Display that will show you the amount of upgrades (of any kind) an enemy has if you select one of his units. I implemented this because some upgrades are not very noticeable, health in particular. Hopefully this will make newer players more aware of the power of upgrades.
The choke between SA and Africa I think shouldn't be made smaller, but it can be extended out so it is thinner farther into Africa, allowing Africa to more easily (but not too easily) defend both Europe and SA with that one choke point. SA is already a very strong continent that doesn't need any more bonuses, imo.
I thinned the choke slightly and added a mountain in between the two. Let me know what you think of it in the new patch.
The new choke looks great. Keep up the great work! Your map is just fantastic.
I personally would be against voting for a different mode in the game unless it was an extremely different playstyle and feel than the current one. You don't want to intimidate new players with a voting process when map starts, though I suppose you can just make "default settings" front and center. Like Nickel510's post on the last page said- simplicity is one of the biggest draws of this game, and anything that could make it more complicated needs to be very valuable to make up for it.
I would also be against giving leavers units to computers- they usually don't have many men when they leave anyways, and it would just be an even greater bonus for those proximal players to get the kill rewards, especially since the computers won't have any upgrades.
Can you please stop destroying leaving players units and instead give the units and territories to the computer player? At least give it a try and see what kind of feedback you get?
The problem is that in almost every game somebody leaves and suddenly their defending units get destroyed and the terrorities become free to grab. Almost every game this happens and in most of the time the effect is unbalancing to that game as the nearest player goes for the power grab while remote players have no opportunity.
I understand your concern that you don't want massive defenses left blocking players. But I would argue that this is a rare occurance. So you are penalizing 95% of the games played with unbalancing to keep 5% (or even less) of the games from unbalancing.
Can we please, please just give it a try and see if we get any negative feedback?
The problem with this statement is that I did originally give the units to computer players, for a while after the maps was published players units were given to computer players and I got a lot of negative feedback from people about it. People that I played with found that the game became dull and most would be confused at why they hadn't won the game.
So yes I did actually have a live version where the units were given to a computer player and I got negative feedback regarding it. I realize that it's frustrating to you but I can't change something of that magnitude about the game until I have at least a few other people express the same concerns.
Also I find your use of the term unbalanced to be rather unbalanced. I have included many of the suggestions you've made and seen them as all very necessary, but I can't allow myself to just change things at a whim when it come to things that are really just gameplay preferences. To many other good maps have become bad over time because they tried to appease everyone. Now I will try to make the majority happy but I know for a fact that I cannot make everyone happy, if you can prove to me that the majority wants this change I will implement it but I will not act based solely off of the preference of one individual.
You have stated that I am penalizing 95% of players for the sake of 5% in regards to not making this change, but the problem with this statement is that you can't claim to be the 95% when you are one of the only people in this thread that has stated that it needs to change. It kinda make you look like the 5% actually...
If you can prove to me that you are the 95% then I will consider implementing what you suggest.
By your measure, my comments alone occupy more than half of this thread, therefore I would count as over 50% of your users just by myself. Please show me some of the players that complained about the computer owning leaver players units - I would like to read what they had to say about it.
In any case, I can see how the vocal minority would be annoyed because they would then not be given something for free. But the fact remains that you tailored this "feature" to make sure that huge players can't wall off entire sections of the map and then leave. You have stated this is the reason already, but correct me if I am wrong.
The problem is that that kind of situation happens rarely in a game. Usually that player is so strong he will win and never leaves. So when one of his opponents gets demoralized and leaves, he has no fight to make - the territories are free. If that opponent was the driving force behind holding the next largest player back, the game is now over because one person left. This kind of system is like taxing the poor to feed the rich. Since the rich always have extra units with which to take free stuff, and the poor players rarely do.
Since the popularity of this map has already decreased significantly (I now have a hard time finding enough players to play anymore), I would kindly request that you make this change and get some feedback from the core players and see what they say, not what the noobs who clicked on Fun or Not have to say about it.
The popularity decreased because it's new. Lots of people try it out-> popularity spikes -> people find out if they like it or not -> only the people who like it are playing it anymore. All games do this, and no minor change like that would effect how this map would have done.
And it's important to keep in mind for balancing that it's not 1v1, it's RISK. The person who owns NA is obviously better off than the person who owns SA, but I've won before when all I had was SA, just because of diplomacy! Because NA had bigger threats in Europe and Asia, etc. etc. I don't think a power grab of a leaver is imbalanced, since-
The vast majority of the time someone leaves, they are about to lose anyways, so their units sticking around would give more in aggression bonus than if they were removed.
When someone leaves, unless they are in Australia, there will always be people from multiple directions closing in on that new land. If you aren't one of these people, that means it gives you a greater opportunity to attack one of these people, since a good portion of their army is not there. I guess maybe it's a problem for the Aussies, but I feel like most of the time someone actually strongly controls asia, they will soon control australia anyways. It still just makes asia a bigger target if they take over australia.
With all that theoretical stuff in mind, I'll share my practical experiences. The closest things that I have seen to it making a difference are-
One game when two big powers had americas/asia+aussie respectively, and one guy had europe/africa- he was starting to be taken over by one of us and just quit since he knew he lost. It became a good amount of land to grab very quickly, which would "in theory" heavily favor someone who went for marine upgrades over tank upgrades, but there were only 2 players left anyways, we both had not gotten tank upgrades yet, and it didn't end up mattering.
Someone turtling with a dozen tanks in a corner, stopping someone's continent bonus. I STILL think they should be removed- it's really exciting when someone turtles if that player is waiting to expand and take over, but it's totally pointless if no one is controlling that player. I know if I were the bigger power I would just totally forgo that one territory/continent bonus, since by then the cost of destroying the line would cost way more than what the continent bonus is worth. That's more "unfair" than removal, if anything, since it allows the leaver to be a king-maker.
Honestly, if "that opponent was the driving force behind holding the next largest player back," then that player had absolutely no reason to quit; if they totally fail to realize that and quit anyways, then they are probably bad enough that it wouldn't have made a difference if they stayed. I personally never seen a player who was legitimately holding down a strong line against a big player, and was allied with other small players, just randomly leave without one of their lines getting totally breached.
I am all for difference of opinions- debating is the best pre-requisite for trying things out- but actually debating it is more productive than talking about popularity and vocal minorities. He will implement a change if it makes the game better, not because 10%, 50%, or 100% of people on a forum tell him to do it.
Just to give the map maker more feedback I'm going to put in my two cents. I have no problem with player's units being destroyed when they leave. And I dislike the idea of a leaving player's units going to the computer.
I like how the enemy's units are destroyed when they leave. It would suck if the player had 10/10/0 tanks, marines, lings, etc... and then left and they went back to 0/0/0 because they were owned by the neutral player.
In that case the situation would be similar but worse because the most powerful player would just feed on the 0 upgrade neutral player. There's not any simple solution imo - because there's no way to give the computers upgrades / AI with time - that'd create a lot of new problems with balance.
A few bugs I noticed, not sure if you're aware of them or they are intentional-
-If you send a dropship through the alaska-russia portal, it drops everything it's holding (to subsequently be killed by enemy tanks!)
-You can protect territories from being taken over with both dropship and vessel, but only the dropship can conquer territories (not sure which is intended, it just seems weird that it isn't consistent).
-Killing your own men gives you aggression bonus.
-Continent bonuses continue to spawn for leavers after they have left.
Also, I like the slow-healing vessels more than repairing- it helps out the little guy defending as opposed to the person with lots of spare income. I know, I was the one who suggested repairs in the first place- further proof you know way more about this game than any of us making suggestions!
Some of those sound a little odd, especially the dropship one. I'll try to look into them right away. I'm actually working a patch atm to fix a few other bugs I've noticed, like the new tech charts acting funny and flip flopping between units. I will say this none of those things you mentioned are intentional so I will be fixing them when I get a new patch done.
Right now I'm figuring out how to implement a new Mode, so I'll probably try to get that going. Might take a little bit but I'm hoping to get it done and out of the way so I can start to work on some other stuff :)
The map is looking great, as always, but recently I've been playing with "SunTzu" who seems to know how to change the unit stats mid-game. He types in his "code" to the chat box (I'm not sure if this is actually what triggers it or not) and it makes marines deal 7 and unable to buy health upgrades, zlings not able to get speed upgrade, and many other changes. In general, these modified numbers are way worse to play with than the real ones, and it seems to suit his playstyle of just massing zlings. Though I've at least still won all 3 games I've played with this player and these new numbers (since he just runs around annoying people until he ragequits), I now avoid playing with this player while he can change the unit numbers on the fly like this. He sometimes switches back and forth mid-game to suit his current army makeup.
I'm not sure if this is beta testing functionality for yourself, for another player, or what the heck this is, but I strongly urge you to remove the ability for other players to change the units' (well balanced) values in the game until you actually decide to implement a mode voting system. Thanks as always.
On a side note, after I beat him one time with tanks, he then mentioned how he thought tank upgrades were only supposed to be +10 in his "mode" instead of +15. The next time I played with him, tank upgrades had been changed in his mode to +10. This gave me the impression that he had access to change the map. I'm not sure if you are collaborating with him or something, but if so, I would recommend collaborating with someone with greater maturity and skill, since he seems to posses very little of either. If all of his effects were accomplished by hacking the game somehow, I apologize for going on and on about a hacker in a thread about your map, but it seemed like that whatever was going on was coded in the map.
Also, for bug reporting:
-I sometimes still see defeat when I win if the other player leaves.
-Continent bonuses still spawn for players that have left.
@fritfrat - Thanks for bringing this to my attention. At the time you wrote this - a few players were entrusted with access to beta game features. This mode is necessary because we can't test some features offline or without multiple players. The players that had access were supposed to use this strictly in private clan games - but it sounds like it was also used outside of that. You'll be happy to know that direct access to these features has been removed and a new voting system has been installed in its place so we can accomplish the same level of testing.
Sun does not have access to the map. We've gotten many requests from RISK players who would prefer lower in-game unit stats to slow down the game adding more micro, at this point Sun has voluenteered the new unit stats and that's why he had access to test the feature. If anyone else would like to voluenteer a set of unit stats and other ideas, we're open to consider all feedback and possible feature requests.
As far as the bugs you encounter - I think I've resolved the bonus units issue after players leave. Also - the victory code was just rewrote so if you encounter this or any other error - please post it here. Thanks :)
Hey Frit Frat This is Tzu im Really Sorry For doing that.. I was with AOR's and Had asked For Permission to
test some things before submitting an uneducated Opinion Right.. and You Happened to be on when aor's
were On and testing it with me .. + i thought you were being a bit of a dick about it tbh. I just Didnt want to
Submit My Results without 100% Certainty.. And i Appreciated that the host was so flexible as to do that..
Don't forget frit frat i submitted an Sc 1 version of the map .. a beta before i was Allowed to try those settings.
on another note Frit frat. Break me off a peice of that kit kat bar and lay off my back. You always winning.. What Are you Bitching Bout???
oh and Sorry Lucid Flux , i Really Don't think I was abusing the access to test that. It helped me Complete
what i went to do... and i took and submitted much of the imput i recieved from bnet so i thought it was very fair. Over 15 aor's supporting me now that all really wanted to help make sure the stats fell in line with some sort of balance equally between all units.. with a twist of course making it a totally seperate map so people can play what pace they feel like at the time... it will attract more attention Frit frat not less. Goliaths is one Example someone in an Ealiar post Suggested Change range to 8 For AIR ATTACKS and in Sun Edit after the 25 gas up for Range You get just that 8 Range like SC BW :)
again no intentions of pissing anyone off.. I just Do that To Increase my kill Bonuses in games.
No hard feelings, Sun, and sorry for giving you a hard time. The only thing the new stats do is make marines so weak that it is very hard to kill zlings, making zlings (and Africa) extremely strong until much later in the game. In my opinion, zlings are not exactly the most exciting and micro-full units to play with, so it greatly decreases the skill cap. If there is a vote for whatever mode you want, I guess it doesn't matter.
I definitely was a dick about it- for that I apologize. I was upset, I guess, because you are focused on changing a game that you are not even very good at- every single time you went around with your zerglings against a good player, you lost more than you got in bonus, as well as lost the territories that you don't even bother defend. It's an awful strategy, even with zlings being OP with lower marine damage, and it's annoying to see players focusing on balancing a game they don't even understand. It's like seeing anyone gold or below on the bnet forums whining about balance when they could go and actually learn how to play, except in this case you actually get to have input on changing the map. I am "always winning" (18 in a row now!) because I don't focus on how I can change it, I focus on how I can master it, and I recommend you adapt the same attitude. If something is glaringingly ruining it, like vessels pre-speed-reduction or marine health ups pre-tank-splash-upgrade, then ya, I'll bring it up, but adapting is still the more important variable.
Can someon e please mute this guy , ive seen nothing but garbage Come out of his mouth to be frank and I'm done with Arguing. Fritfrat yur a little brat that.needs his mouth washed out with soap. You Just Spiral Your Negativity towards me. Do you Realize? YOU Think about me a Little Much? Im Always on you mind.. ? If you were capable of designing an even slightly balanced map.. Lets see the stats k? shhh. And To be Honest I Think This is Disagreement is Only Designed To breed more Discrepancies and backwards Discussion. With that sayd.
For the Record There's No way I could Possibly Balance Lucid's Action Edition.. + besides there's Only a Few Minor things Wrong with it... Which I COuld Go into Grave Detail but , Would Probably be a Great waste. Either or.. Ghosts are OP.. It ' s not even a Question...
- Next on the List Africa is a Problem in the sense that i think Europe Should be getting that Bonus + and That Lings are not being useful as a Bonus for Africa... So u just end up of course feeding the other players Free Gas.. And i dont care what You Say.. Its Unfair That lings are not = to 5 armies by any means with africa.. :(
i am not a noob so i wish ud stop saying that. im just having fun testing noob strats too.. they deserve a chance. - next thing is i Know a lot of Good Players that said if we can get a slower paced Version out there, this is an amazing map to play on but they dont Feel there is enuf Room For Micro. And it disapp;oints players that are say 1v1 masters? ok.. back to balance. on ACtion Edit.
- well i suppose theres not much else wrong with it... i do like the fast paced feel of it, Just wish it was slightly slower.. even have Rines at like 11 off start and lings at 17 - 19 would Do that.. And stim I like.. i wish people would use it.. Nobody does.. its awful. maybe Cause rrines so Strong at times. they feel they dont need stim they are too good without it..... never thought of that?
but i wouldnt say anything is wrong with it.. a lot of players like u Frit Frat Love action edit.. It just gives me a headache to be honest.. Its not strategic enuf Late game with tha OP TANKS. My opinion.. a good group of u use the tank as a stopping unit so its perfect for really LONG GAMES.. which im not into. without more Strategic Placement Of Tanks n shit.
Either Or IM sorry For ranting Earliar.. everyone Knows this is the best risk map out there by far without 1 change.
-It seems that if there is a defending marine on the beacon and you kill it with a zergling, the territory is not captured until you step off the beacon with the zling and then step back on. It probably does this with all units, but I have just noticed with the zergling in the first couple rounds. I believe this has always been the case and is not due to a recent update.
-When you win and all of your units die, the message about becoming a spectre and rising up again appears underneath the victory page
-With being able to move the dancing units at the end, if you move a unit being healed by the vessel, it stretches out the healing line to very long lengths. I personally think this one is kind of funny and I would just keep it, but I thought I'd let you know.
EDIT: found a couple more.
-When a player left, all their regular units were killed, but a vessel was still floating around.
-When you win by all the players leaving and then win by capturing the last territory, the victory music plays twice, ontop of itself.