Shaolin map
Exactly, that's also what I posted. Change the speed tile for Attack tiles, making the speed tile in the middle makes it risky to hold, but if you can grab it, you can "launch" anywhere (or run away deep). Attack tiles in the rear would help protect your rear crystal.
Whew! *sweating* this post is just chock-full-of innuendos and double entendres.
But I shall abstain.
So say we all.
Putting a Pyro on the speed boost, especially on the first move of the game, is utter nastiness.
ow yeah! the shaolin map feels like easy win for TF2 team, the speed boost allows pyro to get into melee ranged with ease, then kill the unit who stand on the oposing speedboost tile, stomp and get back to safety. so far i met 3 tf2 players on this map, and lost all 3 games.
Putting a Pyro on the speed boost, especially on the first move of the game, is utter nastiness.
ow yeah! the shaolin map feels like easy win for TF2 team, the speed boost allows pyro to get into melee ranged with ease, then kill the unit who stand on the oposing speedboost tile, stomp and get back to safety. so far i met 3 tf2 players on this map, and lost all 3 games.
OMG. I did not realise that. This is truly EVIL.
Time to discuss this map...very fast, brutally punishing of slow starts.
I dont like it much. Feels like the map + a slow start ends your ability to make a comeback. An upgraded grenadier, chieftain, etc, on the boost tile just doesnt give you time to recover.
Its fun in the abstract, and fun when both sides have decent starts, but it just doesnt feel appropriately balanced. Maybe speed tile should be nerfed to 3?
I feel the crystals are pretty frail on this map, maybe giving the crystal close to the attack tile 9000 health would help.
Time to discuss this map...very fast, brutally punishing of slow starts.
I dont like it much. Feels like the map + a slow start ends your ability to make a comeback. An upgraded grenadier, chieftain, etc, on the boost tile just doesnt give you time to recover.
Its fun in the abstract, and fun when both sides have decent starts, but it just doesnt feel appropriately balanced. Maybe speed tile should be nerfed to 3?
I agree, this map far more than the others is brutal if you get a bad start, i had a match with 3 randoms who just happened to get fully upgraded grenadiers or gunners on the tile the first turn of the game and there was no recovering from the very beginning. I wouldn't mind nerfing the speed tile(increasing crystal hp would be great too) or moving their positions. I kind of like the idea of switching the attack boost in some way.
I had the same thought as Flameshock, a boost to the crystals would help immensely.
Rounding the DW boost down would help as well.
Okay I finally understood why this map is totally broken. Dwarves get 150% and 200% move bonus on the move tile, making so that you can put a grenadier with a runesword and/or a scroll and auto-kill anything you want, anywhere on the map; engineer bubble it just to make sure. You can also just use engineers to pick off anything you want with a drill, as ArtNJ says. The bonus is insane and no dwarven player ranked 1300+ on the legaue should EVER loose a single match if they play this match. The map is completly broken!
The fixes for this map include:
1. Get rid of the dwarven bonus for the move tile, the bonus move should round down, +2 move doesn't become +3 or +4 move if you round down.
2. Change the map so that the bonus move is in the middle, where the attack tile is, and put the attack-tiles where the bonus moves are.
If you do this second change, now the move tile is exciting to hold because you can get attacks into the rear of the enemy, but it is also a risky position to occupy. attack tiles in the rear will give you something to hold onto to make deep attacks less accessible.
. . .
If you move the move tile to the middle of the map, at least then the teams who get more utility out of it will be much more hard pressed to keep the tile in their posesion.
This++.
It's not whimsical and had more analysis to it on the 1st page (find it there).
Its a brutal unit kill map as well; I dont know that touching the crystals is sufficient.
If your opponent gets an upgraded powerful unit on turn 1 and your start isnt just so, your in some trouble. Grenadiers and Chieftains may be the worst, but the list that can be bad news is huge.
I also think that simply boosting one of the crystals to 9,000 could be helpful.
Another idea is moving the front crystal back one tile so that it is out of range of the sword. That would leave the sword tile as a key position to help support a crystal assault but may mitigate the off-balance of a lucky momentum start for one team and allow deeper strategy to unfold.
A third idea would be to flip half the map around so that the two sides are exact opposites instead of mirrored opposites. The sword tile would need to be moved one spot down to the center of the board. This would leave the speed boost tiles on opposite corners of the board and would let them serve better as an assault platform for each team to the sword without making them directly opposing each other. Because the sword could now be accessible from the speed boost by any team in one move (not just dwarves), it would still give the map the same bloodbath, fast-action feel as it currently has. I feel it would make it more strategic and less of a bombardment. Maybe throw in a helmet or shield tile for each team 3 tiles away from the sword to better jostle for the sword.
Exactly, that's also what I posted. Change the speed tile for Attack tiles, making the speed tile in the middle makes it risky to hold, but if you can grab it, you can "launch" anywhere (or run away deep). Attack tiles in the rear would help protect your rear crystal.
Oh sorry, im just too lazy to read all that lol
Yeah, it's a sad state of affairs when a new team's only OP contribution is its map.
The Shaolin map has baked-in IMBA goodness if you're the 1st one lucky enough to bite into it - no matter what faction you play. It's just that some teams are better suited to leverage it than others. Your opponent is usually left lappin up crystal crumbs from the floor.
Just had a complaint that someone saw folks listing "Will not play on Shaolin map" in their League profiles. Kind of a grey area in the rules...I think its implied that this isnt allowed, but we have never made it clear.
I'm actually inclined to allow this...not sure the map leaves enough to fight over if one side gets a bad draw. While that is a debateable point, what is the harm in allowing people to opt out as long as its posted on their profile in advance so that whoever challenges them sees it BEFORE the match? Meaning we would never allow someone to challenge someone else and then start to add limitations -- if you challenge someone else, the only limitations you can impose on them are the ones they agree to in their profile, not your profile.
Thoughts?
Art, the problem with allowing preferences like that is where do you draw the line? What if a profile preference included ""Will ONLY play on Shaolin map" and that player always selected dwarves as their team? Obviously that is an extremely example and would go against the intent of the league, but the problem is evaluating and policing all scenarios between the one you described and the one I described. As such, it's probably better to limit preferences to play-frequency only.
Personally I think with 3 AP in place, it limits the OP nature of the Shaolin map, and getting good vs bad draws is part of the luck of the game that equally impacts both players.
Just wanna say that while its true dwarves gain alot in the middle game with the movement speed tile (even more so since they gain 3 movement). Its abit of a double-edged sword. Since dwarves are weak in the early game, with the speed tile there the opponents can attack you alot easier and faster, and in defense the tile (almost) wont help at all.
Hopefully in time, we can check the league data to see if dwarves gets too many wins on this map or not.
Art, the problem with allowing preferences like that is where do you draw the line? What if a profile preference included ""Will ONLY play on Shaolin map" and that player always selected dwarves as their team? Obviously that is an extremely example and would go against the intent of the league, but the problem is evaluating and policing all scenarios between the one you described and the one I described. As such, it's probably better to limit preferences to play-frequency only.
Personally I think with 3 AP in place, it limits the OP nature of the Shaolin map, and getting good vs bad draws is part of the luck of the game that equally impacts both players.
I am struggling with why we should prohibit choice at all. The only real reason I can think of is to prevent "predators" from trying to squeeze enough points from unfair matches to really climb the leaderboard. I dont see not wanting to play on this map as related to that.
I know I have that comment in my profile. If it is not possible to exclude clearly broken maps from league play then I'd like to just turn my entire league profile as inactive until the game is more balanced. It was fun to play Shaolin because they were new, and even though they were weaker than the other teams, it provided a nice challenge (it feels good to win when statistically you shouldn't).
but the novelty is wearing off and the thrill of winning stacked games is too. I'm tired of facing primarily tf2 and dwarves, and I'm sad that I can't play with good odds the Tribe or Shaolin teami used to really enjoy playing DE and Tribe in the league, but now if I want to win league games I'd have to play with teams I don't enjoy as much. So, until something is done to fix this, my patience has worn out, the holidays are coming soon anyways, so I'll just stop starting new games until a semblance of balance is restored. This map is just the coup de grace on an already poorly pre balanced patch/update. I'm not quite sure there was enough testing before the new map and team were released.
Art, the problem with allowing preferences like that is where do you draw the line? What if a profile preference included ""Will ONLY play on Shaolin map" and that player always selected dwarves as their team? Obviously that is an extremely example and would go against the intent of the league, but the problem is evaluating and policing all scenarios between the one you described and the one I described. As such, it's probably better to limit preferences to play-frequency only.
Personally I think with 3 AP in place, it limits the OP nature of the Shaolin map, and getting good vs bad draws is part of the luck of the game that equally impacts both players.
I am struggling with why we should prohibit choice at all. The only real reason I can think of is to prevent "predators" from trying to squeeze enough points from unfair matches to really climb the leaderboard. I dont see not wanting to play on this map as related to that.
How about limiting the number of particular maps allowed for refusal - and like you said - it has to be declared a priori on a member's profile if they are going to refuse it? Kind of like Right-to-challenge has to be declared.
Or perhaps post a notice saying that a particular map or team is under Probationary Status due to clear balance concerns (or severely impacted play like DE Wraith) as documented on these forums or elsewhere? Affected matches have to be resigned in the 1st round with a message declating the probationary-opt-out and a sunsequent challenge has to be accepted on good sportsmanship.
Just brainstorming.
I know I have that comment in my profile. If it is not possible to exclude clearly broken maps from league play then I'd like to just turn my entire league profile as inactive until the game is more balanced. It was fun to play Shaolin because they were new, and even though they were weaker than the other teams, it provided a nice challenge (it feels good to win when statistically you shouldn't).
but the novelty is wearing off and the thrill of winning stacked games is too. I'm tired of facing primarily tf2 and dwarves, and I'm sad that I can't play with good odds the Tribe or Shaolin teami used to really enjoy playing DE and Tribe in the league, but now if I want to win league games I'd have to play with teams I don't enjoy as much. So, until something is done to fix this, my patience has worn out, the holidays are coming soon anyways, so I'll just stop starting new games until a semblance of balance is restored. This map is just the coup de grace on an already poorly pre balanced patch/update. I'm not quite sure there was enough testing before the new map and team were released.
Yes, it appears that the "complaint" was directed at your profile, I dont see anyone else doing this in their profile. We do have 3 "no TF2" folks advertising in their profile, which also needs to be addressed. I'm not inclined to prohibit that either, inasmuch as folks get so worked up about the Steam issue (even if I dont see the fuss). I figured that the TF2 hate would die down over time, and hence ignored the issue, even though I was generally aware that it was going on. But for some, they are still irate about it. Anyway, leaving the logic of the TF2 hate aside, as long as it doesnt approach exploit level, my current thinking is to allow it.
Tf2 is, in my opinion, the very best team right now. As a consequence I've been forced to play it in the league to be competitive. If I could have banned it, I would have. But then again, not many teams are equal right now. The best even matches are probably tf2 vs DW and council vs DE. Even if there is a slight advantage in these games, it is minimal enough that skill is the primary factor. Any other matchup just doesn't feel 50/50.
Yes, it appears that the "complaint" was directed at your profile, I dont see anyone else doing this in their profile. We do have 3 "no TF2" folks advertising in their profile, which also needs to be addressed. I'm not inclined to prohibit that either, inasmuch as folks get so worked up about the Steam issue (even if I dont see the fuss). I figured that the TF2 hate would die down over time, and hence ignored the issue, even though I was generally aware that it was going on. But for some, they are still irate about it. Anyway, leaving the logic of the TF2 hate aside, as long as it doesnt approach exploit level, my current thinking is to allow it.
You actually allow the "no TF2" option? wow, that is news to me. If I knew I could have a "no Dwarves" rule as a primarily DE player, I probably would. Since against good players, that's the only matchup I fear as DE.
I don't think that should be allowed. Unless the team is clearly broken, like Shaolin, I think all teams should be enforced. It just goes against the spirit of the game. I mean, what's to stop someone from doing a "will play vs council only" rule? it could quickly get out of hand.
Yes, it appears that the "complaint" was directed at your profile, I dont see anyone else doing this in their profile. We do have 3 "no TF2" folks advertising in their profile, which also needs to be addressed. I'm not inclined to prohibit that either, inasmuch as folks get so worked up about the Steam issue (even if I dont see the fuss). I figured that the TF2 hate would die down over time, and hence ignored the issue, even though I was generally aware that it was going on. But for some, they are still irate about it. Anyway, leaving the logic of the TF2 hate aside, as long as it doesnt approach exploit level, my current thinking is to allow it.
You actually allow the "no TF2" option? wow, that is news to me. If I knew I could have a "no Dwarves" rule as a primarily DE player, I probably would. Since against good players, that's the only matchup I fear as DE.
I don't think that should be allowed. Unless the team is clearly broken, like Shaolin, I think all teams should be enforced. It just goes against the spirit of the game. I mean, what's to stop someone from doing a "will play vs council only" rule? it could quickly get out of hand.
We dont allow it; we just havent made a rule specifically to stop it, and its been going on. I am inclined to allow it, but we havent discussed it.
Yes, it appears that the "complaint" was directed at your profile, I dont see anyone else doing this in their profile. We do have 3 "no TF2" folks advertising in their profile, which also needs to be addressed. I'm not inclined to prohibit that either, inasmuch as folks get so worked up about the Steam issue (even if I dont see the fuss). I figured that the TF2 hate would die down over time, and hence ignored the issue, even though I was generally aware that it was going on. But for some, they are still irate about it. Anyway, leaving the logic of the TF2 hate aside, as long as it doesnt approach exploit level, my current thinking is to allow it.
But the question will always remain: when is something an exploit? We want the league rules to be clear (rather than making a series of subjective judgment calls). Many players will do everything possible to win within the rules (and may even think it is a moral imperitive to do so -- see for example "Playing to Win" by Sirlin). So, as soon as these types of restrictions are allowed, they will be exploited to the fullest extent.
Therefore, I recommend that the league rules be very clear on what is vs isn't allowed. Specify which maps, or which teams, may be vetoed. Otherwise, people who are trying to win may (should?) only allow match-ups that favor their playstyle.
Looks like this thread isnt about the map any more. DERAILED
Looks like this thread isnt about the map any more. DERAILED
Well....its hard to must much enthusiasm for serious redesign work when Robot wont talk to us, you know? I mean, they are still claiming to *read* the forums (they just mentioned that again on facebook recently), and I dont doubt that, but that isnt the same as interacting with us, which they really dont do anymore. Combine that with the fact that Robot has *always* had their own ideas about how to fix things, and even about what needs fixing, and its just not worth it to theory-craft a new map, at least not to me. It takes two to tango, and Robot wont dance with us. All they would have to do is say "Guys we here you loud and clear on this, we are thinking about X, what do you think and do you have any other suggestions?" But since they wont...what is their to talk about as to the original topic?
Well....its hard to must much enthusiasm for serious redesign work when Robot wont talk to us, you know? I mean, they are still claiming to *read* the forums (they just mentioned that again on facebook recently), and I dont doubt that, but that isnt the same as interacting with us, ...
Are you sure it's these forums? I mean did they mention it by name? Because I hear Penthouse has a rather engaging Forum. (I only read it for the articles).
If it's either allow people to put whatever restrictions they want on their profile or start losing league players I would stay with the later choice.
after all it's up to you to agree and challenge them with their restrictions..
If it's either allow people to put whatever restrictions they want on their profile or start losing league players I would stay with the later choice.
after all it's up to you to agree and challenge them with their restrictions..
Part of what makes the league attractive is a set of universal rules that are fair to everyone. Restricting what you will play against within those rules seems unfair, though you can take the L if you come up against a situation you don't like.
The shaolin map works both ways, sometimes you'll be first, sometimes second. Should work out in the end.
Just my .02
aye but a league without players to play with doesn't seem like a lot of fun.
Exactly, that's also what I posted. Change the speed tile for Attack tiles, making the speed tile in the middle makes it risky to hold, but if you can grab it, you can "launch" anywhere (or run away deep). Attack tiles in the rear would help protect your rear crystal.