Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development
Posted: Mon May 25, 2015 4:16 pm
The new positions for these towers.
rmp20002000 wrote:If the towers are located together, then it makes rushes weaker
because you can "Trade lanes"
rmp20002000 wrote:I strongly believe that "rushes" are legitimate strategies
rmp20002000 wrote:and the rewards vary in terms of 1) Total Lane Control, 2) destroy top/bottom castle, 3) Destroy more than 1 castle. So I would prefer it if the towers remained where they were. If towers that you can build have +50% HP and more armour, then this becomes even more unnecessary.
supersexyy wrote:The main changes that need to be made are gameplay changes not pointless changes like these.
RaptorXI wrote:rmp20002000 wrote:If the towers are located together, then it makes rushes weaker
No. The AI would attack the front towers first, focussing fire more, like a skilled player would do.because you can "Trade lanes"
There is no "trading lanes", maybe at the map you play on Garena.rmp20002000 wrote:I strongly believe that "rushes" are legitimate strategies
I do too.rmp20002000 wrote:and the rewards vary in terms of 1) Total Lane Control, 2) destroy top/bottom castle, 3) Destroy more than 1 castle. So I would prefer it if the towers remained where they were. If towers that you can build have +50% HP and more armour, then this becomes even more unnecessary.
If you are so deep into the game already, why not go even deeper?supersexyy wrote:The main changes that need to be made are gameplay changes not pointless changes like these.
Based on your history as one of the "best" players:
How often do you play the map?
Do you ever host of one the custom modes you like to see being removed?
You might wanna be the first to announce massing workers and granaries as a new IH strategy? The winter is cold and you will need the food.
I'm all up to make more custom modes and balance those who where created by Dangime and Terrabull (have you ever talked to them? have they asked for your opinion?), so you would be able to play them.
If you really want to make the game better, make serious suggestions, not pointless statements.
This might be too much at the moment, will keep it my mind for later.
DUTCHWEEDLOVE wrote:You clearly miss the point here as he doesn't mean some trading lane for income or whatever but the trading of lanes when you rush a lane another lane will fall thus evening out the rush in some way.
RaptorXI wrote:Comments like these won't help you to get something into the map at all.
Funny how you state that 2.30 is balanced with all those modes never hosted and strategies that just make you lose. Or have you changed your priororities from playing to be the best to playing for fun suddenly?DUTCHWEEDLOVE wrote:You clearly miss the point here as he doesn't mean some trading lane for income or whatever but the trading of lanes when you rush a lane another lane will fall thus evening out the rush in some way.
Too much weirdo talking here.
Denying "trading lanes" for now until there is a definition so we can measure the impact on the map and it's outcome.
@DUTCHWEEDLOVE
Your thoughts and suggestions on the current changelog or testing the beta with or against me is more welcome, especially due to all the possibilities you own.
supersexyy wrote:The main changes that need to be made are gameplay changes
Mauso needed balancing not a rework.
supersexyy wrote:Personally the lack of skill involved in top and bottom lanes is apparent. Following standard build orders without any thought ie 6 savages into 6 longbows into grens without marketing, mass pents, 3 trireme etc. None of this actually requires any skill.
supersexyy wrote:You should ask yourself 'what makes civ boring' and work on those. Things such as following 'perfect' build orders as top and bottom. Such as lane locking, etc
supersexyy wrote:The whole point of civ is there should be an 'unbeatable strategy'.