Civilization Wars: Map Development

Moderators: XGDeath3, Quetra

RaptorXI
Treant
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:43 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby RaptorXI » Sun May 24, 2015 3:29 pm

Players would be forced to create new strategies (again), instead if just copying other's work.

Krayyzie
Treant
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:12 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby Krayyzie » Sun May 24, 2015 6:06 pm

By strengthening one of the top 2 plays(holding bot lane nonstop), and weakening the other play enough to make it pretty much useless?

RaptorXI
Treant
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:43 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby RaptorXI » Sun May 24, 2015 6:16 pm

No, by balancing first what has been created before.

RaptorXI
Treant
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:43 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby RaptorXI » Sun May 24, 2015 11:50 pm

@Krayyzie

Explain me please why weakening the Bazaar should have influenced the way you can market lanes, since there aren't any changes made?

lorddancello
Basic Tree
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 5:34 am

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby lorddancello » Mon May 25, 2015 6:14 am

I think we should limit the savage's upgrade to sword only, that way will reduce the mass usage of it.
As we all know 6 savage can control the lane for more than 5 minutes and it's over power, not to mention if you got food and savages.
To encourage use of crossbow, I suggest cut down one tech to skip invention. So make it possible after math.
I personal like to get 2 of them mix use with longbowmen if possible.
Consider that both longbow and horse archery only need one tech for upgrade.
Since mount raider is so powerful in early rush, maybe add chavlry to strruip before able to upgrade?
Further discourage rush, there should be three front towers instead of two, the fourth tower can move back to join the middle four towers to form a six towers defend line. By do so, slightly place the four middle towers back and cooperate the two tower from top and bot into a pot shape.
Push back and rebuild auto upgrade towers will be fun too.
Think about if the lost towers can be rebuild in the same place if counter force push back and allow workers to rebuild in the same place and once again towers can upgrade as the tech advance.

Host one to one player game is good to teach new players or cut down waiting time.
thank you for reading..

RaptorXI
Treant
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:43 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby RaptorXI » Mon May 25, 2015 8:33 am

Well, thanks for the feedback. :)
Finally someone who knows that 2.30 final technically is a beta (39), although some of the things you talk about are quite fundamental for the game:
basis.jpg
basis.jpg (313.13 KiB) Viewed 1357 times


lorddancello wrote:I think we should limit the savage's upgrade to sword only, that way will reduce the mass usage of it.
As we all know 6 savage can control the lane for more than 5 minutes and it's over power, not to mention if you got food and savages.

You are not the only stating that savages are too strong. You guys might be right to get a change on this unit.

lorddancello wrote:To encourage use of crossbow, I suggest cut down one tech to skip invention. So make it possible after math.

Wouldn't that make them too strong?

lorddancello wrote:
I personal like to get 2 of them mix use with longbowmen if possible.

Feel free to play it like this now.

lorddancello wrote:
Consider that both longbow and horse archery only need one tech for upgrade.

One of the reasons why crossbows received the buff.

lorddancello wrote:
Since mount raider is so powerful in early rush, maybe add chavlry to strruip before able to upgrade?

Can you elaborate this more? These imba statements are horrible to work with.

lorddancello wrote:Further discourage rush,

Do you have a problem with rushing?

lorddancello wrote:
there should be three front towers instead of two, the fourth tower can move back to join the middle four towers to form a six towers defend line. By do so, slightly place the four middle towers back and cooperate the two tower from top and bot into a pot shape.

I had the same idea, after playing with our old clan chieftain, he convinced me this might be good. Not sure about the communities opinion. Wait until the next beta.

lorddancello wrote:Push back and rebuild auto upgrade towers will be fun too.
Think about if the lost towers can be rebuild in the same place if counter force push back and allow workers to rebuild in the same place and once again towers can upgrade as the tech advance.

That's why all non-starting towers received a general bonus...


lorddancello wrote:
Host one to one player game is good to teach new players or cut down waiting time.

You can always host the game yourself.
Speaking for all former mappers here, the suggested number of players is 6 (3v3 mode).
I know waiting time can be annyoing, especially these days. The XvX modes make it possible to host the game with a less amount of players, minimum 2, unless someone writes an AI script from the scratch.

If you are talking about autohosted games (for example Ent16) and wanna have something like !votestart, contact the bot owners, since this not my business. Else you have to wait for an official release and support your own suggestion then.

rmp20002000
Aura Tree
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:11 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby rmp20002000 » Mon May 25, 2015 8:52 am

lorddancello wrote:I think we should limit the savage's upgrade to sword only, that way will reduce the mass usage of it.
As we all know 6 savage can control the lane for more than 5 minutes and it's over power, not to mention if you got food and savages.
To encourage use of crossbow, I suggest cut down one tech to skip invention. So make it possible after math.
I personal like to get 2 of them mix use with longbowmen if possible.
Consider that both longbow and horse archery only need one tech for upgrade.
Since mount raider is so powerful in early rush, maybe add chavlry to strruip before able to upgrade?
Further discourage rush, there should be three front towers instead of two, the fourth tower can move back to join the middle four towers to form a six towers defend line. By do so, slightly place the four middle towers back and cooperate the two tower from top and bot into a pot shape.
Push back and rebuild auto upgrade towers will be fun too.
Think about if the lost towers can be rebuild in the same place if counter force push back and allow workers to rebuild in the same place and once again towers can upgrade as the tech advance.

Host one to one player game is good to teach new players or cut down waiting time.
thank you for reading..


I think, the longbow-crossbow-mounted mechanic is sufficiently balanced. The variations in terms of tech needed, damage HP and range are all there for a reason. The trade-offs allow for a healthy range of strategies which I feel is already finely balanced.


The mounted's stronger attack, HP, and evasion should have a price - 200 gold additional tech time and spear/pikeman vulnerability. The Longbow has a higher attack speed and can stack easily due to its long range. It's drawback is that it has the lowest HP and cannot engage nearby targets. The Crossbow has a very high damage and the highest hp and can engage nearby targets. It's drawback is that it has a very slow attack speed and you have to get many more technologies while potentially losing the lane for that amount of time.

I think the savage mechanic is fine as it is. While it may be easy to "savage early", 6 savages can be defeated by upgrading to a variety T1 units e.g. 1 axe 1 spear 2 horse 2 archers. The problem is that most in our community are bent on rushing to longbow first. Also, there is already a drawback to going 6 savages i.e. your units are limited in terms of what you can upgrade. In other words you have revealed your hand to the opponent, who can now plan how to beat your longbows with 1) mounted 2) crossbow 3) longbow + crossbow mix 4) Longbow + early +1/2 horsemen. The bottom lane has a myriad of strategies that can work, people just choose to stick to the ones they know without experimenting with other builds.

Im strongly against the weakening of rushes. I think "rushing" is a legitimate strategy, and while some perfectly timed rushes are almost impossible to defend, I'm sure many of us have seen rushes fail. Even if a rush fails, the game is not over, and we all have our share of "comebacks" when we lose a lane to a rush, even if no lanes were traded. And let's face it, if "rushing" is weakened, then the only way to win now is to be the one who farms the most gold. The potential to be rushed forces players to carefully consider the pace at which they build markets and/or tech.

rmp20002000
Aura Tree
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:11 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby rmp20002000 » Mon May 25, 2015 8:56 am

Krayyzie wrote:By strengthening one of the top 2 plays(holding bot lane nonstop), and weakening the other play enough to make it pretty much useless?


Erm, I've seen many pros hold mid a lot too. I've seen a couple of pros hold top a lot too. By "hold" i mean, that is their primary farming lane for most of the game.

RaptorXI
Treant
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:43 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby RaptorXI » Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 am

Comments on this suggestion?
Attachments
basis neu.jpg
basis neu.jpg (330.9 KiB) Viewed 1333 times

User avatar
I_kill_satan
Forest Walker
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 11:05 am
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby I_kill_satan » Mon May 25, 2015 10:57 am

My view to some suggested changes:

workers do not damage - good
xbow not that bad now, no need to change a range.
obe cost should be a bit more like 555 or 560 gold for prevent obe rush with 2 workers from start.
lh cost increase not needed, this is not strong wonder at all now.
Magellan should be with 2-3 frigates with different price.
buff dromons - good, but need not to make it too op (people will mass them instead of pents).
bazar - should cost more than now but maybe its too much, it could be late game wonder with this price. People will build that when game already winned.
Big Ben- cant say, maybe need to buff/change dreadnoughts somehow.
Mausoleum - different aura not needed, its not bad wonder and people use it often. No need to repair things wich are not broken.

Also i can say that gameplay not boring at all currently, it could be boring with lack of skill of the most players who play nowadays. Maybe, a lot of people think that it is exist only 1 way to "strong" play and yes it is boring indeed to play with them but it is not problem of map, it is problem of players.

Krayyzie
Treant
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:12 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby Krayyzie » Mon May 25, 2015 12:43 pm

rmp20002000 wrote:
Krayyzie wrote:By strengthening one of the top 2 plays(holding bot lane nonstop), and weakening the other play enough to make it pretty much useless?


Erm, I've seen many pros hold mid a lot too. I've seen a couple of pros hold top a lot too. By "hold" i mean, that is their primary farming lane for most of the game.


Mid lane is the key which can decide alot of games yes, but normally it is very hard to succed with having mid lane as main market lane, as you usually have very small ammount of gold activated on that lane, which means enemies does have a better chance to steal it, either now and then or putting hard pressure to take it over.




The change to bazaar will weaken the swing lanes play alot, because already by the cost of 750 gold and you need to play it extremely well to be able to swing lanes(espically bot lane). By making that cost 1000, it will be way harder to swing lanes if you get bazaar, and even if you would succed, 15 gold/set is a major set back, which means you weaken the swing all lanes with bazaar alot, both in the way of making it harder to swing, and by the way you wont really get a big advantage by succeding with it.

By doing this when the plays are already quite even, you do pretty much remove this play from a top game, as going for control of a lane will be alot stronger.




Some side notices on the last few posts
I do agree with rmp20002000 that most units are pretty much balanced, as he says, there are possible minor changes that could be good, but not on the units discussed so far.(Except dromon). Most likely changing things would make something either to strong or to weak, so i´d also stay away from doing this.

as I dont have the full list of the changes you did I will also comment on the changes satan did on the last post

Workers no damage = I guess this is overall not a bad change. Positive

Xbow change...Nope, Xbow is already a very strong unit and has it purposes in the game play... Very Negative

Obelisk change. Obelisk is strong, as its built in pretty much every game of competive play, not like satan does tho, because rushing obelisk in the normal mode with 2 workers is quite bad, as you will loose control over all 3 lanes vs a good player, but people always build it 5ish mins into game. Not a nessesary change, but not bad, neutral

Lh cost..lh isnt op as it is now = Negative

Magellan cheaper = Might be a positive change, as its a very rarely used wonder = Positive

Dromons are useless at it is, problem is like satan say to buff them, but still make them weaker overall than other units due to their skill, very hard to change, might just keep them as they were... Neutral

Bazaar: Just leave it as it is, it is strong, but its not op. By weakinging it at 2 ends,higher cost and less to gain, you are removing this wonder from them game. Very negative

Big Ben is weak sure, no idea how to change it to the better tho, same as before, needs to be done without making it to strong... Neutral/Positive

Mausoleum. I dont know what to say about this change. I remember alot of players back when civ wars was competive believed Mau was to weak, but I´ve always found good use to it, and Im kind of afraid adding another aura to it will make it very very strong, turning it from a decent wonder to a must have wonder ... Negative/neutral change.


I also agree with Satan about the last thing he says. The map is very well balanced,and there are several ways of playing, There are several types of long game strategies that all can be played in different ways, there are up to around 10 ways of rushing with decent chance to succed(even tho if you get competive play and play 3v3 with and vs 3 good players, they will be able to defend most rushes). and there are 3 types or rushes late game
All in all this is a very balanaced map, One of the few in warcraft where there is pretty much nothing that is insanely op or totally useless, pretty much every unit and wonder has their purposes and if you get them at the right games/times, they will do what they are supposed to do.

rmp20002000
Aura Tree
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:11 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby rmp20002000 » Mon May 25, 2015 2:24 pm

RaptorXI wrote:Comments on this suggestion?



Hi Raptor, can you elaborate what the image is about? What are the arrows? And those walls, are they invulnerable?

RaptorXI
Treant
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:43 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby RaptorXI » Mon May 25, 2015 2:40 pm

changelog wrote:Workers don't do damage anymore



(06:02 / All) Easystyle: this good
(06:03 / All) Easystyle: !

(04:24 / All) Ugly1: cool ! i like

rmp20002000 wrote:This is good. Players sometimes claim to use the worker for damage, but I feel it really is negligible.


I_kill_satan wrote:workers do not damage - good


Krayyzie wrote:Workers no damage = I guess this is overall not a bad change. Positive



Full community support, vouched by pros. Will be taken into the map.

RaptorXI
Treant
Posts: 363
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:43 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby RaptorXI » Mon May 25, 2015 2:41 pm

rmp20002000 wrote:Hi Raptor, can you elaborate what the image is about? What are the arrows? And those walls, are they invulnerable?


The idea is, to re-balance main capital defense, after lanes are claimed. The way the AI is scripted to attack is aweful. With those 4 towers all lined up rushes are so easy to defend, especially with the free build limit for top. Replacing those outer towers would intend a team to react much faster than before, while looking out for a ledge rush.
Those walls aren't much important, just showing the pathes.

rmp20002000
Aura Tree
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:11 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Civilization Wars: Map Development

Postby rmp20002000 » Mon May 25, 2015 3:44 pm

Sorry Raptorxi, I still dont understand what the arrows are suppose to be.


Return to “Civilization Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest