nb4DS

[blanci1]

now walker is starting with the dude... where will it all end mate.

Judging from all those over-reactions to ichbins post and walkers amazingly long analysis (which I hope to get time to study soon) it is not me that needs to chill out !
My comments about cultural heritage and environment are humour!!

And the comment that I am not open to change is not pertinent, and you are just grabbing at straws. I am one of the most open minded users and am all for exploring new areas of AW. But i think that the good things that are invented here at AWBW should not and need not be thrown away... they are potentially important and instructive for everyone especially newbs. I always say there is plenty of room at AWBW for new ideas without the need to discard stuff especially when people still like it.

So if ichbinselber likes it, and I like it, and others too no doubt, then why delete it ? it is so easy to make another. You avoid the pertinent points that are raised.

[Kamuscha]

Lol, move the airport back a little bit and call it good. It's a very good map to play on.

[Walker]

now walker is starting with the dude... where will it all end mate.

What? Is "dude" a derogatory term now? I use it in the same sense that i say "man". I'm addressing you without saying "blanci"...

My comments about cultural heritage and environment are humour!!

Smileys are useful to let people know when you are joking via text. Otherwise I assume that you're being serious.

And the comment that I am not open to change is not pertinent, and you are just grabbing at straws. I am one of the most open minded users and am all for exploring new areas of AW.

I didn't say you weren't open to change. I'm saying that you're holding to what's familiar too strongly, which is not necessarily the same. In my mind it's like getting a new phone. You don't need your old phone anymore because your new phone works better, so there's no reason to hang onto it.

But i think that the good things that are invented here at AWBW should not and need not be thrown away... they are potentially important and instructive for everyone especially newbs.

So an improved version of a map is less instructive than the version with flaws in it?

So if ichbinselber likes it, and I like it, and others too no doubt, then why delete it ? it is so easy to make another. You avoid the pertinent points that are raised.

The map didn't get deleted. It got edited, and improved. If you like flawed things, then that's up to you, but there's no reason to have two versions of a map, where one version is flawed and the other is improved. That's the reason that it was edited, to make it better than the old version. I'm not avoiding the "pertinent" points, I am avoiding your exaggeration and misrepresentation of the situation.

Apparently the forward airport was swapped with a city..................
The map made a completely different build order valid. I.e. make an AA as the first vehicle. Now we have to revert to standard play.

I also just wanted to respond to this, since I didn't earlier. An AA isn't a viable first vehicle even in the old version of the map. It only works if your opponent doesn't build a tank, which is true on virtually any map you play on, including the new version of the map.

[blanci1]

I didnt say "dude" was derogatory? do people sometimes interpret it that way? how would I know, my friend. ... However I think it is certainly not very friendly or diplomatic to suddenly start addressing people in a different way. It distracts from the issues and can easily be misinterpreted.

I can hardly believe anyone would think that the stuff on basically a kids gamesite could be seriously compared with cultural heritage and environmental issues ... unless you are lucky enough to be so young that you do not yet appreciate the real-world seriousness of the latter issues. And it would not be ironic nor sarcastic humour if I go and shove a big smiley after it. That kind of subtle humour is not suposed to be blatant.

Your phone example is not very good , because people obviously dont have loads of phones. Perhaps girlfriends would have been better. In which case it is very clear if you have a nice girl and find another, well if you can get away with it, keep both. Of course i am joking (dont get politically correct now). Theres no reason to have only one map... we clearly have thousands at AWBW.

I did not say nor imply that the new version is less instructive. All I said was the old version (and possibly its comparison with the new) is instructive... and this may instruct us in somewhat different aspects than the new one alone. I did not say better, dont invent things.

Finally you seem to be very convinced that the old version is "flawed" ... however I think that issue needs time and patient study to consider. And i refer back to what i said before .... how can we even test it now that it has been deleted?

It seems such a small thing to ask... to leave the well-liked old map for us to play on, and also to check over your analysis and conclusion that the map is flawed.
If I didnt know better, I might think you are trying to brush the evidence under the carpet and quickly move along, so no one can check over it.

Fortunately i was wise enough to get a screenshot of the old map so I can recreate it myself... .

I wonder if we can use AWBW forum threads as practice of our debating skills towards college course units.

[Heartless]

I'll be very honest and say I'd much rather have 10 excellent and fun map rather than 100 samey, average map. in this case, why would wes go through the effort to remake a map that is considered to be inferior to the new version when he can just concentrate on making a different and better map?

Just look at the good 2 players maps category. there's a s***-ton of maps in there, but while all of them are considered "good", most of them are 1: untested, 2: generic, 3: bland. We have so many maps that it's hard for the truly excellent maps to break through. There are so many maps that it's nearly impossible to test them all and even with the efforts of tourny organizers like Walker or Hellraider, many of them just slip under the net.

So yeah, mass map making can hurt the quality of the awbw map pool, and it makes things much harder for the map comitee when the time comes to decide A-ranks.

[funwes]

Finally you seem to be very convinced that the old version is "flawed" ... however I think that issue needs time and patient study to consider. And i refer back to what i said before .... how can we even test it now that it has been deleted?

Uh, Blanci, the map has never been deleted. All that was changed was, literally, an airport switched with a city. This is no big deal, and part of this whole thing is that we're going to see if this little change effects gameplay in a positive way. This whole thread is a bad reaction to what was supposed to be a good change -_-

[blanci1]

funwes

the map has never been deleted

i agree with ichbin that the new map moving the airport back makes a big shift in the gameplay so.. in effect it is a very different map.


No one ever suggested there is any problem with the new version. That s not the point.
The point is that the old version is a dynamic fun map...according to ichbin who played great games and beat kam thereon. It is a shame to delete or change such a map without careful and extensive consideration by several people, and also there is the principle involved !

funwes wrote

This whole thread is a bad reaction

well we might have got carried away a bit ..(sorry) ..but walker has raised a very interesting and important issue
which brings to the fore some important map-making considerations... and these merit a careful study. But there are various viewpoints and responses.

Ichbin already thinks buying AA is valid ...and lets not forget that AA can KO copter whereas a tank counter to AA is not nearly so good. An AA could wipe out a copter and then position meatshield to prevent hit from tank... and also an AA even after a tank hit, if on forest, is still a danger to copters...or can quickly repair to be such .

I think walker clearly has a VALID idea but whether it is a big problem on this map needs further study imo.
The map statistics show no imbalance.
Of course games between top players may be more sensitive, though in the example game (kam ichbin) neither player bought B copter as early as possible anyway.

There are various other issues too. First, if the map is unbalanced, then who has advantage? red or blue?
That is not stated by walker... whoever gets copter first ? but which side gets it first? it isnt discussed....

Then what if i can afford a copter without buying 1 or 2 or even 3 infantry on other bases would that also be valid !?? that got to be pushing your luck and very unclear and long analysis.

So i think the real problem is perhaps that the balance is not clear. It might be balanced, but we dont really know. Or it might be advantageous one way or another, but we are not sure which way. Or maybe it is a very delicate situation. That a very tiny innocuous variation in capture pattern might swing the game one way or another. This could be termed a sensitive or unstable map or racey or, a map of unknown fairness... I think it is important to distinguish these tricky types from simply obviously unbalanced maps.

Should we play on such maps?
I think we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
We must appreciate it may not be totally black and white. A map might have a certain "degree" of instability . There are certainly a lot of maps around which one small slip in the opening can clearly decide the game.. are they so different from maps of unknown fairness?
There may be a lot of maps around which have some instability. What criterion can we use.
And who should decide?

Should we avoid enjoyable maps with any hint of unknown fairness or instability?
I think not. We are not going to get to grips with whats going on by keeping well away. We need to play them and understand them better.

Dont forget there is hardly any map which can be said to be perfectly fair. So it is all relative. And when you include the rock paper scissors randomness of choosing CO.. well that is probably just as random as the unknown fairness of the funwes map.
So are we then to stop having CO powers? ...etc..
I think there is always a grey area where fun factor should be regarded highly until overwhelmingly proven to the contrary.
In the long run of course, the best player will come out on top, after several games over several maps.

This is an important map design topic. It is good that it generates some debate.


I m wondering if this topic of forward airport hasnt been debated in the forum before??

[Walker]

i agree with ichbin that the new map moving the airport back makes a big shift in the gameplay so.. in effect it is a very different map.

And I disagree with you entirely. The gameplay on the map should remain essentially almost exactly the same, and the only difference is that the question of balance has been erased. That is the whole point of the edit I suggested.

[blanci1]

(preliminary remark.....so in whose favour is the balance? red or blue? i hope we agree that it is not clear exactly in whose favour it is on the old map.)

i agree with ichbin that the new map moving the airport back makes a big shift in the gameplay so.. in effect it is a very different map.

And I disagree with you [both!?] entirely. The gameplay on the map should remain essentially almost exactly the same, and the only difference is that the question of balance has been erased. That is the whole point of the edit I suggested.

Wow, i am confused now? Surely the gameplay is going to be very different in the 2 cases.....especially if both players are fighting hard for a win like strong player would normally be doing.

Having an airport within striking distance of the centre battlefront means you could buy a B-copter (like walker says) knowing it can strike with impunity if the opponent hasnt yet deployed an AA or B-copter of his own. The map sort of demands the pre-purchase of a counter to a B-copter... ie an AA or an early B-copter yourself.... (but i thought this was exactly what walker was getting at when he says the first one to get a B-copter has a significant advantage?..and this might even require the player to dangerously forego purchases on some or even all bases because his income /funds will be not yet be so high ... leading to a kind of critical and dangerous situation) .



On the other hand.... With the airport shifted back 6-squares (a whole days move) then you will not need to pre-prepare any B-copter counter as you have plenty of time to counter it with an AA when you see it. So in the meantime both players may keep with usual tank/ arties and infantry or mechs ...doing the standard safe scheme of buying on all bases which may lead to usual fairly careful stand-off situations.. where games may usually be decided more by players mistakes leaving openings and so on.

However, returning to the forward airport old map, there is a chance the game could kind of be decided very quickly if drastic action is not taken early. Or decided in your favour if you do take drastic action and your opponent failed to do so earlier. A kind of critical situation. This would then represent a quite different kind of rapid critical gameplay compared to usual map with the airport further back,.... at least in theory ?

It seems to me the potential balance problem is closely linked with the existence of this critical and dangerous kind of gameplay which the map would demand.

So either the old and new surely do play differently (for strong play) or there really cant be a balance problem anyway.?


Which is my main point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( As an aside, given that they do play differently doesnt necesarily mean there is a problem, though there could be. There are 2 other cases
1. eg. if ichis early AA is best and leads to stable though highly dynamic game then theres no balance question, or
2. that the balance issue may exist but not be so bad, for example it may be no worse than, say, for example what we always get with choosing CO (paper-rock-scissors.. problem).... This would need to be found out .. which could be quite difficult ).

[marxistplot]

It seems to me the potential balance problem is closely linked with the existence of this critical and dangerous kind of gameplay which the map would demand.

You mean the "critical and dangerous" kind of gameplay imbalance demands?

It's a good change, let it go, in the time you've spent debating this you could've just made a clone map called naft3rDS and put the airport where you wanted it..

[blanci1]

@marxistplot...if there is imbalance it is due to the map, so to say the map demands it is the same as saying the imbalance demands it (assuming it is imbalanced)...oh by the way which team do you think has the advantage from the imbalance, red or blue?

@marxist plot ... i said many times the new map is ok. I repeatedly said the only issue is whether we really need be hasty throwing the old one away when ichbins says it is good to play and because it seems to be so interesting at least theoretically.

@marxist plot ... ha ha. But of course you must be joking or are just new to AW.
There are some very interesting theoretical issues surrounding Advance Wars and other strategy games such as.. the most famous of all .., chess. Now you might be intereted to know that more books have been written about chess than any other sport ... at least that was true some years ago. Now i guess the average pub player or guy who plays chess with his family and friends is not going to be really interested in all that theory in those books which looks like a waste of time and he finds really boring. However some people do like the theory and find it very interesting.

Certainly most of the greatest players through history do or did find theory fascinating and study deeply, hours and hours daily. Certainly Kasparov wrote extensively on all aspects of the game. And many other club players too study deeply and really enjoy doing so. After long play games chess players pore over every single move and nuance, looking for the ultimate truth in every position.. Whether they completely succeed is not really the point. The point is the challenge and the enjoyment in trying.

So of course that is all we are trying to do here. Get to the truth about a certain kind of AW map. Of course some may find it a bore,... but hell there are tons of other forum topics that they can go and read.. or they can start a more interesting topic if they wish. Theres plenty of room for everything and everyone at AWBW. If we start to run out of room then i will start to defend pages of AW theory as a great thing...but while theres plenty of "e-space" i dont even need to defend it !

Enjoy !

[headphone]

in the time you've spent debating this you could've just made a clone map called naft3rDS and put the airport where you wanted it..

I like how this was dodged.

[Walker]

I have to say that marxistplot took the words right of my mouth.

Blanci, you're right that there will be differences between the two maps. But the main idea is still basically unchanged. Copters will still be a very viable unit choice, and they should see a lot of use. You are right that you no longer have to preemptively counter b-copters with an AA build, but that's the whole point. That is what causes the imbalance, because the first copter is too useful due to this. That is precisely why my edit was suggested, to reduce the power of copters without making them any less viable as a build option.

Also, marxistplot has a point. If you want the old version badly enough, just recreate it yourself instead of telling other people too. You know how it looked after all.

[blanci1]

i am surprised headphones and walker are following marxistplot

@headphones...it wasnt dodged, see my 3rd comment...The debate is an important design map issue and not a waste of time. Why didnt you say that walkers long analysis was a waste too? I am just continuing that . This is a design map forum after all.

@walker.... i never told anyone to re-create the map (dont invent things).. i already said i can do it myself... Thats not the point.

[Walker]

Yes, the rest of my post was the main point.