Battlezone 1

All I saw was Spock's comment saying Then he went on to explain how he has played thousands of games and has so much more strategy experience than Goomba and therefore his maps are eternally better than everyone's. While this is probably true, his comments haven't told Goomba how he should fix it. It's difficult to fix something correctly if someone only says "Fix it." And he never did tell Goomba exactly what to change.

Kiddo, I'm not planning to interfere into the subject of this topic more than I already did, but I just wanted to let you know that I don't like how you twist my words. It will be remembered.

This conflict reminds me of those days when I stopped testing 1.5 for a moment. You complained about me not being grateful enough or something like that, while you barely ever tested it yourself (you had 2 and a half posts at that point). And now you do the same thing here - you agreed with me that there are standard flaws in Goomba's maps, then decided to complain about me not helping him, even though I did help him, while you didn't even try.

I'll say what I said then - Spl Eagles, who?

I simply how you were telling Goomba how MP Strategy mapmaking isn't for everybody, and I took it as though you were saying he is a bad mapmaker. I'm not trying to twist your words, I'm replying on the direction I saw them from.

And to that "who?" question, you invited me here off of YouTube a year or two back, which allowed me to play BZ for the first time in years. I play 1.4 strat, and occasional 1.5 strat.

Spock was explaining that the map encourages you to stay at your spawn point, because higher ground is always an advantage. Howitzers can shoot much further when elevated, tanks can guard the high ground making it impossible to progress uphill to the opponent. Like that, there's no motivation to leave your spawn point and go on the offensive. In a match where both players are smart, neither one will attack because it is not advantageous to do so. The game ends in a stalemate, or the first player to attack is committing suicide and saying good game. If that is not enough information for improving the map, I don't know what is.

Now that you explain it like that, it makes much more sense (to me, Goomba should understand it better too). I can see where you're both coming from now, so thank you Spork for clearing that up. Spock simply sounds harsh when he is trying to explain something.

And even harsher when you twist my words.




If someone else did that, that would have been his last post here, but as you said

so you can stay.

What about on getting back on the subject?

The new version of the map will come to look like this:


Main improvements are that there is a canyon around all bases so it will demotivate base-sitting, as well as that the high ground at the spawns isnt that high anymore, and wont give you such a big advantage as in the previous version.

BZN file changes is that every base spot now has 2 geysers, so you'll need to move one production unit out of your safe base.

Suggestions:
- Make the far North, East, South and West spots a bit higher too?

Nobody?

I agree with you, I think that will be more balanced. Good job!
For your suggestion, I'd wait to see what some other people say about that.

I finally managed to put out an updated version of the map, this time you can't deploy your production units at the North, East, South and West corners anymore. I also made a canyon running around the whole map so you are able to escape from there if it gets nasty in your base.

i'll take it for a spin.

Get rid of the whole elevated ground for the bases idea and make the middle elevated. By doing that, you are killing two birds with one stone:

1) The spawn points won't be so appealing as they will be on lower ground. (Players will be encouraged to move to the middle in search of high ground).

2) A stalemate won't occur because the player who doesn't have the middle can decide to move around to the other geyser sites, thanks to your new canyon idea, and try to attack the middle from more than one angle. (Before, this was not possible because the bases could only be attacked from one angle, making the task of defending the base a breeze).

Either:

a) Give the starting bases 2 geysers only, eventually forcing one player out to find a 3rd geyser. (Highly likely to result in a dog-fight for a geyser site provided there are maybe more than 2 players).

OR

b) Give the starting bases 3 geysers. The effects of this is that the players could theoretically base sit for the entire game (bad thing), but then the opposing player(s) could decide to attack. With the addition of canyons, defending isn't as easy as it used to be, with multiple directions to be attacked from.

Both alternatives allow for 'stale-mate-free' games.

Make these changes happen and I will be more than willing to try this map out.