New Map - Clavicus Valley

[Ben]

Krom, I actually have a save where the AI built cities. If you really want to see the AI on this map, just let me know.

[Leeuwgie]

As I told you, this map looks really nice, atleast the best map sofar imo. Why do you use wrong tiles for the top of the bridge btw? And I can still see some sharp edged tiles here and there that should be fixed. But what troubles me a little is the gameplay. Bridges are nice but bad for gameplay and encourage camping. It's original thought out to move all around the edges of the map to reach the enemy. The problem could be that if you move a part of your army around to attack the enemy in the back you can be attacked head on from over the bridge by your enemy, so it looks like the defender has an even greater advantage over the attacker on this map. Nonetheless, good job and I hope you can fix some things to balance it out better.

To

[Ben]

The problem could be that if you move a part of your army around to attack the enemy in the back you can be attacked head on from over the bridge by your enemy, so it looks like the defender has an even greater advantage over the attacker on this map. Nonetheless, good job and I hope you can fix some things to balance it out better.

To

I considered the distance, but I really didn't even think of how vulnerable you'd be by leaving your base. Unless the attacker has plenty of troops to spare, this really won't work. Such a shame. I spent a long time on this map

[Krom]

@Ben: We keep on working on AI and testing it out with various tweaks and parameters leads to different outcomes =)
May I ask you to send the map to kromster80@gmail.com for testing?

[Ben]

Sent.

Of what nature will these tests be?

[Krom]

I've launched 5 AIs on the map and found some issues:
- yellows gold is quite far away
- had to change setup in new MapEd (worker count, enable autodefence)
- AI tries to build housesround the mountains (that we have to fix

doing more tests ... )

[FeyBart]

That's a pretty nice way of testing new maps. Simply running the AI in the maps for an hour or two of game time.

[Ben]

No, it isn't. Not at the moment anyway. The AI isn't smart, and they place buildings in the strangest places. To test a map for multiplayer balance, you have to test it with humans. My guess is that Krom's intentions involve more than just testing balance.

[Krom]

My test was mainly focused on testing AI. Testing it in a certain a little unusual map. And my hopes were right, I did found several important bugs that need to be fixed.

On a sidenote it seems that yellows/blues gold is a bit too far away. Any novice on this map will have a hard time choosing the right direction to plan his town. Maybe you can reveal more terrain at mapstart?

[Ben]

My test was mainly focused on testing AI. Testing it in a certain a little unusual map. And my hopes were right, I did found several important bugs that need to be fixed.

I'm glad that I could be of some assistance, no matter how little it was.

On a sidenote it seems that yellows/blues gold is a bit too far away. Any novice on this map will have a hard time choosing the right direction to plan his town. Maybe you can reveal more terrain at mapstart?

Of course, the distance was intended. Locations 2 and 5 are meant to have a slower start, but their larger base and larger amount of gold would make them stronger late-game locations. Anyway, there already is a considerable amount of the map explored already. I thought of adding more, but I just didn't like it, so I don't believe that I will happen. This is; however, a rather small factor in a much larger conundrum of problems included with this map.

[FeyBart]

(...)
Of course, the distance was intended. Locations 2 and 5 are meant to have a slower start, but their larger base and larger amount of gold would make them stronger late-game locations. Anyway, there already is a considerable amount of the map explored already. I thought of adding more, but I just didn't like it, so I don't believe that I will happen. This is; however, a rather small factor in a much larger conundrum of problems included with this map.

That sounds like an interesting idea, but wouldn't that make balancing a lot harder?

[The Dark Lord]

Hey Ben, by the looks of the screenshot it's a great map. I like the idea of the map but many of the entrances are way too narrow (I make this mistake as well). Now, it is almost as hard to attack people in the back as attacking them across the bridges. It is dangerous to leave your own town and move your army all the way to the other side of the map because it leaves your own town vulnerable for attacks; so I think people who try this should be rewarded with easy access to the enemy. This can obviously be achieved by making the left (for players 1, 2 and 3) and right (for players 4, 5 and 6) more open.
An example: if player 4 wants to attack player 1, it would be best to do that across the bridge between them. It is not worth the risk to walk all the way around the mountains to the left side of player 1's town, because the entrance there is even smaller than the bridge. If the entrance was much broader, attacking would be much easier so it might be rewarding for player 4 to move a part of his army to the left side. There's just one thing players have to worry about how many troops can I send to the other side while still being able to defend my town?

[Ben]

Such a simple solution! I have an idea. Thank you, Dark Lord. It will take some work, but I think that I can make this map work!

By the way, thanks for the compliment. If you'd like to see the actual file, the map is located on the Map Archive on the new Teamspeak server.

[Ben]

Update!

The rears of players' bases are now much more open; and thus, easier to breach. Hopefully, this should alleviate camping issues to some extent.

For now, I shall provide the file for the map. Please, feedback is most appreciated.