Re: [glob2-devel] Re: Glob2s lack of recovery strategy

[Bradley Arsenault]

On 1/3/06, Leo Wandersleb <address@hidden> wrote:
> sorry but all that sounds like bad loosers. games take very
> long and i take it for a design point how long games take.
> for my taste games are long enough.
On the contrary, I believe games go quite quickly, although there are
certainly situations when a game can go longer. Its the first person
to gain an advantage wins, if, for example, he only gains an advantage
because his opponent made a cruel mistake, and mistakes are easy.

> recovery: yesterday we played without fruits, appleboy lost
> early as he got attacked simultaniesly by genix and me.
> that's bad luck on a 3 player map. genix almost had me. i
> lost all but some turrets and my inns while he had lev. 3
> barracks and the first ground attacking doves (wich he
> didn't target).  it was hard but if it was easier, games
> would just last forever.
I didn't sight an example when i stated my material, infact that game
opposes what I'm saying in several manners. And aswell, triangle is a
well balanced map in my opponion. I'm actually drawing from different
maps, in particular, playground. Big pond is another example of a
slightly biased map, being moderately biased againt blue and for
green.

> i recovered as i had a food
> advantage. the map was not biased against genix who had the
> other _two_ corners on triangle.
Funny that, actually. Although appleboy had left, his army lived on,
his workers continued producing warriors at the swarms, who continued
going to the barracks to eb trained. His workers continued keeping the
inns full. When my food started to where thin, I knew i needed to gain
access to his food. So i started building some swarms there, and what
do you know? What seemed like hundreds of workers and trained warriors
lol, 15 minutes after appleboy left. I had to fight hard to make it
into his base, confronted by atleast 40 level 3 warriors and much of
the food was already run dry.

> it's just that i cleared
> wood from the start to enlarge my wheat-fields while i
> discovered the wheat in his corners to have disappeared what
> must be due to bad strategy.

I'll admit that was a mistake of mine, but its irrelevant in my argument.

> directly build level 2/3 is a feature-bug i submitted last
> week and i think it is essential as missing the second the
> barracks reach lev. 1 means waiting for the warrior that
> went in to come out.
Yes, its cruel micromanagement and brain surgery remembering to
upgrade all those barracks you created 10 mintues ago.

> giveing a catch-up bonus will lead to endless games. i am
> strongly opposed to that. any other interface improvement
> (waypoints, build higher levels, ...) will help the winner
> as well.

I'm not actually proposing a catch-up bonus, although that what it
probably seems like form my argument. I'm saying that we need to fine
tune the behaviour to better suit recovery, we should make it harder
for someone to win, perhaps by doing something like a defenders bonus,
so that you truly need to overcome your enemy to win, or make
strategic hits, such as moving your warriors around your enemy. Its a
complex problem, and it may seem like the game is already balanced.
I'm thinking the games behaviour should simply be more forgiving.

  Bradley Arsenault.