Texas

I've already expressed my thoughts and I think this map is good either with the bridge addition or without. Hard really to say what should be better. People tend to stay neutral. My mind tend to be a tiny bit more favourable to the bridge addition. Anyway it wont be a problem if it is going to stay without. In fact I stopped commenting on it, because if both things are good, then we can just keep the map as it is. Just because it's the simpler thing to do. Otherwise the bridge addition will prolong the beta test even more. In the other side, if someone really feels that the bridge is needed, better to speak out now, while the map is in beta test. Because modifying the map later will cause greater problems. And then, once we'll have thousands of games played on it, the map will be probably not changed anymore. Now or never... [spoiler=For reference][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/Texas_bridge_zpseq5jybd0.jpg[/img][/spoiler][i]huskers01's proposal not naathim's (mistake)[/i]

I'm torn on this issue. In general I'm in favor of increased connectivity so I support the new connection. But then I've been playing and enjoying this map a lot and the east side of the map has been an interesting quirk that has to be built into your strategy. So that's been fun. Overall I lean towards adding the connection, but there doesn't seem to be much demand for it so if it stays the same that is fine and I'll continue to play this map frequently.

im all for it. it would be nice to be able to go west from that position instead of having to go north and around the river

I have been hesitant to decide one way or the other. I honestly feel like the map is acceptable as is. However, I do feel that the connection would be a good addition that would make the gameplay more balanced. The only caveat I would add is that it might just make the map different, not necessarily better. You'd still have to come up with ways to win using your skill. I don't know if that one change will suddenly result in better games or even dramatically different strategies, but I do feel that it would be better for having the connection.

Personally, I think that adding the connection would reduce the overall frustration of the map. The affection to the superregion is low, there are no posts on the other side and the access is quite limited. Both options give a fair gameplay, so it's not really important the one we choose. I'm pro bridge this time.

I will make a count of + / - / ~ in the thread later and make the connection if +.

Here's my review: huskers01 (proposer) + naathim (Map Creator) (4 reviews) +~~+ Hoodlum (Connection not mentioned) ~ The_Bishop (5 reviews) ~+~~~ Matty (2 reviews) ~~ slackbatter ~ PsymonStark + I don't count my reviews. [b](For +):[/b] There are 5. [b](Undecided ~):[/b] There are 10. [b](Against -):[/b] There are 0. It is a 2 to 1 majority of Undecided (neither for nor against). Therefore I think we must leave the connections as they are. [i]The reason I counted multiple reviews by all that responded to this, is because the proposal was reviewed several times by some people and it shows how they found some reasons to add a connection and some reasons to leave it as it is[/i] Here are my personal views on the subject, which were kept out of the discussion so as not to influence it: Those that have offered unrequested feedback on this map generally seemed quite surprised that such a concentration of territories could have so much diversity of game-play and defendable regions. I think that adding the bridge between Cherokee & Limestone would change the map into the one thing that it was initially presumed to be, a mass of concentrated indefensible regions and would not just make more opportunity for a kill in the East, but ruin the one thing that gives such a big map its 'Hook', which keeps the players coming back. http://www.dominating12.com/?cmd=game&sec=play&id=564371 If the bridge was added, I could have easily caused havoc through Spartakus's region bonuses and still defended against The_Bishop (Currently the two strongest players and looking to be the last 2). I can counter attack in force, but with this map's game-play, it is made more blindingly obvious that to diminish your troops in counter attack with one player, would allow the other player to wipe you out and defend the conquered regions. Would we then have such a unique and mind provoking game-play where the stalked prey seeks a way of surviving and outmanoeuvring the predators, or where powerful enemies have to be able to successfully hold & control hostages in large numbers without causing a mass break out that would make them the prey?! All in all, I'm glad it finished as undecided, because it just says that few can see a need to change it and I fear that the map would then have become unfrequented like so many others with no intrigue!

I think the decision is a good one.

I like the idea of the bridge. The right side is really cut off when trying to make a kill. The same for the left most corner, but at least there is a Sheriff post tucked in that corner making end game planning more realistic. The Houston Sheriff Post will always be blocked to the right from normal game play of taking and defending bonus (Hardin will be a big blocking point for a player).

I would like to explore every possible scenario, pros & cons for all game types including team games, but the floor has been open on this subject for over a month as it is. There was no overall positive decision to add the connection and it was deemed as "Undecided". I could leave this open for further discussion for another month and it's quite possible it will reach the same verdict, how long should we then allow for further discussion? Should we just keep extending the delay on releasing the map until it is deemed necessary to add the proposed connection? Even with your late submission of a vote on this cbt, it is still 6 positive & 10 undecided votes / statements and just like other people who stated opinion here, you too could come across another scenario where your vote changes to Undecided and possibly another & another. If it's thought that I should not count people's multiple statements about the connection, when a player finds a new reason to remark on the subject and places a statement of opinion, as a vote, then which statement do I count? Why would they change their mind / opinion? The whole point of this is to find out if it will help / hinder the map and the overall outcome was that people didn't want to risk hindering the map, especially as it currently plays well and attracts a lot of interest & intrigue. If there are no other issues with this (Possibly Record Breaking) Beta Map, I would like to class this discussion as closed and make the map Live?

+1 to releasing the map :)

Aero that is why there is a head cartographer buddy. You have all the input you're going to get. So take it and make the decision. :D Nothing would get done with 10/16ths undecided.

I like the gameplay quirk; surely this is [u]one o[/u]f the reasons why World Classic is much preferred to World Modified.

World Classic is preferred because people don't notice World Modified. They see that the default map is World Classic, they don't even bother to take a look to the list.

Texas is now Active, Free. Thank you for this great set-up and game-play naathim and to all those that helped to refine it.