- Mark as unread from here
- Posted: 5 years ago
-
Post #31
Sorry for the length, but sometimes it's hard to explain all the factors and possibilities:
Before I explain anything, let me just say that this is a map that already existed as the Caribbean Map and it was suggested to create a dual version of it, but unfortunately it was a 23 territory map, which when doubled created a disallowed number of territories.
Short answers are:
1) We did know, but this map was different.
2) It doesn't have the same exploitation vulnerabilities.
With regard to the reason for the disallowed territory counts, as we have discussed many times above, the main reason is, the unfairness to the last to play in multiplayer games, for the fact that they can be dropped to a lesser reinforcement amount, but there is also the fact that this can be fully exploited where they can additionally be blocked from recovering by use of Frontline dominance/buffering. (Call it what you will, it means that fortifications are sent to front the weaker armies front line to ensure the continuation of weakness and lack of recovery/recuperation.)
Bear in mind that Caribbean Dual has unique qualities as a map and it therefore cannot be treated as a normal map
For the one instance of being able to reduce a player to insufficient reinforcements to recoup their Regions, Lost Territories, or just Exact the Same Damage to the (now increased reinforcements) players, that does not apply as much on this map.
Every Territory can attack it's twin and therefore, there can be very little chance of creating/causing Frontline Buffers, Isolation of Territories, Region Bottlenecks or any other form of cutting down a player and cutting off their ability to recuperate or return the same damage in numbers.
This applies to all Dual maps, with the emphasis on "Dual", as opposed to "Double".
I hope this helps to clarify this exception and gives more insight into what is classed as a critical unfairness that can be exploited as opposed to a potential unfairness than can only occur with the randomness of the drop. Because the full unfairness can only happen depending on the drop and cannot be planned, it tends not to get exploited, which is the long answer to your second point.
I would go as far to say that, even though we do not prefer Dual maps to Standard maps, there would be little problem with having an existing 18 Territory map made into a Dual map to give the desired 36 territory map, however, that would require there being an 18 Territory Map on the site and the minimum Territory Count for obvious reasons is 24.
A unique Dual map would have to be created specifically to fulfill the role of having a 36 territory map that can't be fully exploited. I am not sure that that would take any high priority for the very few map makers that we have remaining on the site and would have to undergo scrutiny by all those who partake in the Map Forum for suitability and viability.
I am currently working on a new concept for 3D War maps from various eras and definitely wouldn't have time to create other maps.
I hope that this has answered everything you wanted answering and that it has at least given you a ray of hope that a 36 Territory map of specific gameplay type is possible?
aero
1) Why did noone know about this? Or check this (Yes, I could've also done so, but I simply assumed the staff did monitor this and made sure there were no maps that break the rules)
2) Are there (recent) reports from people that this is getting (ab)used or something? As in... is there reason to actually stick to the rule for disallowing 36-38 and 45-51 territories? Or would it be fine to allow these kinds of maps anyway...? Seeing both maps have been played for thousands of games, I don't feel too badly about this maps (Granted; I haven't done any (re)search in the fora or elsewhere whether there are in fact reservations against these 2 maps).
2) Are there (recent) reports from people that this is getting (ab)used or something? As in... is there reason to actually stick to the rule for disallowing 36-38 and 45-51 territories? Or would it be fine to allow these kinds of maps anyway...? Seeing both maps have been played for thousands of games, I don't feel too badly about this maps (Granted; I haven't done any (re)search in the fora or elsewhere whether there are in fact reservations against these 2 maps).
Short answers are:
1) We did know, but this map was different.
2) It doesn't have the same exploitation vulnerabilities.
With regard to the reason for the disallowed territory counts, as we have discussed many times above, the main reason is, the unfairness to the last to play in multiplayer games, for the fact that they can be dropped to a lesser reinforcement amount, but there is also the fact that this can be fully exploited where they can additionally be blocked from recovering by use of Frontline dominance/buffering. (Call it what you will, it means that fortifications are sent to front the weaker armies front line to ensure the continuation of weakness and lack of recovery/recuperation.)
Bear in mind that Caribbean Dual has unique qualities as a map and it therefore cannot be treated as a normal map
For the one instance of being able to reduce a player to insufficient reinforcements to recoup their Regions, Lost Territories, or just Exact the Same Damage to the (now increased reinforcements) players, that does not apply as much on this map.
Every Territory can attack it's twin and therefore, there can be very little chance of creating/causing Frontline Buffers, Isolation of Territories, Region Bottlenecks or any other form of cutting down a player and cutting off their ability to recuperate or return the same damage in numbers.
This applies to all Dual maps, with the emphasis on "Dual", as opposed to "Double".
I hope this helps to clarify this exception and gives more insight into what is classed as a critical unfairness that can be exploited as opposed to a potential unfairness than can only occur with the randomness of the drop. Because the full unfairness can only happen depending on the drop and cannot be planned, it tends not to get exploited, which is the long answer to your second point.
I would go as far to say that, even though we do not prefer Dual maps to Standard maps, there would be little problem with having an existing 18 Territory map made into a Dual map to give the desired 36 territory map, however, that would require there being an 18 Territory Map on the site and the minimum Territory Count for obvious reasons is 24.
A unique Dual map would have to be created specifically to fulfill the role of having a 36 territory map that can't be fully exploited. I am not sure that that would take any high priority for the very few map makers that we have remaining on the site and would have to undergo scrutiny by all those who partake in the Map Forum for suitability and viability.
I am currently working on a new concept for 3D War maps from various eras and definitely wouldn't have time to create other maps.
I hope that this has answered everything you wanted answering and that it has at least given you a ray of hope that a 36 Territory map of specific gameplay type is possible?
aero
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.