T1 submarines price down ?

[keyser]

the definition of "bad map design" is a map design that allow some units to be too good or too weak.

for example, not having water mexx, makes T1 subs under-powered. (While having water mexx doesn't make them over-powered)

i think we can accord on this definition.

i would extend it to map with "air spot", which allow a fast tech of air unit, and make air snipe unit and asf/strat over-powered. But corsair or asf/strat combo are at a good place when you play map without air spot.

people play map with specific job like doing naval/land/air because they are lazy, but this also affect the balance of the game.
this is why 1v1, where you have to do everything yourself (land/air/naval) is where the game has achieve the best balance.

- big enough so all the tech levels are useful
- 8 players
- Land, water and air all used together
- Each player focuses on one thing (land, naval, air superiority)
- Teamplay is the key
- players from the same team are not too close to each other
- battle for the reclaim
- neutral islands
- each position has a different gamplay (at least at the beginning)

- mhkay, if you want; the size also reduce the acu play, so i'm not sure this is an advantage
- you can have good map without land/air but i guess this is an ok statement
- this is typically one of the worst thing that can happen to a map
- teamplay ? this is fucking 4 * 1v1; this is the worst map for teamplaying; take a wonder NA, and see people push their armys together with their coms, defend flank of their ally etc...
- same issue with com play, it makes game super slow in the early game + remove all ACU + army push for exemple
- well this is for all map wtf ?
- not sure why this would be a good point but w/e
- same argument as "everyone focus on 1 thing"

[Mel_Gibson]

This map argument is utterly ridiculous but the honor of Sentons has been challenged and as is my duty I must not remain silent to such heresy.

Spoiler: show

According to him it's a map without water mexes lol.

In my opinion Seton is a very god map for the following reasons :
- big enough so all the tech levels are useful
- 8 players
- Land, water and air all used together
- Each player focuses on one thing (land, naval, air superiority)
- Teamplay is the key
- players from the same team are not too close to each other
- battle for the reclaim
- neutral islands
- each position has a different gamplay (at least at the beginning)

The only negative point for me is the width of the clutch which is too tight and makes navy too strong against mid player.

- mhkay, if you want; the size also reduce the acu play, so i'm not sure this is an advantage
- you can have good map without land/air but i guess this is an ok statement
- this is typically one of the worst thing that can happen to a map
- teamplay ? this is fucking 4 * 1v1; this is the worst map for teamplaying; take a wonder NA, and see people push their armys together with their coms, defend flank of their ally etc...
- same issue with com play, it makes game super slow in the early game + remove all ACU + army push for exemple
- well this is for all map wtf ?
- not sure why this would be a good point but w/e
- same argument as "everyone focus on 1 thing"

-For sure combat time per acu is perhaps not as large as say, a Syrtis Major, however, there are a far greater number of ACU uses on Setons than the head battering against t1 land units. I dare say the array of ACU upgrades utilised on Setons far exceeds that of any other single team player map. T3 com drops, T2 com drops, TML com drops, Mazer drops, Torp coms along with all the other standard combat pushes can be viable in almost every single game that is played.

-Focusing on 1 thing is the worst thing that can happen on a team map? and a"fucking 4* 1v1, this is the worst map for team play; take wonder" As evidenced from the T3 gunship thread, it seems players of these maps are actually playing the 4* 1v1. From my, granted, limited experience on other maps, I have never felt the nuances of teamplay as strongly as i have felt on Setons (Praise be unto it). The specialisation i feel only helps this. Right from the off one must asses the likelihood of their team winning can devise multiple strategies to win the game rather than just spamming land factories. Do you need to hamper their air player? their front player? do you need to win more quickly than their rock?. Entirely sacrificing your own position to help the other 3 win is not uncommon, and what could be more teamplay than that? And when you see one of your teammates being unexpectedly rolled, the decisions to be assessed in attempts to increase your chances of winning usually involve a lot more than a move order of mantis from one point of the map to the other. Again, i feel that the specialisation helps here, as it requires constant awareness of the sizeable FAF database of units that can be at your disposal to help or could be likely to attack you, or your teammates, so that you aren't caught with your pants round your ankles blaming the noob flanks or op T3 gunships.

I could go on, but all i really want is for this blaspheming to stop.

[Farmsletje]

SETONS IS THE BEST MAP ALL OTHER MAPS SUCK AND DONT YOU DARE TO DISAGREE WITH OUR OPINION

now can we get back ontopic?

[biass]

wonder na is good map design

lmao

as for subs? i think they're cool right now, maybe if you needed to buff them decrease the build time? if you make them too good you'll void frigates for a little bit

[zeroAPM]

the definition of "bad map design" is a map design that allow some units to be too good or too weak.

for example, not having water mexx, makes T1 subs under-powered. (While having water mexx doesn't make them over-powered)


i think we can accord on this definition.

i would extend it to map with "air spot", which allow a fast tech of air unit, and make air snipe unit and asf/strat over-powered. But corsair or asf/strat combo are at a good place when you play map without air spot.

people play map with specific job like doing naval/land/air because they are lazy, but this also affect the balance of the game.
this is why 1v1, where you have to do everything yourself (land/air/naval) is where the game has achieve the best balance.

- big enough so all the tech levels are useful
- 8 players
- Land, water and air all used together
- Each player focuses on one thing (land, naval, air superiority)
- Teamplay is the key
- players from the same team are not too close to each other
- battle for the reclaim
- neutral islands
- each position has a different gamplay (at least at the beginning)

- mhkay, if you want; the size also reduce the acu play, so i'm not sure this is an advantage
- you can have good map without land/air but i guess this is an ok statement
- this is typically one of the worst thing that can happen to a map
- teamplay ? this is fucking 4 * 1v1; this is the worst map for teamplaying; take a wonder NA, and see people push their armys together with their coms, defend flank of their ally etc...
- same issue with com play, it makes game super slow in the early game + remove all ACU + army push for exemple
- well this is for all map wtf ?
- not sure why this would be a good point but w/e
- same argument as "everyone focus on 1 thing"

Setons doesn't have underwater mexes
Ergo setons is a example of bad map design
Am i correct in this?

[keyser]

biass don't start troll battle, there are far better troll than you on faf, you are to weak my son

well map design could be better yes; i didn't say map was bad. And was also answering to random argument from the previous "seton's bitch team member"

[biass]

i wasn't going to reply and continue the offtopic but since you think im trolling and im actually not, i would like you to point out where wonder has "good map design" other then it being a stoke of luck / nothing bad but nothing good either because its just flat ground

i also disagree with underwater mex, the idea of using what was maybe not supposed to be an editor feature to give subs a niche use is not a real good "map design" either

[keyser]

my bad miss-read what you wrote, somehow understood you were talking about subs on wonder

anyway, as for what i explained about specialisation, in previous post, that's why i think wonder NA is better map design than wonder. No more gunship rush, blame air, noob front etc... also it make snipe/asf less easy to rush, and somehow make the game more balance.
People are less afraid air snipe and can do some more interesting attack with their acu.
But doesn't mean if there is no air player than air is useless. If a team focus a little bit more on air they can gain air control together, and then use air effectively (even snipe, but it is not as easy as before).

wonder NA still has lot of drawback, but its design is more for people that like to play with army placement, and acu upgrade for example. Example of drawback is the lack of transport play for exemple, no much raid are possible, and the game can also turn turtle (somehow having some mexx to grab on the sides allow to reduce the level of turtle.)

and i prefer to compare wonder NA to wonder and not to seton, because the dynamic / gameplay is not the same at all.

Btw i'm not sure why you call "having a control of the under-water terrain" as a niche use.

[Evan_]

It would be interesting to see what monsters a comittee map design would create

As for T1 subs, I've heard people talk about how OP a critical mass of them are. That's true, however a critical mass of frigates is also OP, and has much more of an immediate presence. I think the idea of a large group of subs killing frigates after frigates kill naval factories leads to an interesting gameplay and we can't have that if frigates or subs are changed too much.