I created this map a while ago. I modify it ever so often to suit the player's needs.

Most Starcraft players are familiar with how to play "Bunker Wars." The goal is to kill all your opponents bunkers. This game is complex and I spent a lot of time on it. I introduced a purchasing system along with a gambling system to keep the game "fresh." I have a number of "gamble" options programmed. The largest portion of these gambles involves instant irrevocable death (yes, really). Some of the worst gambles change your spawning unit to Terran Civilians, or instantly set your bunker on fire. Some of the best gambles include winning 1000 ore and giving you temporary invincibility.

The clock is set to 30 minutes, which is adjustable (for a price) in game. When the clock reaches 0, Sudden Death mode is activated. All players are alerted by their bunkers being set to 500 hp each, while slowly burning to death. This prevents games exceeding 25 minutes (real time) for the most part.

You won't ever want to play another mass game after this one.

Let me know what you think.



Attachments:

Post has been edited 10 time(s), last time on Feb 24 2010, 3:22 am by Vanished.

If you don't post more information than that, there's a chance your thread could get locked.

Tell us why we should play the game.

Rude. I prefer to let the game speak for itself.

Most Starcraft players are familiar with how to play "Bunker Wars." The goal is to kill all your opponents bunkers. This game is complex and I spent a lot of time on it. I introduced a purchasing system along with a gambling system to keep the game "fresh." I have a number of "gamble" options programmed. The largest portion of these gambles involves instant irrevocable death (yes, really). Some of the worst gambles change your spawning unit to Terran Civilians, or instantly set your bunker on fire. Some of the best gambles include winning 1000 ore and giving you temporary invincibility.

The clock is set to 30 minutes, which is adjustable (for a price) in game. When the clock reaches 0, Sudden Death mode is activated. All players are alerted by their bunkers being set to 500 hp each, while slowly burning to death. This prevents games exceeding 25 minutes (real time) for the most part.

You won't ever want to play another mass game after this one.

I don't play mass games. They are never balanced. By irrevocable death, do you mean the player loses? Because that is the worst idea ever if you want people to play your map. Sorry if that sounded harsh. Rather than make instant death, it be better for a player to be crippled and lead to death; then the player feels like they have a chance. One example would be setting ore to 0 or killing all their spawn.

Thanks for the reply. I won't be using that idea.

Since there is no information, there is no reason to waste my time on a simple "Bunker Wars" game

I now have a new favorite mass game

You should edit the top post to have it contain all the information you put up, though.

A screenshot or two would also be nice.

Thanks. I'll do both of those things.

Tho gambling is interesting, I don't see any reason to have it on the map...
The only way that I could see it work is if the players gamble with each other.
This way, a player can't just play with himself as he gambles, with no precautions or anything from the other players..

To me, it's just a massing game with a gambling system Tacked on... It's gimmicky. Tho I haven't played this yet, so we'll c if it's fun. But it is pretty obvious that the gambling part doesn't integrate into the game.

BTW, an accomplished gambling map by itself has yet to be seen (All the Random Defense/Fighting games notwithstanding...)
There IS one.. in which two computers spawn different units, and they are patrol'd to attack each other. The units spawned make it nearly impossible to tell which side will win, which is what you'll need to gamble...

I don't have the time to respond to opinions that have no backing. You read the back of the book then assume you know the plot. Thanks anyways.

my experience is enough to back my comments.

EDIT: *sigh* we're not trying to be rude, really. But, you're redoing Bunker Wars... It's a massing game... It's one of those really simple to make and it's one of those i-don't-know-why-pubbies-still-play-this-piece-of-shit games.
It is also one of those maps that have had TONS of remakes and versions, most of which suck ass.

Without describing your "gambling mechanic" and just debunking all our critique, you're just throwing your map away from us even more. Not all of us are gonna go "OMG THIS IS AWESOME!! ! ! !" .. Tell us WHY it's gonna be awesome.

Anyway, I'll "elaborate" on my comment. By gambling, the players gambles by themselves to get better things or lose things... this obviously has an effect to the game, but does not integrate with the gameplay. The reason being is that I can just NOT gamble at all, and I can still play and maybe win... That's not good gameplay, that's just Gimmicky.

I hope you'd understand why we don't think it's a good idea... really, you're new here, there hasn't been good new bunker war versions at all, and your gambling thing isn't well explained and don't seem very promising. If u still feel that I'm being ridiculous or just trying to shit over your map, then this place is most definately not for u . .cause I'm one of the nice ones already.

EDIT2: says the person who said "You are in no right to give advice to me"

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Dec 6 2009, 10:50 pm by UnholyUrine.

Urine plz don't insult (or in this case, undermind) maps without even playing them.

Who is "we?" You are one person. Others can speak for themselves and only themselves.

EDIT2 doesn't make sense. Is that a quote from this thread? Let me know when you play the map.

Please allow me to dedicate this thread solely, and from now on, to users who have played "Bunker Wars: Choices." Thank you.

Urine, while you have some good points, you don't have to present them in such an unnecessarily unfriendly way.. the whole idea of SEN is to help people who post maps, not rip on them because you've been doing it for longer and are better at it.

I think the main thing he was probably trying to get at is that a gambling system, by its nature, introduces a major luck factor into the game. Most people when designing strategy/tactical games try to reduce the factor luck has on the outcome of the game. However, I would classify this game much more as a party game than a strategy game (it's bunker wars), and as long as you and those you play with enjoy the gambling system, then it's perfectly fine. It does create an issue as far as asking for input goes, though, since most input is related on how to make it more competitive and stuff, and that's really not the purpose of this game... the model of a massing map is basically impossible to balance well.

Also, sticky, gambling irrevocable death sounds like a very good gamble if you are about to die anyways..

i'm dling it now and i'm looking forward to playing it. If just the cooler terrain and the more professional look as compared to one with default starcraft text color. The gambling thing/buying system makes me think of final defense zero. so it could be good. as i recall the old bunk wars only let you get more bunks/ups/u12341234 whatever shells.

Alright, Just so I can get the PRIVILEGE to even TALK on this Post!!! I've DL'ed and played the map.

After actually Playing the map, I have to say the map is.. relatively .. not bad.

Well what can I say... Initially I wanted to bitch at you because of your misunderstanding, causing both Norm- and Fritfrat to turn against me for no apparent reason. But since you've made a decent map, and you had to deal with a full day of delicious irony (no one Dl'ed ur map, therefore no one's supposed to post anything here, and no one did), I think you did a fine job....

The good is that you can really control what's happening in the game, and you really have to use your ores carefully. Even for extra units, you require ore, which is given to you every 10-20 secs... So.. Yeah...
The gambling part, which is where the controversies started, is just an extra option of what to do with your ores. For 8 ores, you can try to gamble for more ores... you also have a 11% chance of dying... This actually works quite well.. In Theory..

Lemme tell you what happened.... I hit jackpot on my FIRST try with just 8 ores... got 1k ore.... upgraded like hell, and pwned the n00bs. That shouldn't happen... Neither should dying happen... It's just too Game ending. If you have a full house (6 players?), and in the middle of the game, everyone's tied, and the game's going fine, but then suddenly sm1 hit a jackpot, or sm1 died for gambling.. that's pretty bullshit in terms of gameplay. It has the ability to RUIN the game instantly.

Also, it is still a bit tacked on.. like really... It's not integrated properly with the game. As i've said, it's possible to just Not gamble and do w/e u want. So why would the option be there....

In the end, the things I've predicted came true (gambling being tacked on, and instant death = lame), but the map itself was actually quite well made.

Going back to the first few comments, you really screwed yourself over by not elaborating the map's game mechanics. Your post begged for more elaboration, and people complained and criticized because it didn't seem u gave a shit if we played ur map, and because of Sturgeon's Law, which clearly states that "90% of EVERYTHING IS CRAP!! ! !". So, by experience, we've already charged ur map to be guilty of suckage before proven innocent.
If you have elaborated more on the gameplay, I'm sure people would've given you a different response.

And don't you dare say that "OH FUCK U U'VE ONLY PLAYED THIS ONCE OMFG GTFO OF MY THREAD".. because that's just an excuse, that'll make YOu look bad, and that the First Impression is Everything.

About the gambling:

I've also put some thought into how the gambling works out and this is what I think:

Perhaps you can have it set up so that the gambing is in a plus sign shape, with the initiator in the middle of 4 beacons. Make it so that each beacon has a different gambling cost (and perhaps it'd be a good idea to make a certain requirement (# of kills or elapsed time in game)). For example, the most expensive beacon could be the +1000 ore or near death (don't make a player lose for gambling, they'll never want to risk it under normal circumstances). The most basic could be 55% chance to get nothing, 45% chance to get 20 ore for your 8ore investment. This would make players be able to choose whether they want to risk it, or just play it safe and use the 8ore for non-gambling purposes.

And go from there, you can have each gambling beacon have a specific effect for the time it is available in game. There are literally infinite possibilities if you can think out side of the box. In my opinion, this would be a much more well-thought-out gambling system that would fit into the game much better.

I fully agree with this, and although i havent played the game, im a theorygamer. If you disagree, prove that your right, and meh.

Gambling, in essence, will ruin any game, in terms of balancing.

This is bunker wars, so its not really ever that balanced, but if it was playing how it was supposed to be played, either 1: itd be balanced, or 2: one player would be rigged

Besides that, if your going to have a game based on luck (and the game is full pvp) make it at minimum 25%, and that is still ALOT for any game except poker td etc.

Nobody wants to find out theyve been outskilling people the whole game, and then got owned because somoeone hit a jackpot.

I would like to interject a few comments.

My bunker wars is balanced. Everything is precisely mathematical. Blizzard's melee balancing is the only rival to mine.

None of the gambles instantly ruin a game; it is made purposely. I have played hundreds of games where a player has won 1,000 ore and still died agonizingly. You are much better off on average to refrain from gambling. Although it has been argued that gambling is not necessary, it is just as valuable and necessary as are the other purchase options. You differentiate between the gambling purchase and other purchases; this shouldn't be done. Gambling no more affects gameplay than does buying heroes in a defense map. It's a way of changing gameplay to make the experience more enjoyable for some players.

On a final note, if anyone would like to argue math theory on my numbers, please do.

P.S. Unholyurine only played the map once. If you are arguing that gambling ruins a game quickly, you probably need a larger sample to discuss gameplay reasonably.