pecelot wrote:Goodspeed wrote:Take it easy @
pecelot you aren't being very constructive.
People disagreeing with your view aren't necessarily destructive.
That's not what I meant. You didn't bring any arguments, just threw sarcasm at me.
I might have misunderstood your intentions; nevertheless, the number of resources on water is already heavily nerfed, you seem to be about the 10th person who has maps like Indonesia or Indochina in mind, while ignoring the current state of Hudson Bay, Manchuria or even Jebel Musa.
Even those maps will become all about water if we make fishing boats cheap enough that both civs will want to build them early. The goal is to make this worth it, but not make it so good that the player will disregard land altogether. That's why we need to be careful about having too many resources on the water.
Goodspeed wrote:Fishing boats currently cost 100w. Anyway, they would if the map wasn't always vetoed and if they actually liked playing water.
I doubt the former, each time I play random ESOC maps and Indonesia gets selected my opponents either resign at the start, ignore water or even ask to ignore it from me. In previous tournaments we saw similar shenanigans.
Right, because almost nobody likes to play water. This is not surprising given its current state. For the players who currently like water this may be frustrating, I get that, but the fact remains that water needs to change for the community as a whole to accept it.
Either an incentive for people to go on water more often or less water resources
Because the amount of resources on water is somehow the only way to create incentive to go for it? It's not, and it's the wrong way to do it because it encourages the separation of the players' economies and ultimately creates boring games. And yes, I know you may not think they are boring, but I'm going with the majority opinion.
A better way is to make fishing boats (and perhaps docks) cheaper.
Jerom wrote:The last point I made doesnt seem well understood. If you ship a card that makes fishing boats as cheap as schooners does, you are all in. Youre waterbooming your balls off and thats it. That doesnt seem strategically inspiring to me. Schooners as a card is boring and makes for one dimensional games imo.
That's looks like a vast oversimplification, does the game automatically end once you've „water-boomed your balls off?"
It's a simplification but it's accurate and it illustrates one of the biggest issues with water currently.