Salem's Switch V34 [Quenched]

[MarshalNey]

So my anonymous XML source tells me that it might be best to use the 'max' command to limit the number of starting position 'batches' to 1, so that smaller games (i.e., 2-player, 3-player & 4-player games) won't have a distribution problem.

In this case, I'm thinking that organizing the starting positions into groups of 3- essentially for the 8-player format- might work best. Then setting the max number of groups per player to 1, that way in all types, 2-player thru 8-player, each player would start with 3 regions. This would eliminate any chance of dropping a bonus and also provide a relatively balanced game for any number of players.

Ender, from your experience does this sound like the smartest route to take?

-------------------

My bad, i left a copied fence on his property ... he has access to B13.

Aheh... whoops, yeah B13. That's what I meant. Must've hit the '5' key by accident.

Understand. the good Reverends, no probs.

I'd be happy to make that a +6/7 to make it worthwhile rather than drop it.

Awesome. I was about to say that +6 for 7 Accused was too high of a payout, but then I realized (again) that Judges can bombard any part of this bonus.

But with the judges, there are two starting positions in town. If there is a battle over them and one player wins, that could become an easy bonus to attain even with such a high number of neutrals to conquer. So my question is:
should the judges bonus be made less accessible with a fence between Gedney and Hathorne?

Hmmm, well there are a couple of things to consider here.

First, if the starting positions are grouped as mentioned above, then the starting positions in town might not be dealt out in every game except for 8-player games. Also, they would be grouped with other regions that would almost certainly provide easier and better bonuses to grab (less neutrals and a higher payout). At +2 for 20 neutrals, it's a very hard sell if I was playing the game. I'd definitely want one Judge, so that I could disrupt Accuser +Accused pairs of other players and have an outside shot at the Witch Hill + Prison + Hanged bonus. But no more than that.

Second, the Reverends can bombard the Judges, which makes holding all of them more difficult. Even if I didn't start in town, I'd still be able to disrupt that bonus from a Reverend. I honestly don't think that the Reverend bombardment ability will come into play too often, but when it does I think it will be used against a player who is making a nuisance of themselves by bombarding from a Judge. (It's a delightful bomabrdment food chain that you have in this map, btw!)

That said, it's obviously up to you as to how desirable you want the bonus to be, since it won't imbalance the map if it turns out to be undesirable during beta testing. But I have a strong feeling that right now the Judges bonus will be a non-factor.

-- Marshal Ney

[ender516]

So my anonymous XML source tells me that it might be best to use the 'max' command to limit the number of starting position 'batches' to 1, so that smaller games (i.e., 2-player, 3-player & 4-player games) won't have a distribution problem.

In this case, I'm thinking that organizing the starting positions into groups of 3- essentially for the 8-player format- might work best. Then setting the max number of groups per player to 1, that way in all types, 2-player thru 8-player, each player would start with 3 regions. This would eliminate any chance of dropping a bonus and also provide a relatively balanced game for any number of players.

Ender, from your experience does this sound like the smartest route to take?

Absolutely. To be honest, with the conquest style and the 2-region zones (accuser/accused pairs), I don't see any other way.

One starting position right now, though, has a problem. The blue group includes Elizabeth Parris, an accuser, and William Hobbs, an accused, which will earn an immediate bonus.

A minor tweak, mostly graphical, but important to explaining gameplay: the little maplet which illustrates roads and buggy stops is clearly a copy of the stretch of road between B12 and B16, but is labelled with B11 and B15. This small correction would remove a visible flaw from a gem of an illustration.

[cairnswk]

...
One starting position right now, though, has a problem. The blue group includes Elizabeth Parris, an accuser, and William Hobbs, an accused, which will earn an immediate bonus.

A minor tweak, mostly graphical, but important to explaining gameplay: the little maplet which illustrates roads and buggy stops is clearly a copy of the stretch of road between B12 and B16, but is labelled with B11 and B15. This small correction would remove a visible flaw from a gem of an illustration.

Thanks ender516...both of those aspects have been attended to next version.

[cairnswk]

So my anonymous XML source tells me that it might be best to use the 'max' command to limit the number of starting position 'batches' to 1, so that smaller games (i.e., 2-player, 3-player & 4-player games) won't have a distribution problem.

In this case, I'm thinking that organizing the starting positions into groups of 3- essentially for the 8-player format- might work best. Then setting the max number of groups per player to 1, that way in all types, 2-player thru 8-player, each player would start with 3 regions. This would eliminate any chance of dropping a bonus and also provide a relatively balanced game for any number of players.

Ender, from your experience does this sound like the smartest route to take?

-------------------

My bad, i left a copied fence on his property ... he has access to B13.

Aheh... whoops, yeah B13. That's what I meant. Must've hit the '5' key by accident.

Understand. the good Reverends, no probs.

I'd be happy to make that a +6/7 to make it worthwhile rather than drop it.

Awesome. I was about to say that +6 for 7 Accused was too high of a payout, but then I realized (again) that Judges can bombard any part of this bonus.

But with the judges, there are two starting positions in town. If there is a battle over them and one player wins, that could become an easy bonus to attain even with such a high number of neutrals to conquer. So my question is:
should the judges bonus be made less accessible with a fence between Gedney and Hathorne?

Hmmm, well there are a couple of things to consider here.

First, if the starting positions are grouped as mentioned above, then the starting positions in town might not be dealt out in every game except for 8-player games. Also, they would be grouped with other regions that would almost certainly provide easier and better bonuses to grab (less neutrals and a higher payout). At +2 for 20 neutrals, it's a very hard sell if I was playing the game. I'd definitely want one Judge, so that I could disrupt Accuser +Accused pairs of other players and have an outside shot at the Witch Hill + Prison + Hanged bonus. But no more than that.

Second, the Reverends can bombard the Judges, which makes holding all of them more difficult. Even if I didn't start in town, I'd still be able to disrupt that bonus from a Reverend. I honestly don't think that the Reverend bombardment ability will come into play too often, but when it does I think it will be used against a player who is making a nuisance of themselves by bombarding from a Judge. (It's a delightful bomabrdment food chain that you have in this map, btw!)

That said, it's obviously up to you as to how desirable you want the bonus to be, since it won't imbalance the map if it turns out to be undesirable during beta testing. But I have a strong feeling that right now the Judges bonus will be a non-factor.

-- Marshal Ney

...
Absolutely. To be honest, with the conquest style and the 2-region zones (accuser/accused pairs), I don't see any other way.

OK. I understand what you are both saying in regards to starting positions...but I am concerned (and it could be of my limited understanding of starting positions for a complicated map like this) that having grouped starts would allow players (after a couple of attempts) to target certain player positions (like 1,3,5, 7 in larger games) to gain an advantage and thus almost farm the map.
Is this an issue?

[cairnswk]

Version 19

Changes:
1. All fences have been standardised except thos around the OLd Meeting House region.
2. All fences have drop shadow and same colour, including legend.
3. Legend Buggystop IDs have been renamed same as map
4. Some fences have been replaced by trees/thicket where the fence did not work graphically.
5. E Parris start colour has been swapped with another to disallow the pair bonus in start positions
6. Judges bonus increased to +6
7. Accused bonus increased to +7
8. The Reverends bonus is at +5
9. jonathon Putnam's name is different colour - experimenting with something there.

[ender516]

OK. I understand what you are both saying in regards to starting positions...but I am concerned (and it could be of my limited understanding of starting positions for a complicated map like this) that having grouped starts would allow players (after a couple of attempts) to target certain player positions (like 1,3,5, 7 in larger games) to gain an advantage and thus almost farm the map.
Is this an issue?

Unfortunately, I don't understand the specifics of your concern. The starting positions are distributed randomly, so I don't understand what you mean by "certain player positions".

Here is my concern. The player starting with Thomas Beadle is quite close to the judge Johnathan Corwin. This could give him bombardment capabilities against the accused early on. One or both of the following would fix this:

1. Move that starting region further from that judge
2. Do not use the accused as starting regions

Point two would also be useful if we were considering allowing more than one starting position per player, which I believe we should. (Otherwise, 1v1 games will start very slowly.) By keeping the accused out of the starting positions, we avoid handing out an instant accuser/accused bonus on the drop. We could allow a maximum of two starting positions, so that 4 player games would start with as many active regions as 8 player games, and even 2 player games would have half of them active.

[cairnswk]

OK. I understand what you are both saying in regards to starting positions...but I am concerned (and it could be of my limited understanding of starting positions for a complicated map like this) that having grouped starts would allow players (after a couple of attempts) to target certain player positions (like 1,3,5, 7 in larger games) to gain an advantage and thus almost farm the map.
Is this an issue?

Unfortunately, I don't understand the specifics of your concern. The starting positions are distributed randomly, so I don't understand what you mean by "certain player positions".

This is what i was trying to say

This is the code that would be in place for player 1 (red) as the map stands now.

Code: Select all

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory>Ann Putnam Jr</territory>
      <territory>Samuel Brabrook</territory>
      <territory>Alice Shaflin</territory>
   </position>
....
</positions>


If beta play showed there was some kind of advantage of gaining early bonuses/wins by starting as red, it could lead to lots of players creating the map is they knew they were going to win. That has always been a prime concern of mine in any of map taht have starting positions. In Das SchloSS it wasn't an issue because there were three areas to start on.
But here is different.

Here is my concern. The player starting with Thomas Beadle is quite close to the judge Johnathan Corwin. This could give him bombardment capabilities against the accused early on. One or both of the following would fix this:

1. Move that starting region further from that judge
2. Do not use the accused as starting regions

Point two would also be useful if we were considering allowing more than one starting position per player, which I believe we should. (Otherwise, 1v1 games will start very slowly.) By keeping the accused out of the starting positions, we avoid handing out an instant accuser/accused bonus on the drop. We could allow a maximum of two starting positions, so that 4 player games would start with as many active regions as 8 player games, and even 2 player games would have half of them active.

Well yes, Thomas Beadle starting position could be moved.
Or the accused not started as starting positions as you state.
I wouldn't want to drop the starting positions to max 2. Just doesn't feel right and gives the feeling that the population has to grow more than necessary. I think 24 is a good number.
I think moving the starting is good idea rather than restrictions, the map is restricted enough by gameplay.

[MarshalNey]

Hmmmm, I think that either one or both of us is confused about the nature of starting positions as proposed... I confess that it may be me

As I understand it, starting positions as you showed in the XML psuedocode below-

Code: Select all
<positions>
<position>
<territory>Ann Putnam Jr</territory>
<territory>Samuel Brabrook</territory>
<territory>Alice Shaflin</territory>
</position>
....
</positions>

-would have a 'batch' of three starting positions that would be distributed to a random player along with the other batches (of three). It would not automatically get assigned to the 1st (red) player.

What I think Ender was proposing was to raise the number of max starting positions per player from 1 to 2, with the understanding that each "starting position" is actually a batch of three (so in reality he was proposing to raise the max starting positions per player from 3 to 6). This would allow smaller numbers of players (2, 3 and 4-player games) to have 6 starting positions each, while large games (5 players or more) would still have 3 starting positions per player.

-- Marshal Ney

[Victor Sullivan]

Hmmmm, I think that either one or both of us is confused about the nature of starting positions as proposed... I confess that it may be me

As I understand it, starting positions as you showed in the XML psuedocode below-

Code: Select all
<positions>
<position>
<territory>Ann Putnam Jr</territory>
<territory>Samuel Brabrook</territory>
<territory>Alice Shaflin</territory>
</position>
....
</positions>

-would have a 'batch' of three starting positions that would be distributed to a random player along with the other batches (of three). It would not automatically get assigned to the 1st (red) player.

Correct

What I think Ender was proposing was to raise the number of max starting positions per player from 1 to 2, with the understanding that each "starting position" is actually a batch of three (so in reality he was proposing to raise the max starting positions per player from 3 to 6). This would allow smaller numbers of players (2, 3 and 4-player games) to have 6 starting positions each, while large games (5 players or more) would still have 3 starting positions per player.

-- Marshal Ney

Well, 6 and 3 territories (2 and 1 starting positions), technically But, yes.

-Sully

[ender516]

MarshalNey and Victor Sullivan have got my ideas precisely.

[cairnswk]

Hmmmm, I think that either one or both of us is confused about the nature of starting positions as proposed... I confess that it may be me

As I understand it, starting positions as you showed in the XML psuedocode below-

Code: Select all
<positions>
<position>
<territory>Ann Putnam Jr</territory>
<territory>Samuel Brabrook</territory>
<territory>Alice Shaflin</territory>
</position>
....
</positions>

-would have a 'batch' of three starting positions that would be distributed to a random player along with the other batches (of three). It would not automatically get assigned to the 1st (red) player.

Then my error for misunderstanding the way the starting code works. If they are distributed randomly, then no problems.

Sorry guys, i have a head cold at present and my head is not working well....

ender516, tell me, and i am sorry for not understanding straight up what you are proposing...
so the coding would have 16 batches of 3 starting positiions, but none of the accused terts would be included in these batches?

[ender516]

Sorry to hear you are under the weather, cairnswk. (Or is that down under the weather?)

Allow me to present a short tutorial regarding starting positions.

A starting position is a collection of one or more territories. When the game engine is determining the drop for a map, before individual territories are randomized, the starting positions are randomized and distributed evenly among the players. The territory or territories in each starting position are thus randomly assigned as a group to one player or another. If the number of starting positions does not divide evenly by the number of players, the remaining starting positions are ignored and their territories are "returned to the pot" along with those territories not part of any starting position for the usual random distribution to the players. So, for example, a map with eight starting positions would give four to each player in a 1v1, two to each in a 1v1v1 (ignoring two), two to each in any 4 player game, and one each in games with 5 to 8 players (ignoring 3, 2, 1 and 0, respectively). A map with three starting positions would give one to each player in 1v1 and 1v1v1 games, and ignore them at larger tables. (One of the three starting positions would be ignored in the 1v1 case.) This scheme is commonly used to divvy up zones of 3 regions (continents of 3 territories) so that no one gets a bonus on the drop, which would happen annoyingly often if left entirely to chance.

Starting positions also allow territories to be distributed to players in some situations and to start neutral in others. Territories marked neutral but included in positions are called "underlying neutrals" and are assigned to players when their positions are assigned, but start neutral when their positions are ignored. In conquest-style maps like this one, it is common to declare all the territories as neutral so that only the active starting positions are distributed in the drop.

On some maps, it may be undesirable to give multiple starting positions at the start, especially if combining positions can lead to bonuses, as this may give an enormous advantage to the first player in a 1v1 game. So, it is possible to limit the maximum number of starting positions given to each player. This limit might be set to one, so that no matter how many players there are in a game, they each get exactly one position. In your case, with 24 territories arranged into 8 starting positions, I am proposing a limit of two, so that in 2-, 3- and 4-player games, everyone starts with two positions (six territories) and in 5- to 8-player games, everyone starts with one position (three territories).

It should be noted, that unlike the situation with territories, there is no special provision with regard to starting positions for a "neutral player" in 1v1 games. The starting positions are simply divided in half (up to any specified limit).

[MarshalNey]

Btw, for the record I think the second of Ender's options (to not use the Accused in starting positions) could only be negative in the sense that thematically the gamepaly might suffer a bit by excluding players from taking a role as Accuser or Accused. However, even this wouldn't necessarily be true, especially if each batch of starting positions included an Accuser, for instance. Then every player would have a starting 'role'. (starting with just townsfolk is not a very active role thematically I think)

-- Marshal Ney

[ender516]

Well if every starting position included both an Accuser and an Accused, then the immediate bonus would apply to everyone, and that would be fair. Is there any chance that real historical pairings of Accuser and Accused would work on the map?

[MarshalNey]

Well if every starting position included both an Accuser and an Accused, then the immediate bonus would apply to everyone, and that would be fair. Is there any chance that real historical pairings of Accuser and Accused would work on the map?

ooh, that would be neat if it could be done. Plus, it would give games a bit of a jump-start, so that they wouldn't have that wasted time of several rounds before they really got going. I second this if possible.