Conquer Club

ender516 wrote:

MrBenn wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I've updated my Bonus Probabilities Spreadsheet to account for starting positions, but am having trouble uploading it anywhere

Got it.... http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2259283//BonusProbability2.xls

Play around with the bonus spreadsheet a bitand see if there is some combination of neutral starts, or larger starting position groups that help. It might be that by ADDING terrs to the starting group, you can increase the number of dropped territories to 19 or 20 for 1v1 games (which is better than 18)

Thanks for the upgrade. This sheet is more powerful than the last, and I like the red highlight on bad numbers of dropped territories like 18. Someday, I hope to create a tool that goes a step beyond this, which analyzes an XML file, firstly, to extract the numbers you need for this sheet, and secondly, to recognize the actual interactions between the regions in the starting positions and the zones which provide bonuses. That way, there would be no need to panic about the probability of dropping a 3-region zone on a given map if all such zones were split by starting positions.

So does this mean that will re-arrange the starting positions rather than add neutrals? because I was thinking that the neutrals wouldn't be the best solution after all any way. Especially since it didn't do anything to prevent people from dropping the Island bonus.

The Bison King wrote:

ender516 wrote:

MrBenn wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I've updated my Bonus Probabilities Spreadsheet to account for starting positions, but am having trouble uploading it anywhere

Got it.... http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2259283//BonusProbability2.xls

Play around with the bonus spreadsheet a bitand see if there is some combination of neutral starts, or larger starting position groups that help. It might be that by ADDING terrs to the starting group, you can increase the number of dropped territories to 19 or 20 for 1v1 games (which is better than 18)

Thanks for the upgrade. This sheet is more powerful than the last, and I like the red highlight on bad numbers of dropped territories like 18. Someday, I hope to create a tool that goes a step beyond this, which analyzes an XML file, firstly, to extract the numbers you need for this sheet, and secondly, to recognize the actual interactions between the regions in the starting positions and the zones which provide bonuses. That way, there would be no need to panic about the probability of dropping a 3-region zone on a given map if all such zones were split by starting positions.

So does this mean that will re-arrange the starting positions rather than add neutrals? because I was thinking that the neutrals wouldn't be the best solution after all any way. Especially since it didn't do anything to prevent people from dropping the Island bonus.

Fooling with MrBenn's new calculator tells me that if we make the starting positions 3 groups of 5, 6, or 7 regions each, then in 2-player games, each player starts with 19 regions, which is a better number. We would have to go to 8, 9 or 10 regions to get to 20 regions per player in a 2-player game. That seems unnecessarily restrictive. We would be well advised to use those extra regions to break up the Islands bonus and possibly the 4-region bonuses.

MrBenn, I am a little bothered by the fact that the probabilities of dropping various bonuses in games of 4 or more players changes with changes to the number of regions per starting position when we are only defining 3 starting positions. Also, the probability of ANY player receiving a bonus is only calculated for those game sizes where the starting positions are used, and I don't understand the calculation being used.

ender516 wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I've updated my Bonus Probabilities Spreadsheet to account for starting positions, but am having trouble uploading it anywhere

Got it.... http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2259283//BonusProbability2.xls.

Fooling with MrBenn's new calculator tells me that if we make the starting positions 3 groups of 5, 6, or 7 regions each, then in 2-player games, each player starts with 19 regions, which is a better number. We would have to go to 8, 9 or 10 regions to get to 20 regions per player in a 2-player game. That seems unnecessarily restrictive. We would be well advised to use those extra regions to break up the Islands bonus and possibly the 4-region bonuses.

MrBenn, I am a little bothered by the fact that the probabilities of dropping various bonuses in games of 4 or more players changes with changes to the number of regions per starting position when we are only defining 3 starting positions. Also, the probability of ANY player receiving a bonus is only calculated for those game sizes where the starting positions are used, and I don't understand the calculation being used.[/quote]
I've updated the spreadsheet (same url link as above) - I'd obviously moved cells around while I was updating it, which effected the calculations in question. The percentage that A specific player drops a bonus is the one which has been calculated to a fine degree of accuracy; this is the probability that the first player starts with a bonus, or if you play a game it it the probability YOU will start with a bonus. The cruder ANY player percentage is a simple multiplier, which slightly over-calculates the probability that somebody will drop the specific bonus (which is why there are certain combinations that give you a percentage greater than 100%).

Hi,
I'm playing this map in game 7809557. Until one minute ago I was holding the road Ifnal - South Lylia but was not receiving the bonus. I don't know how to prove it now but I thought it was maybe I bug that should be looked into. Wish I had noticed it sooner.
Cheers, rob

RobbieDub wrote:Hi,
I'm playing this map in game 7809557. Until one minute ago I was holding the road Ifnal - South Lylia but was not receiving the bonus. I don't know how to prove it now but I thought it was maybe I bug that should be looked into. Wish I had noticed it sooner.
Cheers, rob

Were you holding just the cities or the cities with all the territories in between? because you need both.

Ah my mistake I misread thinks. I didn't have the territories in between. Sorry just grasping at straws I guess. I am enjoying the game play on the map though.

Bonus turn 1, +3 to one player!


Please see this bug reported

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=506&t=130245

[Game]http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=7912579[/Game]

So what you thinking of doing Bison?

ender516 wrote:

The Bison King wrote:

ender516 wrote:

MrBenn wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I've updated my Bonus Probabilities Spreadsheet to account for starting positions, but am having trouble uploading it anywhere

Got it.... http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/1/9/2259283//BonusProbability2.xls

Play around with the bonus spreadsheet a bitand see if there is some combination of neutral starts, or larger starting position groups that help. It might be that by ADDING terrs to the starting group, you can increase the number of dropped territories to 19 or 20 for 1v1 games (which is better than 18)

Thanks for the upgrade. This sheet is more powerful than the last, and I like the red highlight on bad numbers of dropped territories like 18. Someday, I hope to create a tool that goes a step beyond this, which analyzes an XML file, firstly, to extract the numbers you need for this sheet, and secondly, to recognize the actual interactions between the regions in the starting positions and the zones which provide bonuses. That way, there would be no need to panic about the probability of dropping a 3-region zone on a given map if all such zones were split by starting positions.

So does this mean that will re-arrange the starting positions rather than add neutrals? because I was thinking that the neutrals wouldn't be the best solution after all any way. Especially since it didn't do anything to prevent people from dropping the Island bonus.

Fooling with MrBenn's new calculator tells me that if we make the starting positions 3 groups of 5, 6, or 7 regions each, then in 2-player games, each player starts with 19 regions, which is a better number. We would have to go to 8, 9 or 10 regions to get to 20 regions per player in a 2-player game. That seems unnecessarily restrictive. We would be well advised to use those extra regions to break up the Islands bonus and possibly the 4-region bonuses.

Currently there are 3 terrs in each starting position:

Code: Select all

- <positions>
- <position>
  <territory>Sarle</territory>
  <territory>Arleus</territory>
  <territory>Dalmus</territory>
  </position>
- <position>
  <territory>Itheria</territory>
  <territory>Azuran</territory>
  <territory>Chunjaris</territory>
  </position>
- <position>
  <territory>Scaralact</territory>
  <territory>Chancella</territory>
  <territory>Theraland</territory>
  </position>
  </positions>


I'd suggest something like this solution, which breaks up each of the 2/3 bonus areas:

Gp 1: Sarle; Offmar; Azuran; Hellnar; Cancallus Desert; Sarabell; Jenua

Gp 2: Itheria; Rowamar; Chancella; Tryanar; Iskul; Servasius; Morovia

Gp 3: Theraland; Dunmar; Arleus; Ifnal; Tuskaroja; Scaralact; Alus

MrBenn wrote:Currently there are 3 terrs in each starting position:

Code: Select all

- <positions>
- <position>
  <territory>Sarle</territory>
  <territory>Arleus</territory>
  <territory>Dalmus</territory>
  </position>
- <position>
  <territory>Itheria</territory>
  <territory>Azuran</territory>
  <territory>Chunjaris</territory>
  </position>
- <position>
  <territory>Scaralact</territory>
  <territory>Chancella</territory>
  <territory>Theraland</territory>
  </position>
  </positions>


I'd suggest something like this solution, which breaks up each of the 2/3 bonus areas:

Gp 1: Sarle; Offmar; Azuran; Hellnar; Cancallus Desert; Sarabell; Jenua

Gp 2: Itheria; Rowamar; Chancella; Tryanar; Iskul; Servasius; Morovia

Gp 3: Theraland; Dunmar; Arleus; Ifnal; Tuskaroja; Scaralact; Alus

Well, I was waiting for TBK to make a suggestion, since up to this point, with regard to XML, I have been more of a secretary than a designer. However, I did come up with my own solution, using 5 starting positions consisting of 4 regions each, which I present below.

Code: Select all

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory>Dalmus</territory> <!-- position A-1 -->
      <territory>Arleus</territory> <!-- position A-2 -->
      <territory>Illania</territory> <!-- position A-3 -->
      <territory>Tuskaroja</territory> <!-- position A-4 -->
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Caspiar</territory> <!-- position B-1 -->
      <territory>Chunjaris</territory> <!-- position B-2 -->
      <territory>Azuran</territory> <!-- position B-3 -->
      <territory>Alus</territory> <!-- position B-4 -->
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Tyross</territory> <!-- position C-1 -->
      <territory>Theraland</territory> <!-- position C-2 -->
      <territory>Chancella</territory> <!-- position C-3 -->
      <territory>Cancallus Desert</territory> <!-- position C-4 -->
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Cratica</territory> <!-- position D-1 -->
      <territory>Sarle</territory> <!-- position D-2 -->
      <territory>Jenua</territory> <!-- position D-3 -->
      <territory>Iskul</territory> <!-- position D-4 -->
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Solaria</territory> <!-- position E-1 -->
      <territory>Itheria</territory> <!-- position E-2 -->
      <territory>Morovia</territory> <!-- position E-3 -->
      <territory>Narula</territory> <!-- position E-4 -->
   </position>
</positions>


A flaw in MrBenn's plan that I feel I must point out is that it greatly favours whoever gets the third starting position with several regions in the road zones: 1 of 3 in the Chunjaris-Theraland road, 2 of 4 in the Hellengar-Theraland road, and 2 of 5 in the Ifnal-South Lyalia road. I believe I have achieved a better balance across the road zones.

To help evaluate these alternatives, I thought it would be a good idea to show everyone MrBenn's bonus probability spreadsheet for each setup: what we have now, what MrBenn suggests, and what I propose.

What we have now (3 starting positions with 3 regions in each):


What MrBenn suggests (3 starting positions with 7 regions in each):


What I propose (5 starting positions with 4 regions in each):

ender516 wrote:

MrBenn wrote:Currently there are 3 terrs in each starting position:

Code: Select all

- <positions>
- <position>
  <territory>Sarle</territory>
  <territory>Arleus</territory>
  <territory>Dalmus</territory>
  </position>
- <position>
  <territory>Itheria</territory>
  <territory>Azuran</territory>
  <territory>Chunjaris</territory>
  </position>
- <position>
  <territory>Scaralact</territory>
  <territory>Chancella</territory>
  <territory>Theraland</territory>
  </position>
  </positions>


I'd suggest something like this solution, which breaks up each of the 2/3 bonus areas:

Gp 1: Sarle; Offmar; Azuran; Hellnar; Cancallus Desert; Sarabell; Jenua

Gp 2: Itheria; Rowamar; Chancella; Tryanar; Iskul; Servasius; Morovia

Gp 3: Theraland; Dunmar; Arleus; Ifnal; Tuskaroja; Scaralact; Alus

Well, I was waiting for TBK to make a suggestion, since up to this point, with regard to XML, I have been more of a secretary than a designer. However, I did come up with my own solution, using 5 starting positions consisting of 4 regions each, which I present below.

Code: Select all

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory>Dalmus</territory> <!-- position A-1 -->
      <territory>Arleus</territory> <!-- position A-2 -->
      <territory>Illania</territory> <!-- position A-3 -->
      <territory>Tuskaroja</territory> <!-- position A-4 -->
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Caspiar</territory> <!-- position B-1 -->
      <territory>Chunjaris</territory> <!-- position B-2 -->
      <territory>Azuran</territory> <!-- position B-3 -->
      <territory>Alus</territory> <!-- position B-4 -->
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Tyross</territory> <!-- position C-1 -->
      <territory>Theraland</territory> <!-- position C-2 -->
      <territory>Chancella</territory> <!-- position C-3 -->
      <territory>Cancallus Desert</territory> <!-- position C-4 -->
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Cratica</territory> <!-- position D-1 -->
      <territory>Sarle</territory> <!-- position D-2 -->
      <territory>Jenua</territory> <!-- position D-3 -->
      <territory>Iskul</territory> <!-- position D-4 -->
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Solaria</territory> <!-- position E-1 -->
      <territory>Itheria</territory> <!-- position E-2 -->
      <territory>Morovia</territory> <!-- position E-3 -->
      <territory>Narula</territory> <!-- position E-4 -->
   </position>
</positions>


A flaw in MrBenn's plan that I feel I must point out is that it greatly favours whoever gets the third starting position with several regions in the road zones: 1 of 3 in the Chunjaris-Theraland road, 2 of 4 in the Hellengar-Theraland road, and 2 of 5 in the Ifnal-South Lyalia road. I believe I have achieved a better balance across the road zones.

To help evaluate these alternatives, I thought it would be a good idea to show everyone MrBenn's bonus probability spreadsheet for each setup: what we have now, what MrBenn suggests, and what I propose.

What we have now (3 starting positions with 3 regions in each):

Click image to enlarge.

What MrBenn suggests (3 starting positions with 7 regions in each):

Click image to enlarge.

What I propose (5 starting positions with 4 regions in each):

Click image to enlarge.

I'm not going to lie... I barely understand this...

Gp 1: Sarle; Offmar; Azuran; Hellnar; Cancallus Desert; Sarabell; Jenua

Gp 2: Itheria; Rowamar; Chancella; Tryanar; Iskul; Servasius; Morovia

Gp 3: Theraland; Dunmar; Arleus; Ifnal; Tuskaroja; Scaralact; Alus

The problem I have this is that this doesn't block the Islands from being dropped

Here's my solution (a variation on Benn's)

Group #1) Arleus; Caspiar; Illania; Dunmar; Narula; Dalmu; Cryagnotica
Group #2 Chancella; Jenua; Garrea; Tyross; Sarabell; Theraland; Cancallus Desert
Group #3) Solaria; Azuran; Rowamar; Cratica; Talus; Northern Frontier; Sarle

I'm pretty sure that will prevent any of the small bonuses from being dropped. I'd like it if someone could check it though, since I'm not an expert and I didn't use a probability calculator.

I like the map - just a quick note that it's shown as Aliskar on the map but Aliskar Plains in the dropdowns (sorry if this has already been pointed out, I'm not going to wade through 35 pages to check though )

Can we get an update, or a firm decision please. This has been sitting around for too long without any progress now...

The Bison King wrote:Here's my solution (a variation on Benn's)

Group #1) Arleus; Caspiar; Illania; Dunmar; Narula; Dalmu; Cryagnotica
Group #2 Chancella; Jenua; Garrea; Tyross; Sarabell; Theraland; Cancallus Desert
Group #3) Solaria; Azuran; Rowamar; Cratica; Talus; Northern Frontier; Sarle

I'm pretty sure that will prevent any of the small bonuses from being dropped. I'd like it if someone could check it though, since I'm not an expert and I didn't use a probability calculator.

MrBenn wrote:Can we get an update, or a firm decision please. This has been sitting around for too long without any progress now...

I was hoping to get some feedback on this. If this works then make then Ender can make the changes and we can update.

The Bison King wrote:

The Bison King wrote:Here's my solution (a variation on Benn's)

Group #1) Arleus; Caspiar; Illania; Dunmar; Narula; Dalmu; Cryagnotica
Group #2 Chancella; Jenua; Garrea; Tyross; Sarabell; Theraland; Cancallus Desert
Group #3) Solaria; Azuran; Rowamar; Cratica; Talus; Northern Frontier; Sarle

I'm pretty sure that will prevent any of the small bonuses from being dropped. I'd like it if someone could check it though, since I'm not an expert and I didn't use a probability calculator.

MrBenn wrote:Can we get an update, or a firm decision please. This has been sitting around for too long without any progress now...

I was hoping to get some feedback on this. If this works then make then Ender can make the changes and we can update.

Why is Cryagnotica part of Group #1 and not Itheria? If you swapped these two, then Itherania would be evenly split in 3 player games, and you don't give the recipient of group #1 a leg up in Solonabirsk.

Also, perhaps more importantly, I am still concerned that using only 3 starting position groups is not sufficient. You still have a 25.45% chance of someone dropping a 3-region zone, and a 9.09% chance of someone dropping a 4-region zone. With my 5-group scheme, we greatly reduce those percentages to 6.77% and 1.17% respectively.

Why is Cryagnotica part of Group #1 and not Itheria? If you swapped these two, then Itherania would be evenly split in 3 player games, and you don't give the recipient of group #1 a leg up in Solonabirsk.

My thinking is that by already having 2 groups start on the Itherania bonus it was already blocked. Putting dudes on Cryagnotica blocks the Denmarn-Norhern Frontier bonus.

Also, perhaps more importantly, I am still concerned that using only 3 starting position groups is not sufficient. You still have a 25.45% chance of someone dropping a 3-region zone, and a 9.09% chance of someone dropping a 4-region zone. With my 5-group scheme, we greatly reduce those percentages to 6.77% and 1.17% respectively.

If you truly believe that the 5 group scheme is the best then create it and implement it. Or (just throwing it out there) we could just quench as is. There was a small wave of people with faulty starts but I haven't heard anything since then. To me this suggests that I was right with my first diagnosis of those merely being flukes. Either way I agree with Benn, It's time to move on.

The Bison King wrote:

Why is Cryagnotica part of Group #1 and not Itheria? If you swapped these two, then Itherania would be evenly split in 3 player games, and you don't give the recipient of group #1 a leg up in Solonabirsk.

My thinking is that by already having 2 groups start on the Itherania bonus it was already blocked. Putting dudes on Cryagnotica blocks the Denmarn-Norhern Frontier bonus.

Yes, but with Itheria freely distributed, two times out of three, someone will have two of the three regions in Itherania.

The Bison King wrote:

Also, perhaps more importantly, I am still concerned that using only 3 starting position groups is not sufficient. You still have a 25.45% chance of someone dropping a 3-region zone, and a 9.09% chance of someone dropping a 4-region zone. With my 5-group scheme, we greatly reduce those percentages to 6.77% and 1.17% respectively.

If you truly believe that the 5 group scheme is the best then create it and implement it. Or (just throwing it out there) we could just quench as is. There was a small wave of people with faulty starts but I haven't heard anything since then. To me this suggests that I was right with my first diagnosis of those merely being flukes. Either way I agree with Benn, It's time to move on.

The spreadsheets (once they were updated) support the frequency of drops that were complained about, and the number of complaints is bound to drop off, as those who complained (and others) may avoid the map until it is fixed, and others may note that the problem has been reported here and not bother reporting the problem again.

If you want to try my 5-group starting position scheme, here is the XML:
Thyseneal.1.6.xml

Great!

I say lets load this up:

Thyseneal.1.6.xml

The Bison King wrote:Great!

I say lets load this up:

Thyseneal.1.6.xml

It passes the validation check, and I've forwarded it to lackattack for upload.

--MrBenn

MrBenn wrote:

The Bison King wrote:Great!

I say lets load this up:

Thyseneal.1.6.xml

It passes the validation check, and I've forwarded it to lackattack for upload.

--MrBenn

And it's gone live

MrBenn wrote:

MrBenn wrote:

The Bison King wrote:Great!

I say lets load this up:

Thyseneal.1.6.xml

It passes the validation check, and I've forwarded it to lackattack for upload.

--MrBenn

And it's gone live

Word! I'll be starting up a few new games then, let me know if anyone wants an invite.

So do you think this is ready for quench?

I do.

Yep - we're good to go...