Conquer Club

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...

Quenching

---The Beta period has concluded for the Thyseneal Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready to be released into live play.

Congratulations The Bison King and ender516, your shiny new medals are well-earned


Conquer Club, enjoy!

--MrBenn

Thank you I am honored again.

It really feels good to contribute.

There is some satisfaction in reaching this point. I hope everyone who plays this map, enjoys it.

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.

Did this (or anything similar) pass or not? How is it coded?

The OP does not give information as to how drops are conditioned.

You can always take a look at the xml file.

http://www.conquerclub.com/maps/Thyseneal.xml

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>

seems to be 5 starting positions with 4 territories each.

How would that apply in a 6-player game?

I don't know how to read XML.

It doesn't. There's only 5 starting positions so they are ignored in 6-8 player games.

So, that's why I see people being dropped bonuses all the time when I play Thyseneal triples?

I don't know. Maybe?

I guess.

Well, thanks for the answer!

this map is terrible for duels because someone always starts with a 3 point 3 island bonus, because there are 5 & one player is dropped in either 3, 4, or 5, by necessity. and half the time the player with that 3 bonus is going first. you need to fix it so that two or more of the islands start neutral or change the bonus.

The starting positions ensure that in a 1v1 game, the islands are distributed 2 to one player and 2 to the other. Then the fifth island goes in the pot and one third of the time would be given to the "neutral player". So in two starts out of three, someone initially has the 3 point bonus, but that player would get first turn only half the time. When the bonus goes to the second player, the first player can break and take that bonus.
Setting all the islands as starting neutrals would ensure that the fifth island always went to the neutral player, and would ensure exactly one island each in 3-, 4-, and 5-player games. However, it would affect the starting distribution of territories in all sizes of games in other ways I can't check just now.
Does anyone else think this is a big problem, or is it just the sort of thing one expects in 1v1 games, which tend to favour the first player a bit regardless?

nah I think this is a big enough effect to be worth changing. I've also played a recent game on this where it was finished by my first turn because I couldn't break that bonus.

ender516 wrote:Does anyone else think this is a big problem, or is it just the sort of thing one expects in 1v1 games, which tend to favour the first player a bit regardless?

I enjoy this map a lot for triples, but I ocasionally get irritated with 3 islands bonuses being dropped (Arleus and Itherania also, albeit not as frequently).

I would LOVE if you designed starting points that would make 3v3s fairer.

Let me just add that the quantity of territories already force unfair 1v1s and 2v2s (going first means you can force your opponent to get less armies than you did), so salvaging the 3v3s is the best thing you can do imho.