Conquer Club

Will wait for your advice and follow.

thenobodies80 wrote:Sorry but what does that change solves? changing the bonus you did nothing else that make the values ridicolous...no one will go for a bonus anymore in bigger games.
Sorry but i don't think this is a solution, maybe the easier way to go to have longer games, but definitively not a solution. You still have a map on which a player could start with an advantage.

A question did you run the prob tools and looked at the percentages? I have too, but as said I don't think they are bad without sp with 3 regions bonuses.
The only issue without sp is to not make possible to start with the 2 region bonus.
Gimme some hours....it's not hard to balance the drop without change the bonuses, I'll post my proposal this evening, then if you want to lower the bonuses anyway...then it's you map and I'll send the update. But i'm sure we can balance the drop without making the value of a 3 region+3 borders only +1. Com'on, you know that's a nonsense!

The likelihood of people grabbing bonuses at all on a map this size is already relatively small. And the issue isn't only with the 2 region bonus...there is a 5.5% chance someone drops one of the 3 region bonuses as well. Ideally, we code 1 region in each of the 2 and 3 region bonus zones to start neutral, but then we're dealing with the issue of a map that distributes 19 territories to begin the game, meaning in 7 and 8 player games, each players gets 2 territories (with 10 and 8 neutrals, respectively). This is more worrisome, to me, then someone only getting a +1 for a 3 region bonus zone.

If only 1 territory is coded as a starting neutral, then that leaves 23 territories to be distributed, which still means players will only get 2 regions in 8 player games, so I think we need to leave all 24 territories in the pot.

Another option koontz is to reduce the deployment from 3 to 2, but I'm not sure that's something you want to do.

Or, and this is going to require a major graphics overhaul, just combine the smaller bonus zones into larger ones (at least 4 regions per bonus).

nolefan5311 wrote:there is a 5.5% chance someone drops one of the 3 region bonuses as well

I'm tired, but if i'm not wrong, with starting position, as it is now, the percentage is much much higher than that number.

Anyway, the point is not balance the map considering if the majority of skilled/high rank players will go for bonuses or not, the point is balance the map and ensure that no one will start with an advantage. The game has rules and some basic ideas behind it, one of this is to not give advantage to a player from the start, or reduce it as much as possible.

nolefan5311 wrote:This is more worrisome, to me, then someone only getting a +1 for a 3 region bonus zone.

Instead you should because in your first turn you won't receive only a +1 bonus but you will have also a different percentage with your dice outcome, in theory you will be able to attack 7vs3 instead of 6vs3, that means 0.85 instead of 0.76, or again be able to do a double 5vs3 (that should be around 0.60-0.65)

This is what I would do if it was my map:
Get rid of starting positions, code 1 region of the norte bonus as neutral, leaving 23 regions in the starting pot. This will make impossible to start with that bonus and gives a 3-4% that someone will start with a 3 regions bonus that is a very good value.

There's nothing wrong in having a 8 player game in which player will start with 2 regions with a total of 8 neutrals, we have set a minimum long long time ago and it is 2 regions for each player. I stick with it because it works, specially if it means to not give adavantage to someone else from the very beginning.
24 regions is a small map, if a player want to start with a bigger amount of regions, then we have 200+ maps to play and some of them fit those settings.

We should start to give the priority to smaller games than bigger ones, this site recently lack of games that fill fast and are ready to play and this is a fact ....there're tons of quad or large games done just to grab points.
However this doesn't mean we need to ignore 8 players games, just we don't have to consider a map on which players have to start with 2 regions a wrong thing...sorry but i will ever give the priority to 1vs1 games who are the most played games on this site (6437141 on 10533081 --> 61%)

So, if have 23 regions means 8 player games with just two regions (and only for 8 player games) but balanced games for all the other setting, then I strongly suggest to have just 1 coded neutral, without change graphics or make larger bonus zones.
Then just for the record, this layout gives the worst percentages with 3 players games, that is about 5-6% that imo is acceptable for a 3 player game.

Obviously this layout doesn't allow to add starting position again because they will give a very bad layout for 8 players games, 1 region for each player, that is a nonsense.

Up to you koontz, but keep in mind the priorities in this exact order:
1.Make it balanced
2.limit the starting advantage
3.have less neutral as possible

Time for dinner!
Let me know what you want to do, so i can send the files.
Nobodies

nobodies, will follow your advice and get you the files to upload today. Will make the map bonuses as they where and remove starting positions. Just one coded neutral in the 2 region bonus zone.

Thanks for that and hope dinner was good.

All files.
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/2365/madridnew.png
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7128/madridsmall.png

Bonuses stay as they are with the original map.
All starting positions have been removed.
Neutral 3 in the 2 territ bonus zone.
Going to keep the army circles of the map for now. Will see if the lighter background green helps first.

I absolutely hate 2 regions for players in 8 player games. Players can be eliminated before they even have a chance to play...I don't think koontz intended this map to play like Doodle Earth or Luxembourg.

As for the 8 player games only getting 2 regions a piece. That is not really a concern for me on this map even though I tried to allow those games to be fairly devised. Anyone who players Lux or Doodle (8 players) is asking for a specific type of game (or random). Whilst nole is right in the sense an 8 player game, players will lose before a turn is taken, the chances is slightly less on this map. Both Doodle and Lux have less territs so everyone is sitting on top of each other. Here with the extra neutrals, space to move about is guaranteed.

Right now, my main concern is this, will the coded neutral mean that the extra troop in 2 and 3 player games mean more bonuses dropped?

Final thought to leave you with, if the large game is such a problem with this small map, can we limit the amount of players on the map? Either 6 like AOR or just a straight forward 1v1 map only.

koontz1973 wrote:Right now, my main concern is this, will the coded neutral mean that the extra troop in 2 and 3 player games mean more bonuses dropped?

Could you please rephrase the question?

koontz1973 wrote:Final thought to leave you with, if the large game is such a problem with this small map, can we limit the amount of players on the map? Either 6 like AOR or just a straight forward 1v1 map only.

I've always been in favour of this. If it was for me we would have maps developed for specific type of games and number of players. for types of games we have to wait but for limit the number of players, it think it can be done, but don't take it as an official answer for now.


Note: Luxembourg and Doodle are respectively the 5th and 2nd most played maps on this site....maybe there's a reason? As I said, there's more people who want fast games than people who want to spend 3 hours to make a move. Then, if in a 8 player games you lose before to play....sometimes it happens, it happened also to me and I'm still alive.
Afterall with 8 players, just one will win..i don't understand this thing that people should wait 2 or 3 turns before to kill someone else...war it's war! No mercy.

(clans and their double/triple/quad games )

thenobodies80 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Right now, my main concern is this, will the coded neutral mean that the extra troop in 2 and 3 player games mean more bonuses dropped?

Could you please rephrase the question?

OK
Now, in 2 and 3 player games, a player gets 6 regions only spread over the board. With the new single neutral, the numbers work out as such:
2 players - 7 regions
3 players - 7 regions
4 players - 5 regions
5 players - 4 regions
6 players - 3 regions
7 players - 3 regions
8 players - 2 regions

With 7 regions being dropped in the small games, will the 3 region bonuses become dropped more or less so as each player has that one extra troop dropped.

It depends which SP were dropped with the old system, but in general now are better because now it's receive 3 regions on 23

Now that I'm at home i can give you more info about your concerns. A note I'm not going to write here all the combinatory calculations because it will be long and boring so I'll try to keep it simple.

With the old system, so 8 sp and underlying neutrals, we should focus on which sp can give this issue.
First of all we have a max position = 1 so norte is not a problem at all, because or it's splitted between two players or one of the 2 regions will start neutral, same for sudeste, where we have 2 sp.
One position is there just to have rounded numbers (the one in oeste) so we don't consider it.

The issue is when the assigned sp are those into a 3 regions bonus with a single position, so 3 of them; we will call them lucky sp.
So we can have different cases, that makes a bit tricky to calculate percentages, but if you think, for example to a 2 player game we can have 3 different situations
1. pl1 receive one of this lucky sp, but pl2 not
2. pl2 receive one of this lucky sp, but pl1 not
3. both players receive the lucky positions

Now think about the drop, 24 regions, the first position is given, there's 3 good out on 8 that could be a lucky sp (37,5%). If the first player is lucky , the second player has 2 on 7 (28,5%), if not the 2nd has 3 on 7 (42,8%). Looking at these percentages it's very frequent that at least one of the 2 players will receive 1 lucky sp

If one player will receive it, when the position are both given we have the reminder position that turns neutral, so 24-2sp-6n = 16
this 16 regions are divided among the 2 players + the neutral player
Now, if pl1 has received a lucky sp he need to receive the other 2 regions to start with the bonus, so we have 2 good regions on 16 (12,5%), if he receives the position, the next assigned region, assuming that the one left he needs is not given to someone else, will be 1 on 13 (7,69%), etc etc etc as said I'm not going to explain here all the mechanism.
If you're interested in understand how it works you can certainly find some info on the web.

Now, if my math is not wrong, if he starts with a lucky sp there's about a minimum of 8,33% that he can receive the other 2 he needs to start with the bonus.
Instead with 23 regions, to receive the 3 regions he needs to start with the bonus he has about a 2% that's much better.

Yeah, some games can have 1 player that will start with a bonus in any case but it's less than giving him an high percentage to receive one of those 3 lucky regions (sp) he needs from the start that will raise the overall percentage to start with the bonus.
So the issue are not the starting positions, but the fact that some 3 region bonuses have just one position into them with a so small amount of regions left in the final normal drop.

Not sure if it's clear what I've explained above and maybe we should test the two option on a longer period to understand which one is better, afterall when it comes to this type of things you can roll a dice for hours and never obtain a 6!
Statistics work well only on the long run.

Nobodies

Clear and thanks for taking the time to write that.

Love the map - it's almost whimsical. My only problem is that it's really hard to see the opponent as green font

bristow47 wrote:Love the map - it's almost whimsical. My only problem is that it's really hard to see the opponent as green font

An update was made, it just seems to of not been uploaded yet. Will poke the sleeping bear to see it gets done. Glad you like it.

As i said in my latest post in this thread numbers and percentages make more sense if they are bigger, that's why I'm waiting before to update the map. If we swap i want to be sure to have some data to make a comparison and see what version is better.

Nobodies

I am allright leaving the xml as is for now to get a good comparison. But can you do these map files so players can see the green better.
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/2365/madridnew.png
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7128/madridsmall.png

koontz1973 wrote:I am allright leaving the xml as is for now to get a good comparison. But can you do these map files so players can see the green better.
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/2365/madridnew.png
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7128/madridsmall.png

The files have been sent!

Nobodies

As I posted in the Labyrinth thread, I feel that having absolute black on a map is a wasted opportunity.

Try to change that road or whatever it is around the edges into something more interesting. Change the colour, add some texture (but not tiled pattern), whatever. Emboss it and reduce opacity? Just stuff - see what happens.

And the dolphins at the aquarium are pixely. Did you scale them down from a bigger image?

Dolphins are drawn freehand and are not pixelated.

Okay, but they still look kinda jittery; not nice and rounded like the other animals.

Updated!

ManBungalow wrote:Okay, but they still look kinda jittery; not nice and rounded like the other animals.

OK, will see what I can do, but not right away. Like Mags map, will wait for a while to see if any other things crop up.

thenobodies80 wrote:Updated!

Thanks, green looks easier to see.

Playing Game 12581426 against giftbox. Got a huge lift form his hello. Makes all the hours on this and all the zooming in ian wanted worth it.

2013-04-03 04:26:00 - Gift Box?: okay..lol...I was not the biggest fan of this map...but as someone who live in Madrid back in the 1990's I must be honest and say that you did a really nice job and looking at this map makes me so nastalgic. Thank you for all your work.

Koontz, we have some finished games...what do you think if now we try to switch and then we make a comparison to see which layout works better?

Fine with me. Do you have the files?