Conquer Club

Would also make it really boring for a fog game.

C.

true, but in a fog game it wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a disadvantage ..

id3o wrote:true, but in a fog game it wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a disadvantage ..

Play foggy next time then?!

C.

[merged] the discussion into the Feudal War map thread

FINALLY A TOTALLY POINTLESS MAP ... a map where a person just sits in the MAIN CASTLE and simply BOMBARDS one neutral, building cards and reinforcing and building cards and reinforcing ad nausea ... hoping everyone else will be steeeeewpid enough to try to move against that massive MAIN POSITION.

SO; WHAT kind of a game design is one in which 6 people sit bombarding ONE neutral each, building cards, and waiting for someone to flinch JUST AND ONLY to clear the game from their que ... GUFFAW ...

natty_dread wrote:

surely with four players, starting at the corners would be more balanced? or am i alone in this?

There's no way to do this with current XML. The starting positions will always be randomly distributed.

Actually - you know - there is a way of doing this...

We could create 4 starting positions in the XML... those would be the 4 starting corners...

This would change 2/3/4 player games.

2 player games would start with 2 corners each. (Middle 2 castles neutral) - No real point in playing this in Fog anymore.
3 player games would start with 1 corners each - and 1 of the other castles. (similar to before but would ensure that all players had a corner - rather than before where one (unlucky player could've started with both middle castles)
4 player games would start with 1 corner each. (Would reduce the effect of Fog)
5 player games would start with 1 castle each and 1 neutral. (note that the neutral could be any of the 6 castles (yes even the corners) - as currently)
6 player games would start with 1 castle each. (as currently)

Thoughts?

C.

The changes seem sensible to me.

Not a fan. One of the big draws of me to Feudal and the other "starting position" maps is that the starting points of your opponents is unknown. A large part of the game we play here is random luck and dealing with poor luck by using good strategy. New World is probably my favourite starting point map because it has 9 points, so with the exception of 3 player games, there is always at least one neutral point, and each point plays differently.

The other main attraction to Feudal is playing in the fog, and none of the changes suggested make fog more interesting, most make it less interesting. 2 and 4 player games become scripted, like City Mogul is constantly scripted. 3 player games are virtually unaffected, all it does is remove a small percentage circumstance where one player is at a disadvantage. 5 and 6 player games are unaffected.

My vote goes to leaving it the way it is. If people are concerned over the random luck issues with the map, they can go play Feudal Epic where these concerns are addressed by having 10 starting points.

yeti_c wrote:Would also make it really boring for a fog game.

C.

I just dip-checked, and of the 261k games on the map, 169k are foggy - that's about 65% of games on the map, compared to about 30% (7921 / 25640) of currently active/waiting games. This indicates that Feudal War games are twice as likely to be foggy as any other game, and that more FW games are foggy than sunny. Accordingly, anything that has an adverse impact on foggy FW games should be avoided.

I don't like this idea, although I can see the point in changing it for 3 player games where one player can be disadvantaged by being in Realm and Rebel. I think it's still possible to win from there though so no change should be made.

yeti_c wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

surely with four players, starting at the corners would be more balanced? or am i alone in this?

There's no way to do this with current XML. The starting positions will always be randomly distributed.

Actually - you know - there is a way of doing this...

We could create 4 starting positions in the XML... those would be the 4 starting corners...

This would change 2/3/4 player games.

2 player games would start with 2 corners each. (Middle 2 castles neutral) - No real point in playing this in Fog anymore.
3 player games would start with 1 corners each - and 1 of the other castles. (similar to before but would ensure that all players had a corner - rather than before where one (unlucky player could've started with both middle castles)
4 player games would start with 1 corner each. (Would reduce the effect of Fog)
5 player games would start with 1 castle each and 1 neutral. (note that the neutral could be any of the 6 castles (yes even the corners) - as currently)
6 player games would start with 1 castle each. (as currently)

Thoughts?

C.

No! Jebus - that would destroy the map. That's the whole attraction with FW, playing it out from different/random starting positions.

I am against this proposal too. One of the fun things is trying to figure out where your opponents are.

A doubles game with fog? You would exactly know where your opponents are from the start, for example.

Lx

yeti_c wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

surely with four players, starting at the corners would be more balanced? or am i alone in this?

There's no way to do this with current XML. The starting positions will always be randomly distributed.

Actually - you know - there is a way of doing this...

We could create 4 starting positions in the XML... those would be the 4 starting corners...

This would change 2/3/4 player games.

2 player games would start with 2 corners each. (Middle 2 castles neutral) - No real point in playing this in Fog anymore.
3 player games would start with 1 corners each - and 1 of the other castles. (similar to before but would ensure that all players had a corner - rather than before where one (unlucky player could've started with both middle castles)
4 player games would start with 1 corner each. (Would reduce the effect of Fog)
5 player games would start with 1 castle each and 1 neutral. (note that the neutral could be any of the 6 castles (yes even the corners) - as currently)
6 player games would start with 1 castle each. (as currently)

Thoughts?

C.

NONONONONONONONONON

GOD no

listen man. Here are the reasons this is the best map in CC and sheer genius either purposeful or by accident on your part when you made it.

1) FW is like a detective game. In fog when you follow the cards and territories and bonus, the studious players can tell where everyone is. Or get it down to good guesses.
2) starting positions are different and they have real weaknesses and strengths. There are good and bad ways to play every starting spot.
3) Its tight and can be logical and chaotic. The blind splits are sheer joyfulness and add an aspect that makes or breaks every game.
4) playing no spoils or esc 6 man sunny -its perfectly balanced. Playing 3 man sunny no spoils or esc- perfectly balanced. In my mind this makes a fair map.



before I left last october, Crash and I were working on a feudal II map. He is like #2 in the game on that map and I was like 15th at the time.
There are a few things that could be improved there, but not these changes. Feudal Epic is a nice map... but i was expecting way more :S

anyway cheers, and please dont change something that is voted as the best map in the game.

Thanks for all of the responses guys...

Looks like there will be no further changes then.

I have to say - I was on the side of "no change" - but wanted to see everyone else unbiased opinions.

C.

Adore the map, but i'm playing currently in 8014958 and i must say with 6 people it does feel that the Great Kingdom castle does start with a stronger position than the others. Would someone experienced with the map explain why this isnt the case?

Nice work with the natural & simple map; can you remove the ???????????????????????? marks?

It's simple: don't play Fog of War games.
It's not the map but the options of that game the reason for the question marks on it http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?m ... tructions3

There is a problem with the balancing of the map when playing 1v1. One of the players will start with both top castles, the other one will start with both middle castles. That makes all the bottom part of the map free to take for the middle starting player. I did a game with trench in this map, I had simply no chance what so ever.

The castle(s) you start on are determined randomly and independently each game.