Conquer Club

Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Care to peruse completed maps? Take a stroll through the Atlas.

Moderator: Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Do you want to have the map changed so Dust territories are given out evenly?

Yes
36
69%
No
16
31%
 
Total votes : 52

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby agentcom on Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:53 am

Chap, I'm not sure I'm with you on this one. While I have suffered and benefited from this "problem." I always found it to be a unique element of the map. I am not one of the people who thinks "The possibility of dropping all of Aus on Classic is WRONG and should be fixed." Uneven drops are part of the game. In this map, the decaying territs are not always disadvantageous. They are centrally located and can give you valuable information. They are also slightly more likely than other territs to be near an opponent in the decaying region. Thus they may be helpful for an easy card later in the game.

As with any drop, there are better and worse drops on any map. The good players distinguish themselves by winning the games where they have an advantage and even picking up a few games where they do not have the advantage.

That said, I would strongly recommend that if you think this is a big enough problem to go back and recode a map that began it's life 5 years ago and after 35 pages of comments is what it is today, then you should be willing to, at the minimum, go back through the last 100 or so games and calculate the win/loss ratio of the players that have more or fewer decaying regions. 100 may be too small a sample size and you might have to control for first turn advantage (larger sample size would obviate this concern). If you find that it's 60/40, then I say leave it as is. If it's 90/10, then do something about it. If it's in between, there needs to be serious discussion about how unfair is too unfair.
User avatar
Colonel agentcom
 
Posts: 3984
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby agentcom on Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:27 pm

OK, I just went through my first 11 1v1 games (I didn't have any team games on this map). You would of course want to take a random sample of all games, but this is at least instructive.

Your independent variables should be first turn (binary- "1" if Team 1 goes first, "0" if not), Team 1/Player 1 decaying regions, Team 2/Player 2 decaying regions; and your dependent variable would be Result (binary-"1" for Team 1 winning, "0" if not. You should also include the game number as the unique identifier for each row of data.

You will then want to run a statistical analysis to see what weight each variable has. If the decaying regions are deciding too many games, you should be able to see this from the statistical results. I think you can do this kind of stuff in excel, although it would be nice if you could get someone to code something to pull this data for you.

The coding to pull the data will be far easier in 1v1 games. Rarely is it a good strategy to attack a decaying region on your first turn, if you go first. So the code would simply look at how many times "received -1 for holding XXX" appears during that first turn for each player. You could probably get all the info you need about this map based on that BUT the results would be skewed toward your desired result (I think) because it seems like the effects of an "imbalanced" drop would be amplified in a 1v1 game.

You could use the same coding in a team game, but the larger the teams, the more likely it is that after a couple of forts, it may become advantageous to hit another team's decaying region before that player has played (especially in flat rate/escalating games, where the decaying region might be the player's only/best shot at a card). Thus the code mentioned above should still serve as a decent proxy for the information that you want, but there may be some territs that get missed.

The way around this would be a little fancier coding. You would have the names of all decaying regions in a set. The code would count player 1's decaying regions at the start of his turn. If during his or any subsequent turn, a decaying region of a player who has not yet played is successfully assaulted, then a +1 is added to the count that will be derived when that assaulted player begins his turn.

If you take the step of programming this additional element, then there is no reason not to use it for the 1v1 games above, even though it won't gather you much more data.

You will really only want to look for games that have two teams/players. Unbalanced drops in multi-player/team games shouldn't really matter as much, for obvious reasons.

Finally, if this code is written in the manner that I described for teams, then this will actually be a useful foundry tool. Inputs would be map name; a user-defined critical territ set (in our case, the decaying regions) a game range (so that a mapmaker can limit results to only the period of the most recent gameplay changes); and perhaps a game-type limiter (perhaps options would be 1v1, team v team or both). The output would tell you, within the selected territories, how much the following 3 things determine results: first turn, quantity of player1's drop w/i selected territories and quantiy of player/team 2's drop w/i selected territs.

Example: I want to know whether the amount of territs dropped in Australia (or Australia and South America or Australia, South America and any immediately adjacent region) has a decisive effect on the end result. I could run this code and find out.
User avatar
Colonel agentcom
 
Posts: 3984
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby chapcrap on Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:53 pm

agentcom wrote:I am not one of the people who thinks "The possibility of dropping all of Aus on Classic is WRONG and should be fixed." Uneven drops are part of the game.

First, there is no way Classic is going to change and I wouldn't advocate it.

Second, the probability of dropping a bonus is always calculated when maps are made now. So, dropping a bonus is unlikely. This is a different situation entirely. I'm just advocating an even drop for the decaying territories. The way it is now is like someone dropping more castles than someone else in Feudal War or King's Court. It completely unbalances the games and it happens too often.

The implementation of the change does not matter to me. I don't know the coding or XML enough to make a great suggestion there. Either have everyone drop them evenly, start them all as 1 neutral or 2 neutral, or start them maybe even start them with 4. But, I like the look, style, and gameplay of this map. I just wish the drop could be made to be even so that the map would be used more.
Lieutenant chapcrap
 
Posts: 9686
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Kansas City

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby agentcom on Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:39 pm

chapcrap wrote:
agentcom wrote:I am not one of the people who thinks "The possibility of dropping all of Aus on Classic is WRONG and should be fixed." Uneven drops are part of the game.

First, there is no way Classic is going to change and I wouldn't advocate it.

Second, the probability of dropping a bonus is always calculated when maps are made now. So, dropping a bonus is unlikely. This is a different situation entirely. I'm just advocating an even drop for the decaying territories. The way it is now is like someone dropping more castles than someone else in Feudal War or King's Court. It completely unbalances the games and it happens too often.

The implementation of the change does not matter to me. I don't know the coding or XML enough to make a great suggestion there. Either have everyone drop them evenly, start them all as 1 neutral or 2 neutral, or start them maybe even start them with 4. But, I like the look, style, and gameplay of this map. I just wish the drop could be made to be even so that the map would be used more.


First, whether you advocate change or not, people make this complaint often. Classic is the typical example, but from time to time you hear it about other maps.

Second, I do not think this "is like someone dropping more castles than someone else in Feudal War or King's Court." That should be an almost automatic win for that player. You have taken my argument ad absurdum. Whether it "completely unbalances the games and ... happens too often." Is up for debate. That was my point. I think the onus should be on you to show this if you want to make the changes to a map that is several years old. I pointed out a relatively simple (for a programmer or someone who doesn't mind data entry) way to evaluate this.
User avatar
Colonel agentcom
 
Posts: 3984
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby ooge on Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:38 pm

yes change it,along with italy
Image
User avatar
Captain ooge
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:31 am
Location: under a bridge

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby puppydog85 on Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:14 am

I don't play the map much but it sounds like a fair suggestion to me. Go ahead and change it.
Sergeant 1st Class puppydog85
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:23 am

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby IcePack on Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:16 pm

PLEASE do this. I can't tell you how many times i've been screwed on the drop. I remember the worst was a multi player game and i think 6 out of 8(?) territories were all in the decay zone.
Brutal, all they had to do was eliminate the other two spots and i basically had no chance...Needs to be addressed.

IcePack
Image

fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
User avatar
Major IcePack
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 16532
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby nicestash on Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:06 am

Do change it
Major nicestash
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 pm

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby pmchugh on Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:43 pm

Remember Pearl Harbour? It got changed and no one liked it. I agree with agentcom in that a bad drop is annoying but part of the map.

I would also be willing to hazard a guess that first turn advantage would be stronger in 1v1 anyway.
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
User avatar
Major pmchugh
 
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:40 pm

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby nagerous on Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:56 pm

I like this map the way it is...
Image
User avatar
Captain nagerous
 
Posts: 7513
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:39 am

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby benga on Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:38 pm

Don't change!
User avatar
Sergeant benga
 
Posts: 6925
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:15 pm

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby chapcrap on Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:30 am

pmchugh wrote:Remember Pearl Harbour? It got changed and no one liked it.

No, I don't remember Pearl Harbour. I know the Pearl Harbor map and it's great.
pmchugh wrote:I agree with agentcom in that a bad drop is annoying but part of the map.

That's a ridiculous statement. It doesn't have to be part of that map. That's the whole point.
pmchugh wrote:I would also be willing to hazard a guess that first turn advantage would be stronger in 1v1 anyway.

You mean like this game? Game 10926098 You went first, but had 5 in the decay area. The other guy only had 1. You lost.
nagerous wrote:I like this map the way it is...

You have played 12 games total on it and only 4 1v1. You haven't played since 2010. Do you even remember the map?
benga wrote:Don't change!

Why? You've lost 4 of your last 5 on the map. Probably because of drops.
Lieutenant chapcrap
 
Posts: 9686
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Kansas City

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby koontz1973 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:24 am

Many of the older maps have quirks about them that can lead to some interesting situations. With dustbowl, it is the unknowing of the amount of regions you get in the decay region. Lets leave it as it is.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby chapcrap on Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:02 am

I looked through many 101 recently finished 1v1 Dust Bowl games. I defined a bad drop as having at least 2 more decaying territories than an opponent. Here are my findings:

56 bad drops
49 times red won
61 times person going first won
14 times person with a bad drop won

Super bad drops (at least 4 more decaying territories):
Lieutenant chapcrap
 
Posts: 9686
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Kansas City

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby DiM on Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:06 am

on this map the person that starts the game has a big advantage because he gets 12 terits and can take at least 1 terit from his opponent dropping him from 12 to 11.

i have 2 games here Game 10323214 and Game 10871366 where my opponent started the game, he took 1-2 terits from me in round 1 thus leaving me with just 3 to deploy, instead of 4 like he had. heck, in one of the games i even failed to conquer any terits in my round 1.
but as soon as his decaying terits reached 1 army i was free to kick his ass and came back to win both games only because he had more terits on the decaying zone.

i agree this might be considered as the flavour of the map but in my opinion it is a bad flavour. a game where you are second and have more terits in the decaying zone is a game where you might as well quit. no amount of strategy will save you and your only hope is getting incredible dice.

we have the power to change this so i say we do it. make the decay are drop to be fair and reduce the starting terits from 12 to 11.
ā€œIn the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.ā€- Michio Kaku
User avatar
Major DiM
 
Posts: 10415
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:20 pm
Location: making maps for scooby snacks

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby koontz1973 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:04 am

Just make them starting territs with a cap of 4. Do not underline the territs with neutrals and your drops, while still random in all games will make the drops far better. So in 1v1 games, both sides will recieve 4 in the decay (8) and the remaining 4 with then go into the random drop. So the odds of getting 2 extra over your opponent is very small. Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby nolefan5311 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:10 am

koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.


We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.

And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.
User avatar
Captain nolefan5311
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:51 am
Location: Florida

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby IcePack on Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:06 am

Game 10903390
I started with 5 in the decay (out of 7)
My opponents COMBINED had 7! (x2 x2 x3 x0)

I nearly managed to win it, but at the same time shouldn't have been so lopsided.
To compare, the player with 0 in the decay starts turn with 21 troops.
My first turn was 16, my second was 11....

And to be clear, I was the target that was eliminated in the game. Had it not been so lopsided who knows who would have won. But even my opponent said it wasn't fair.

IcePack
Image

fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
User avatar
Major IcePack
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 16532
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby MrBenn on Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:15 am

koontz1973 wrote:Just make them starting territs with a cap of 4. Do not underline the territs with neutrals and your drops, while still random in all games will make the drops far better. So in 1v1 games, both sides will recieve 4 in the decay (8) and the remaining 4 with then go into the random drop. So the odds of getting 2 extra over your opponent is very small. Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.

Capping it at 4 is pointless. See my earlier analysis of terrs/drops etc.
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
 
Posts: 6880
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby koontz1973 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:21 am

nolefan5311 wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.


We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.

And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.

That is the foundry of today nole. If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them. Even classic has to have some. When will it all end. Do we really need to go through the process of making all maps even more the same or can we leave some maps that have quirks like this one alone. Considering this map has 77 games waiting for players or playing now, 16 1v1 games, this does not seem to be an unpopular map as it is. If these changes where truly needed, it would of come up a lot sooner considering this map was quenched in 2008.

@MrBenn, read it and it would not work.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby IcePack on Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:29 am

koontz while it maybe "popular" I think it would get more games and attention if some of those drops weren't so god awfully one sided.
I stopped playing it after that assassin game and wot play it again unless something's done.
Image

fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
User avatar
Major IcePack
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 16532
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby koontz1973 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:16 pm

With 212 maps available, not playing some is not really a problem though is it. Would you play it again if the drop had gone the other way? I doubt that this is a popular map but my point is, why have every map the same? Can we not have a little variaty?
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby nolefan5311 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:20 pm

koontz1973 wrote:
nolefan5311 wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.


We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.

And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.

That is the foundry of today nole. If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them. Even classic has to have some. When will it all end. Do we really need to go through the process of making all maps even more the same or can we leave some maps that have quirks like this one alone. Considering this map has 77 games waiting for players or playing now, 16 1v1 games, this does not seem to be an unpopular map as it is. If these changes where truly needed, it would of come up a lot sooner considering this map was quenched in 2008.

@MrBenn, read it and it would not work.


I don't understand the hesitation on this, to be honest. It's not as if we're undertaking a renovation of all maps made prior to 2010 or something. Someone noticed this issue with this one map, requested and received the mapmakers permission to change it, and is in the process of seeing if there is support to change it. We're not going through a process of making all maps identical. If a map has a quirk that makes gameplay inherently unbalanced, should it not be looked at? Or should we leave it alone for the sake of leaving it alone, only because it has those quirks?

And for the record, there are no changes that need to be made to the Classic map to ensure balanced gameplay.

And in reference to your most recent post, what about this change makes this map the same as any other map? There's still going to be the very unique aspect of the decaying territories in the center. It's not like this map is being remade into the Classic map or something.
User avatar
Captain nolefan5311
 
Posts: 1768
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:51 am
Location: Florida

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby koontz1973 on Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:28 pm

If someone requested it and permission was given, then why ask for opinions about it and just do it. But considering one player in 5 years has seen this as a problem, does this really make it a problem.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant koontz1973
 
Posts: 6960
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:57 am

Re: Dust Bowl [Quenched]

Postby IcePack on Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:30 pm

koontz1973 wrote:With 212 maps available, not playing some is not really a problem though is it. Would you play it again if the drop had gone the other way? I doubt that this is a popular map but my point is, why have every map the same? Can we not have a little variaty?


With 212 maps available, no its not a problem. But That's hardly the pint, having a flawed map regardless of how many other choices are available is the problem. Just as you "hypothesized", if we only had 5 maps available would your opinion of the map change?

And that game was where I realized how bad the drops could be. If the drop had gone the other way and my opponent had gotten the bad drop - I still wouldn't play it today bcuz the map has the potential for serious problems.

I don't understand how fixing a map is lessening the variety. I personally am not asking for a specific drop count or anything - I still think there shouldb e a range. But one player getting 5 and another 0 is such a big swing...the potential is there for someone to get 0 and another all 7.....it's totally unfair.

You want variety and luck drops to still "be there" fine but let's shorten up the potential for shit games and give a little are for quality of game.

IcePack
Image

fac vitam incredibilem memento vivere
Knowledge Weighs Nothing, Carry All You Can
User avatar
Major IcePack
Multi Hunter
Multi Hunter
 
Posts: 16532
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users