Route 66 [Quenched]

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

Moderators: Cartographers, Global Moderators

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Route 66: coordinates on pg 13

Postby Darthvadar on Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:15 am

Game 5722032

My opponent held route 66 and it did you win him the game. Does this need fixing??
User avatar
Captain Darthvadar
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:23 am
Medals: 35
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (1)
Tournament Contribution (1)

Re: Route 66: coordinates on pg 13

Postby yeti_c on Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:38 pm

Reading comprehension isn't strong in this one.

C.
Image
Highest score : 2297
User avatar
Lieutenant yeti_c
 
Posts: 9670
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:02 am
Medals: 46
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3)
General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (13) Tournament Contribution (1) General Contribution (10)

Re: Route 66: coordinates on pg 13

Postby MrBenn on Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:02 pm

soccerghost wrote:On a side note, I have been involved in two games where the opposing player help Route 66 and didn't win, and I think it's a bug or something......
the.killing.44 wrote:There is no <objective> tag in the XML.
oaktown wrote:shit... I'll fix it right now and send up the new code to whomever. Several of us missed this!
oaktown wrote:This is why we have a BETA stage, right? :D

Updated lackattack with XML I have.
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
Retired Team Member
 
Posts: 7049
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty
Medals: 67
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (2)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (15)

Re: Route 66: coordinates on pg 13

Postby Aalmeida17 on Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:14 am

i have play the map and hold the all route66 and dont win why?
User avatar
Captain Aalmeida17
 
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:05 pm
Location: Queens NY, NY
Medals: 71
Most Improved Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (11)
General Achievement (2) Challenge Achievement (3) Tournament Contribution (9)

Re: Route 66: coordinates on pg 13

Postby Aalmeida17 on Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:14 am

5727601
User avatar
Captain Aalmeida17
 
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:05 pm
Location: Queens NY, NY
Medals: 71
Most Improved Bronze (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (2)
Terminator Achievement (2) Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (1)
Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Battle Royale Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (11)
General Achievement (2) Challenge Achievement (3) Tournament Contribution (9)

Re: Route 66: coordinates on pg 13

Postby the.killing.44 on Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:20 pm

Christ, read the post right above you!
User avatar
Major the.killing.44
 
Posts: 4737
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:43 pm
Location: now tell me what got two gums and knows how to spit rhymes
Medals: 47
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) General Achievement (3)
Clan Achievement (3) Map Contribution (2) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (4)

Re: Route 66: coordinates on pg 13

Postby AndrewB on Sun Oct 11, 2009 11:37 pm

The bonuses are off for the 2 player game.

If you are first one to go, u are getting an indefinite lead by 1 army, unless your dice screw u up: If u conquer at least one country in the first round (85% chance), u are getting 1 more army then the second player. Then in the second round u need to conquer 2 with deployment of 5 (at least 56%, if u cannot reuse anything from the first round). And so on and so forth.

A quick scan through the completed sequential automatic 1vs1 proves it. Out of the 20 games I have checked, only 6 were win by the second starting player.

The game play is quite an unbalanced for 1vs1.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST
Medals: 72
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (22) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (8)
Map Contribution (3) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (2)

Re: Route 66: coordinates on pg 13

Postby Teflon Kris on Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:42 am

Complaining many players are when held objective is.

LackAttack kicked ass must be.

When done is this balanced restored will be to the force.
User avatar
Captain Teflon Kris
 
Posts: 3739
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:39 pm
Location: Lancashire, United Kingdom
Medals: 174
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (4)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (30)
General Achievement (14) Clan Achievement (20) Challenge Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (32) General Contribution (8)

Re: Route 66: coordinates on pg 13

Postby oaktown on Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:34 am

AndrewB wrote:The bonuses are off for the 2 player game.

If you are first one to go, u are getting an indefinite lead by 1 army, unless your dice screw u up: If u conquer at least one country in the first round (85% chance), u are getting 1 more army then the second player. Then in the second round u need to conquer 2 with deployment of 5 (at least 56%, if u cannot reuse anything from the first round). And so on and so forth.

A quick scan through the completed sequential automatic 1vs1 proves it. Out of the 20 games I have checked, only 6 were win by the second starting player.

The game play is quite an unbalanced for 1vs1.

For starters, player 1 isn't starting with a lead, because player 2 gets to start with the same deployment: 4 armies. This isn't a lead, you're just BOTH getting more armies than you would in a four player game, for example. In order for P1 to reduce P2's deployment, he has to take two territories, since the players don't start with any adjoining territories. In most games P1 should get his 10th territory by the end of round 2, but chances are he has done so by hitting neutrals and he has set himself up to be attacked directly by P2.

You say that 70% of 1v1 games were won by player 1? Sounds about like any other map. 1v1 games always gives an advantage to player 1, and while this may be particularly so on a small map like this it is also particular so in large maps like World 2.1, where player one starts with enough armies to really put the screws to player 2.

Anyway, if you look back through the thread this was discussed a bit, but if somebody has a concrete suggesting, I'll happily consider it. Keep in mind that any significant changes to the number of territories that improves 1v1 games may negatively impact other game types.

I suspect that somebody who plays this map a lot will figure out how to play it as player 2. And in the end if this turns out to be a less-than-ideal 1v1 map, the community will realize that and not start so many 1v1s on it. Not every map is going to perfect for every game type.
Image
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Route 66: coordinates on pg 13

Postby AndyDufresne on Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:02 pm

oaktown wrote:I suspect that somebody who plays this map a lot will figure out how to play it as player 2. And in the end if this turns out to be a less-than-ideal 1v1 map, the community will realize that and not start so many 1v1s on it. Not every map is going to perfect for every game type.


Right, there will always be maps that don't create as quality games as others for certain settings (however you define "quality").

As long as a map isn't horribly out-of-whack, and serves a majority of settings, it is an acceptable map I'd say.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25477
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo
Medals: 20
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) General Achievement (4) General Contribution (2)

Re: Route 66: coordinates on pg 13

Postby AndrewB on Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:17 pm

oaktown wrote:For starters, player 1 isn't starting with a lead, because player 2 gets to start with the same deployment: 4 armies. This isn't a lead, you're just BOTH getting more armies than you would in a four player game, for example.


I think I've explained, how it works. He will be getting more armies other turn aside from the first.

oaktown wrote: In order for P1 to reduce P2's deployment, he has to take two territories, since the players don't start with any adjoining territories. In most games P1 should get his 10th territory by the end of round 2,


Again, read my post. There is 85% chance that he will get the 10th territory in the first round.

oaktown wrote:but chances are he has done so by hitting neutrals and he has set himself up to be attacked directly by P2.


There are several attack routes, without one being exposed to P2.

oaktown wrote:You say that 70% of 1v1 games were won by player 1? Sounds about like any other map. 1v1 games always gives an advantage to player 1, and while this may be particularly so on a small map like this it is also particular so in large maps like World 2.1, where player one starts with enough armies to really put the screws to player 2.


It maybe true in some small map, but any other map, compared in size to Route 66, does not give that advantage.

oaktown wrote:Anyway, if you look back through the thread this was discussed a bit, but if somebody has a concrete suggesting, I'll happily consider it. Keep in mind that any significant changes to the number of territories that improves 1v1 games may negatively impact other game types.


You can do the following:

1. Decrease the starting count for the players.
2. Increase the starting count for the players.
3. Make the first step to an extra army at 11 countries, not 10.

Basically anything, which will prevent getting an extra 1 army by just conquering 1 country from the start.

oaktown wrote:I suspect that somebody who plays this map a lot will figure out how to play it as player 2. And in the end if this turns out to be a less-than-ideal 1v1 map, the community will realize that and not start so many 1v1s on it. Not every map is going to perfect for every game type.


I thought it is task of the map-maker to make the map balanced for all the types of the game; and not to rely on community to "not to start many 1vs1 on it". Here is the quote from your own post, oaktown:

Subject: Mapmaker's Guide to the Foundry - in progress

oaktown wrote:Balanced Gameplay
Basically this means that a map should be fair for all players. We've all been in games where one player got a lucky drop and began the game with all of Australia, and while you can't account for luck you take into consideration whether or not your map will be prone to advantageous starts, or will quickly become lop-sided affairs. When developing your gameplay consider the following:
Game type flexibility. The map should support various game types and not be designed with specific/limited game settings in mind (standard, assassin, fog of war, 2-8 players, etc.).
Open-play. There should be many ways a game might progress on a map, and multiple roads to victory. Such features as unpassable borders should enhance, not limit, gameplay, and every effort should be made to limit the number of dead ends and bottlenecks in a map, unless they are justified by the desired play of the map. The map should be fun to play, not frustrating.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST
Medals: 72
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (22) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (8)
Map Contribution (3) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (2)

Re: Route 66: we know that the objective doesn't work

Postby Teflon Kris on Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:47 pm

Well, I guess the above debate could be informed by whatever typical stats are for player 1 winning on non-small maps and stats for this map with a statistically sound number of games to get a reliable figure (50+ ?).

Even if it proves to be slightly above the average then it would prove to be a map to avoid for those with 1 v 1 wisdom. As long as the map is less skewed than Egypt:Lower then it fulfils requirements, I would think.

Theoretically, there shouldn't be too much player 1 advantage given that P1 cant easily attack P2. However, the fact that it is easy to move to an extra troop partly counteracts this fact.

Essentially, if P1 has reasonable dice in the first 2 rounds he is winning a territory race and can then work on Route 66 - here is where the player leading at the end of round 2/3 can really start to build a massive advantage.

As far as 1 v 1 is concerned, the bonus for holding cities on the route can quickly accumulate and finish the game off. It may be worth considering adjusting this just as it may be worth considering adjusting the normal territory bonus.

However, any such adjustments may affect games with larger numbers of players. It is worth assessing how the map plays with larger numbers of players and if a change would be detrimental. If so, it is up to oak if he wishes to change the balance in favour of 1 v 1 or not.

Ultimately, we need reliable 1 v 1 stats, to make comparisons and determine how much extra advantage is acceptable in 1 v 1, as well as to assess how the map plays with more players.
User avatar
Captain Teflon Kris
 
Posts: 3739
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:39 pm
Location: Lancashire, United Kingdom
Medals: 174
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (4) Triples Achievement (4) Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (3)
Assassin Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4) Polymorphic Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4)
Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (4) Speed Achievement (4) Teammate Achievement (3) Random Map Achievement (4)
Cross-Map Achievement (4) Beta Map Achievement (2) Bot Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (30)
General Achievement (14) Clan Achievement (20) Challenge Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (32) General Contribution (8)

Re: Route 66: we know that the objective doesn't work

Postby darkseb on Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:07 pm

This map is awesome. Only one things id change (my opinion like it matters loll)
id put 4 neutral on the route 66...since its as easy as any other territories to take but it gives more unit ... if you are playing it well you just have to take one territoiries to another on the route and its easy (with some luck and good deployement)...

having 4 neutral on route 66 would make it more fair for everyone and would also make a kind of barrier between 'southern' and 'northern' part.

However nice map Oak
User avatar
Major darkseb
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:15 am
Location: Quebec, Canada
Medals: 44
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (8) Clan Achievement (6) Tournament Contribution (2)

Re: Route 66: we know that the objective doesn't work

Postby oaktown on Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:40 pm

darkseb wrote:This map is awesome. Only one things id change (my opinion like it matters loll)
id put 4 neutral on the route 66...since its as easy as any other territories to take but it gives more unit ... if you are playing it well you just have to take one territoiries to another on the route and its easy (with some luck and good deployement)...

This was also discussed at length earlier in the map's development... at one point I was actually in favor of starting each Route territory with 4 armies, but in general CC users don't like seeing stacks of neutrals to begin a game. It is the opinion of many that large neutral stacks slows a game down too much, but I don't really give a rat's ass about this concern - some maps might be better if slowed a bit. The concern that persuaded me was that large neutrals on the Route cities might make players avoid those territories altogether, which would indeed be a shame because that's what the map is about. Reopening this discussion may have some merit, especially given the trouble that 1v1 players may be having. I'll discuss this further below...

@ AndrewB: it was certainly not my intention to dismiss your concerns about 1v1 games. As I said I am open to suggestions and I would be happy to implement any gameplay change that improves 1v1 play without negatively impacting play in other game types. There are four suggestions that have been floated...

1. Decrease the starting count for the players. (I assume this means increase the number of starting terits/player). Unlike most maps, we could actually decrease the starting counts for 1v1 games and not impact other game types, because of the pre-coded start positions. Starts were pre-coded because there was concern that a 1v1 drop could be unfair, and that both players need access to route territories. Trouble is that means both players start with 9 territories, not 7. Eliminating the start position makes the start more random, but perhaps improves gameplay. Right now this is my favorite option, and I'll outline how this can happen below.

2. Increase the starting count for the players. Would mean coding more start positions, which still would not impact other game types. I feel like this could actually make the problem worse, no?

3. Make the first step to an extra army at 11 countries, not 10. Unfortunately such a change would mean changing all other game types, and anyone who has played a 5+ player game on this map knows how long it takes to get up to ten territories.

4. Put 4 neutral on the route 66 territories. Would certainly slow down expansion in 1v1 games and force players to go after each other rather than just hitting dead zones for bonuses, but it might reduce other games to an absolute crawl. I wouldn't be opposed to possibly adding an army to every other Route 66 territory, but I'm afraid this might just create barriers in random spots of the map and limit action.

Here's what I propose we do: decrease the number of territories per coded starting position to two. This means there would be four territories pre-coded, and 17 randomly assigned (5 to P1, 5 to P2, 7 N). In a 1v1 game, P1 and P2 would each start with seven territories, which means both start round 1 with 3 armies (it is currently four). Then you'd need the regular luck to pick up an 8th territory in round 1 to increase your bonus, and it should take until at least round 3 to pick up a 10th - thus until round 4 before anybody deploys 5 armies. That gives P2 three opportunities to do something about it.

Coding just two starts obviously doesn't mix up the board as much as six, so we'll need to be strategic. I'm thinking we give Fresno and Des Moines to opposing players, so that both have access to an end of the route. Then I'm thinking the Des Moines player would also get Phoenix to be guaranteed at least minimal access to the western half of the route, and give the Fresno player Texarkana. This is also nice in that each player has a northern and southern territory.


Here's the new code... no reason not to get it up and running with the Objective fix.
http://www.snapdrive.net/files/612537/route.xml

Code: Select all
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<map>
   <title>Route 66</title>
   <smallwidth>630</smallwidth>
   <smallheight>473</smallheight>
   <largewidth>840</largewidth>
   <largeheight>630</largeheight>
   <filetype>jpg</filetype>

<reinforcements>
   <reinforcement>
      <lower>1</lower>
      <upper>48</upper>
      <divisor>2</divisor>
   </reinforcement>
</reinforcements>

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory>Fresno</territory>
      <territory>Texarkana</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Phoenix</territory>
      <territory>Des Moines</territory>
   </position>
</positions>

<objective>
   <name>Route 66</name>
   <components>
         <territory>Los Angeles</territory>
         <territory>Barstow</territory>
         <territory>Kingman</territory>
         <territory>Flagstaff</territory>
         <territory>Albuquerque</territory>
         <territory>Amarillo</territory>
         <territory>Oklahoma City</territory>
         <territory>Tulsa</territory>
         <territory>Joplin</territory>
         <territory>St. Louis</territory>
         <territory>Chicago</territory>
   </components>
</objective>


   <continent>
      <name>Adjoining Route Cities</name>
      <bonus>1</bonus>
      <components>
         <territory>Los Angeles</territory>
         <territory>Barstow</territory>
         <territory>Kingman</territory>
      </components>
   </continent>

   <continent>
      <name>Adjoining Route Cities</name>
      <bonus>1</bonus>
      <components>
         <territory>Barstow</territory>
         <territory>Kingman</territory>
         <territory>Flagstaff</territory>
      </components>
   </continent>

   <continent>
      <name>Adjoining Route Cities</name>
      <bonus>1</bonus>
      <components>
         <territory>Kingman</territory>
         <territory>Flagstaff</territory>
         <territory>Albuquerque</territory>
      </components>
   </continent>

   <continent>
      <name>Adjoining Route Cities</name>
      <bonus>1</bonus>
      <components>
         <territory>Flagstaff</territory>
         <territory>Albuquerque</territory>
         <territory>Amarillo</territory>
      </components>
   </continent>

   <continent>
      <name>Adjoining Route Cities</name>
      <bonus>1</bonus>
      <components>
         <territory>Albuquerque</territory>
         <territory>Amarillo</territory>
         <territory>Oklahoma City</territory>
      </components>
   </continent>

   <continent>
      <name>Adjoining Route Cities</name>
      <bonus>1</bonus>
      <components>
         <territory>Amarillo</territory>
         <territory>Oklahoma City</territory>
         <territory>Tulsa</territory>
      </components>
   </continent>

   <continent>
      <name>Adjoining Route Cities</name>
      <bonus>1</bonus>
      <components>
         <territory>Oklahoma City</territory>
         <territory>Tulsa</territory>
         <territory>Joplin</territory>
      </components>
   </continent>

   <continent>
      <name>Adjoining Route Cities</name>
      <bonus>1</bonus>
      <components>
         <territory>Tulsa</territory>
         <territory>Joplin</territory>
         <territory>St. Louis</territory>
      </components>
   </continent>

   <continent>
      <name>Adjoining Route Cities</name>
      <bonus>1</bonus>
      <components>
         <territory>Joplin</territory>
         <territory>St. Louis</territory>
         <territory>Chicago</territory>
      </components>
   </continent>


   <territory>
      <name>Los Angeles</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Fresno</border>
         <border>Barstow</border>            
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>47</smallx>
         <smally>353</smally>
         <largex>67</largex>
         <largey>466</largey>
      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Barstow</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Los Angeles</border>
         <border>Yuma</border>      
         <border>Kingman</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>80</smallx>
         <smally>333</smally>
         <largex>109</largex>
         <largey>435</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Kingman</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Barstow</border>
         <border>Las Vegas</border>      
         <border>Flagstaff</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>132</smallx>
         <smally>323</smally>
         <largex>173</largex>
         <largey>424</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Flagstaff</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Albuquerque</border>
         <border>Phoenix</border>      
         <border>Kingman</border>      
         <border>Grand Canyon</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>170</smallx>
         <smally>312</smally>
         <largex>225</largex>
         <largey>407</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Albuquerque</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Flagstaff</border>
         <border>Santa Fe</border>      
         <border>Roswell</border>      
         <border>Amarillo</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>264</smallx>
         <smally>302</smally>
         <largex>348</largex>
         <largey>395</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Amarillo</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Raton</border>
         <border>Lubbock</border>      
         <border>Oklahoma City</border>      
         <border>Albuquerque</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>368</smallx>
         <smally>281</smally>
         <largex>490</largex>
         <largey>367</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Oklahoma City</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Tulsa</border>
         <border>Amarillo</border>
         <border>Dallas</border>         
         <border>Texarkana</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>433</smallx>
         <smally>259</smally>
         <largex>577</largex>
         <largey>337</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Tulsa</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Oklahoma City</border>
         <border>Joplin</border>         
         <border>Topeka</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>475</smallx>
         <smally>227</smally>
         <largex>632</largex>
         <largey>298</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Joplin</name>
      <borders>
         <border>St. Louis</border>
         <border>Tulsa</border>   
         <border>Little Rock</border>         
         <border>Kansas City</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>503</smallx>
         <smally>194</smally>
         <largex>663</largex>
         <largey>253</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>St. Louis</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Chicago</border>
         <border>Joplin</border>         
         <border>Pocahontas</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>541</smallx>
         <smally>145</smally>
         <largex>718</largex>
         <largey>184</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Chicago</name>
      <borders>
         <border>St. Louis</border>
         <border>Des Moines</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>538</smallx>
         <smally>58</smally>
         <largex>720</largex>
         <largey>68</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>


   <territory>
      <name>Tucson</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Yuma</border>
         <border>Phoenix</border>         
         <border>Las Cruces</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>180</smallx>
         <smally>381</smally>
         <largex>238</largex>
         <largey>501</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Roswell</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Albuquerque</border>
         <border>Las Cruces</border>         
         <border>El Paso</border>         
         <border>Lubbock</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>290</smallx>
         <smally>338</smally>
         <largex>387</largex>
         <largey>445</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>San Angelo</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Lubbock</border>
         <border>El Paso</border>         
         <border>San Antonio</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>394</smallx>
         <smally>347</smally>
         <largex>523</largex>
         <largey>458</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Dallas</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Oklahoma City</border>
         <border>San Antonio</border>         
         <border>Texarkana</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>439</smallx>
         <smally>313</smally>
         <largex>585</largex>
         <largey>411</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Little Rock</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Pocahontas</border>
         <border>Joplin</border>         
         <border>Texarkana</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>528</smallx>
         <smally>239</smally>
         <largex>704</largex>
         <largey>313</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Kansas City</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Joplin</border>
         <border>Topeka</border>         
         <border>Des Moines</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>481</smallx>
         <smally>162</smally>
         <largex>631</largex>
         <largey>210</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Omaha</name>
      <borders>
         <border>North Platte</border>
         <border>Topeka</border>         
         <border>Des Moines</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>426</smallx>
         <smally>119</smally>
         <largex>574</largex>
         <largey>152</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Salina</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Oakley</border>
         <border>Topeka</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>413</smallx>
         <smally>186</smally>
         <largex>545</largex>
         <largey>242</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Denver</name>
      <borders>
         <border>North Platte</border>
         <border>Oakley</border>         
         <border>Pueblo</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>275</smallx>
         <smally>188</smally>
         <largex>370</largex>
         <largey>244</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Raton</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Amarillo</border>
         <border>Pueblo</border>         
         <border>Santa Fe</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>296</smallx>
         <smally>245</smally>
         <largex>389</largex>
         <largey>322</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Grand Junction</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Pueblo</border>
         <border>Greenriver</border>         
         <border>Four Corners</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>238</smallx>
         <smally>226</smally>
         <largex>314</largex>
         <largey>293</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Grand Canyon</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Flagstaff</border>
         <border>Four Corners</border>         
         <border>Zion</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>165</smallx>
         <smally>272</smally>
         <largex>218</largex>
         <largey>353</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Salt Lake City</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Greenriver</border>
         <border>Zion</border>         
         <border>Elko</border>         
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>163</smallx>
         <smally>174</smally>
         <largex>219</largex>
         <largey>225</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Winnemucca</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Elko</border>
         <border>Reno</border>      
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>82</smallx>
         <smally>181</smally>
         <largex>106</largex>
         <largey>234</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Tahoe</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Las Vegas</border>
         <border>Reno</border>      
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>73</smallx>
         <smally>237</smally>
         <largex>75</largex>
         <largey>299</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Sacramento</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Fresno</border>
         <border>Reno</border>      
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>18</smallx>
         <smally>237</smally>
         <largex>26</largex>
         <largey>310</largey>

      </coordinates>
     <neutral>3</neutral>
   </territory>


   <territory>
      <name>Fresno</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Los Angeles</border>
         <border>Sacramento</border>      
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>41</smallx>
         <smally>300</smally>
         <largex>56</largex>
         <largey>390</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Phoenix</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Flagstaff</border>
         <border>Tucson</border>      
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>181</smallx>
         <smally>344</smally>
         <largex>239</largex>
         <largey>453</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Pueblo</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Grand Junction</border>
         <border>Raton</border>      
         <border>Denver</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>288</smallx>
         <smally>212</smally>
         <largex>384</largex>
         <largey>278</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Lubbock</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Amarillo</border>
         <border>Roswell</border>      
         <border>San Angelo</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>376</smallx>
         <smally>316</smally>
         <largex>495</largex>
         <largey>415</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Topeka</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Tulsa</border>
         <border>Kansas City</border>      
         <border>Salina</border>      
         <border>Omaha</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>451</smallx>
         <smally>173</smally>
         <largex>599</largex>
         <largey>225</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Pocahontas</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Little Rock</border>
         <border>St. Louis</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>540</smallx>
         <smally>202</smally>
         <largex>721</largex>
         <largey>264</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>


   <territory>
      <name>Des Moines</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Chicago</border>
         <border>Omaha</border>
         <border>Kansas City</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>469</smallx>
         <smally>107</smally>
         <largex>624</largex>
         <largey>133</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Texarkana</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Oklahoma City</border>
         <border>Little Rock</border>
         <border>Dallas</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>510</smallx>
         <smally>278</smally>
         <largex>682</largex>
         <largey>365</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>El Paso</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Roswell</border>
         <border>San Angelo</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>286</smallx>
         <smally>390</smally>
         <largex>385</largex>
         <largey>507</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Santa Fe</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Raton</border>
         <border>Albuquerque</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>270</smallx>
         <smally>271</smally>
         <largex>358</largex>
         <largey>357</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Las Vegas</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Kingman</border>
         <border>Tahoe</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>109</smallx>
         <smally>290</smally>
         <largex>142</largex>
         <largey>378</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Yuma</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Barstow</border>
         <border>Tucson</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>115</smallx>
         <smally>365</smally>
         <largex>152</largex>
         <largey>481</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>


   <territory>
      <name>Reno</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Sacramento</border>
         <border>Tahoe</border>   
         <border>Winnemucca</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>43</smallx>
         <smally>202</smally>
         <largex>54</largex>
         <largey>261</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Elko</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Salt Lake City</border>   
         <border>Winnemucca</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>121</smallx>
         <smally>183</smally>
         <largex>155</largex>
         <largey>237</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Zion</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Salt Lake City</border>   
         <border>Grand Canyon</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>161</smallx>
         <smally>232</smally>
         <largex>211</largex>
         <largey>305</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>   

   <territory>
      <name>Greenriver</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Salt Lake City</border>   
         <border>Grand Junction</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>194</smallx>
         <smally>211</smally>
         <largex>263</largex>
         <largey>273</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Four Corners</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Grand Canyon</border>   
         <border>Grand Junction</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>217</smallx>
         <smally>251</smally>
         <largex>290</largex>
         <largey>332</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>North Platte</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Denver</border>   
         <border>Omaha</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>338</smallx>
         <smally>132</smally>
         <largex>442</largex>
         <largey>171</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Oakley</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Denver</border>   
         <border>Salina</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>365</smallx>
         <smally>193</smally>
         <largex>476</largex>
         <largey>253</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>Las Cruces</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Tucson</border>   
         <border>Roswell</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>237</smallx>
         <smally>362</smally>
         <largex>321</largex>
         <largey>475</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

   <territory>
      <name>San Antonio</name>
      <borders>
         <border>San Angelo</border>   
         <border>Dallas</border>   
      </borders>
      <coordinates>
         <smallx>438</smallx>
         <smally>371</smally>
         <largex>580</largex>
         <largey>489</largey>

      </coordinates>
   </territory>

</map>


As for the "balanced gameplay" piece of the old How to Make A Map" - we've long acknowledged in here that not every map will be ideal for every game type. The only way to make that work would be to start eliminating game features, and nobody wants that. What a map should NOT do is only work in one game type; a map should not be designed so that it is great in 1v1 but a disaster in all other settings, for example. This is not the case here; I think that this map works for team games, multi-player games, fog or no fog, terminator, assassin, etc. I would, of course, like it to work for 1v1 games as well, but again not if it means sacrificing all other game types.
Image
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Route 66: we know that the objective doesn't work

Postby AndrewB on Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:27 pm

oaktown wrote:Here's what I propose we do: decrease the number of territories per coded starting position to two. This means there would be four territories pre-coded, and 17 randomly assigned (5 to P1, 5 to P2, 7 N). In a 1v1 game, P1 and P2 would each start with seven territories, which means both start round 1 with 3 armies (it is currently four). Then you'd need the regular luck to pick up an 8th territory in round 1 to increase your bonus, and it should take until at least round 3 to pick up a 10th - thus until round 4 before anybody deploys 5 armies. That gives P2 three opportunities to do something about it.

Coding just two starts obviously doesn't mix up the board as much as six, so we'll need to be strategic. I'm thinking we give Fresno and Des Moines to opposing players, so that both have access to an end of the route. Then I'm thinking the Des Moines player would also get Phoenix to be guaranteed at least minimal access to the western half of the route, and give the Fresno player Texarkana. This is also nice in that each player has a northern and southern territory.



Is there any way to start the 1vs1 game with 8 territories? Cause the proposed solution is not fixing the problem, really.

Currently u need just 1 territory to get extra 1 army in round 1. So does the proposed solution.

If they would start with 6 territories, then it would be ideal. Second best options is to start with 8 (but starting with 6 is better).
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST
Medals: 72
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (22) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (8)
Map Contribution (3) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (2)

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

Postby MrBenn on Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:11 pm

Any changes to the number of starting territories in 1v1 will de-facto effect the number of starting territories in all other game types.

If you reduce the number of starts per player to 8 (or 6) in 1v1, then there will only be 24 (or 18) starting territories available for all other game-types.
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
Retired Team Member
 
Posts: 7049
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty
Medals: 67
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (2)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (15)

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

Postby AndrewB on Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:16 pm

Ok, make it 10 then... Really any even number is better...
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST
Medals: 72
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (22) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (8)
Map Contribution (3) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (2)

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

Postby oaktown on Tue Oct 13, 2009 7:57 pm

MrBenn wrote:Any changes to the number of starting territories in 1v1 will de-facto effect the number of starting territories in all other game types.

If you reduce the number of starts per player to 8 (or 6) in 1v1, then there will only be 24 (or 18) starting territories available for all other game-types.

Actually no, in this case we can reduce the # of starts/player in 1v1 without changing the total # of territories in the starting pool simply by removing some of the predetermined starts, as I've explained at length in the previous post. Right now there are 21 "starting" territories, but I'd coded 1v1 starts so that each player opened the game with 8.

AndrewB wrote:Is there any way to start the 1vs1 game with 8 territories? Cause the proposed solution is not fixing the problem, really.
Currently u need just 1 territory to get extra 1 army in round 1. So does the proposed solution.
If they would start with 6 territories, then it would be ideal. Second best options is to start with 8 (but starting with 6 is better).

Yes, it is possible. It would be quite simple: pre-set three starting territories per player. The 15 remaining territories would be split evenly among P1, P2, and N; 3+5=8.

However, I don't see this as being better than starting with 7. I get that starting with eight territories would require two captures to get to the next step, but those captures would both be virtual locks for player 1 since he would start each round by placing four armies. It seems as if we still have the problem of P1 being given an easy road to consistently higher bonuses than player 1. At least by starting with seven territories we restore the old "luck of the intensity cubes" factor since P1 only gets to start the game by placing three... both players have the same odds of ending round 1 with 8 territories, though what happens from there is about luck and tactics.

AndrewB wrote:Ok, make it 10 then... Really any even number is better...

Then P2 crashes through a neutral and takes out an opponent, pushing his per turn deployment to six and knocking P2's to four, and the game is over. Wasn't the concern allowing one player to have access to a deployment advantage?

My hope in designing this map was that it would actually make a decent 1v1 game, since P1 can't start the game by directly whacking P2. And if P1 does take an adjoining territory and threaten P2, P2 gets the first crack at attacking P1 with a full force. I see now that giving the players an extra army from the get-go actually mitigates the buffer territories, since with a bit of luck you could actually crash through a buffer territory and take one from your opponent. Having played a 1v1 game and analyzed the start (and having won that game as P2) I personally think it would be better to start everybody with the standard 3 army initial deployment.

The XML has been updated to start everybody at 7 in 1v1s. I'll pick up a game or two and see how that pans out, and wait to hear from everybody. Any thoughts from the gameplay gurus out there?
Image
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

Postby AndrewB on Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:04 pm

How about starting 6 in 1vs1? Would that be possible?

7 starting is better then 9. But 8 is better then 7. And 6 is the best of them all...
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST
Medals: 72
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (22) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (8)
Map Contribution (3) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (2)

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

Postby oaktown on Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:34 am

AndrewB wrote:How about starting 6 in 1vs1? Would that be possible?

7 starting is better then 9. But 8 is better then 7. And 6 is the best of them all...

I agree that 6 is best, but I don't agree that 8 is better than 7. I still think it's best to start folks with three armies in round one and let them roll to get up to four. Why is better for both players to have a deployment of four in round one than for both players to have the same odds of having a deployment of four in round two? Since getting up to 10 territories seems to be the magic number that kicked off this whole discussion, why not delay that for as long as possible?

Starting with six each is impossible without disrupting other game types, because it means coding more neutrals. Right now there are 21 territories that aren't neutral to start the game, and in a 1v1 those 21 territories are split between P1, P2, and Neutral. We can take away some of the neutrals to 1v1 games by coding starts, but we can't add any neutrals... CC's gameplay architecture is such that you are limited in the ways that you can set starting conditions for 1v1 games only (probably because CC didn't launch with 1v1 games as an option).

I could code another territory neutral and drop the starts to twenty (edit), but it would mean fewer starts in 3 player and 7 players games This would not the end of the world, but which territory do we lose? Right now the non-Route territories are pretty evenly split between coded neutrals and coded starts, so setting another territory as neutral means creating some serious dead space somewhere in the map. Personally I think there is more than enough of this map that is unplayable to begin the game as it is.

For now i can live with seven starts/player. Again, I'll play it out a couple of times, and I'm open to further input.
Last edited by oaktown on Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Captain oaktown
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: majorcommand
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (1) General Achievement (1) Map Contribution (12)
General Contribution (5)

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

Postby AndrewB on Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:59 pm

Let see, how 7 works out...
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST
Medals: 72
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (2)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (22) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (8)
Map Contribution (3) Tournament Contribution (7) General Contribution (2)

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

Postby MrBenn on Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:52 pm

Two weeks with no complaints - time for the quench-ship to set sail....
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
Retired Team Member
 
Posts: 7049
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty
Medals: 67
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (2)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (15)

Re: Route 66: objective problem noted; 1v1 fix pg 15

Postby MrBenn on Fri Oct 30, 2009 4:55 pm

              Quenching

---The Beta period has concluded for the Route 66 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.

ImageCongratulations oaktown, your shiny new medal is well-earned =D>


Conquer Club, enjoy!
              Image

--MrBenn
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
Retired Team Member
 
Posts: 7049
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty
Medals: 67
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3)
Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (2)
General Achievement (6) Clan Achievement (1) Map Contribution (7) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (15)

Re: Route 66 [Quenched]

Postby demonfork on Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:55 am

In 1v1 Is it normal(planned that way) to get initial drops that have no bordering territories with your opponent? Or was this just a chance happening?(talking about the one and only game I have played on this map so far)
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class demonfork
 
Posts: 1497
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: Your moms house
Medals: 59
Conqueror Achievement (1) Conquer Cup Bronze Achievement (1) Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2)
Quadruples Achievement (4) Terminator Achievement (1) Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (4) Freestyle Achievement (4)
Polymorphic Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (4) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (4)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (2) Tournament Contribution (2)

Re: Route 66 [Quenched]

Postby the.killing.44 on Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:57 am

demonfork wrote:In 1v1 Is it normal(planned that way) to get initial drops that have no bordering territories with your opponent? Or was this just a chance happening?(talking about the one and only game I have played on this map so far)

It's planned that way.
User avatar
Major the.killing.44
 
Posts: 4737
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:43 pm
Location: now tell me what got two gums and knows how to spit rhymes
Medals: 47
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Assassin Achievement (2) Manual Troops Achievement (2) Freestyle Achievement (3) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2)
Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (3) General Achievement (3)
Clan Achievement (3) Map Contribution (2) Tournament Contribution (2) General Contribution (4)

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login