Gilgamesh; Coordinates on pg 20

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

Moderators: Global Moderators, Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Sun May 03, 2009 6:58 pm

Any chance you could make one more city neutral.

With 5 free cities in 1v1 and 4 to get a bonus...there are 32 possibilities (each city can be with player 1 or 2)
Of those 12 scenarios give someone the starting +2.

If you get it down to 4 free cities and 4 to get a bonus, there are 16 scenarios and only 2 give someone the starting +2 . I t would be like "Starting With Australia" odds in Classic Risk.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Incandenza on Sun May 03, 2009 7:22 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:Any chance you could make one more city neutral.

With 5 free cities in 1v1 and 4 to get a bonus...there are 32 possibilities (each city can be with player 1 or 2)
Of those 12 scenarios give someone the starting +2.

If you get it down to 4 free cities and 4 to get a bonus, there are 16 scenarios and only 2 give someone the starting +2 . I t would be like "Starting With Australia" odds in Classic Risk.


You'd be way better off talking about percentages. And a 7.2% of a bonus drop with the cities is pretty damn good... lowering it too much more might so devalue the cities as terits as to make them extremely unattractive targets.
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM

Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
User avatar
Colonel Incandenza
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Medals: 44
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (8)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby oaktown on Sun May 03, 2009 11:43 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:Any chance you could make one more city neutral.

Trouble is that with the current XML options, coding one more city neutral means one less starting territory for all games. I'm not willing to drop to 41 starting territories - it'd mean I'd have to add a territory somewhere else on the map, which just screws thing up even more.

As I've said before, changing one thing affects everything else.

Merciless Wong wrote:With 5 free cities in 1v1 and 4 to get a bonus...there are 32 possibilities (each city can be with player 1 or 2). Of those 12 scenarios give someone the starting +2.

Wow, 12 of 32... a 37% chance of somebody starting with the +2 would be really bad!! It's a good thing your numbers are wrong because you aren't correctly representing the way Conquer Club games assign territories. A 1v1 game has two players, but three starts (1 is neutral). And there are 42 territories on the board to be assigned - how are there only 32 possibilities?

I calculate the odds of one player getting four cities as 7.2%; logically the odds of player 1 having all four is half that. I can live with a 3.6% chance that somebody starts the game with an unfair advantage... that's the nature of 1v1.

In other news, anybody care which city starts neutral? I stuck in the middle, because I figure it can't be ignored and sit neutral all game. And that's probably the last region to fall, so it shouldn't ruin somebody's start.
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: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Mon May 04, 2009 1:18 pm

Wow, 12 of 32... a 37% chance of somebody starting with the +2 would be really bad!! It's a good thing your numbers are wrong because you aren't correctly representing the way Conquer Club games assign territories. A 1v1 game has two players, but three starts (1 is neutral). And there are 42 territories on the board to be assigned - how are there only 32 possibilities?

I calculate the odds of one player getting four cities as 7.2%; logically the odds of player 1 having all four is half that. I can live with a 3.6% chance that somebody starts the game with an unfair advantage... that's the nature of 1v1.


Here's my working:

2^5 = 32. There are 5 provinces with cities, assuming conquer club will place them all with on player or the other there are
2x2x2x2x2 possibilities.
In 1 of them player 1 has it all
In 1 of them player 2 has it all
In 5 of them player 1 has 4 of the 5 cities
In 5 of them player 2 has 4 of the 5 cities
That's my 12 out of 32 = 37%

The reamaining 20 out of 32 are scenarios where player 1 has 3 cities (10 possibilities)
and player 2 has 3 cities (10 possibilities)

If you wish to model the number of neutals in 1v1 (I presume its 1 out of 40+ territories) it should make a slight difference.

If its 3 starts (1 neutral, meaning neutals will be 1/3 of the board):
3^5= 243 scenarios (focuing only on non hard coded neutral provinces that matter for city bonus)
2 of them they have it all
5 of them p 1 has 4, neutrals have 1
5 of them p 2 has 4, neutrals have 1
5 of them p 1 has 4, other has 1
5 of them p 2 has 4, other has 1

Makes it 22 out of 243 = 9.1%

Note in classic, the chance of starting with australia with
2 players (no neutrals) is 1/16 = 6.25%
3 players (no neutrals) is 1/ 81 = 1.23%
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby MrBenn on Mon May 04, 2009 6:25 pm

Wong, your numbers are wrong, and just add confusion :?

oaktown has answered your call to add more starting neutrals to the map with a much more measured response than my "1v1 = shit happens" in my thread where you raised the same concerns.

It might be time to drop the dead donkey :roll:
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: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Incandenza on Mon May 04, 2009 6:29 pm

oaktown wrote:In other news, anybody care which city starts neutral? I stuck in the middle, because I figure it can't be ignored and sit neutral all game. And that's probably the last region to fall, so it shouldn't ruin somebody's start.


Assur works, like you say it's right in the middle of the map and won't be like one of those poor outlier AoR terits that only get attacked maybe once every couple hundred games... :D
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM

Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
User avatar
Colonel Incandenza
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Medals: 44
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (8)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Mon May 04, 2009 8:00 pm

Wong, your numbers are wrong, and just add confusion :?


I gave you my working with and without the third start of neutrals.. I'll take a look (eventually) if you post something with content I can respond to.

Trying to settle map questions by "you are wrong" is unproductive and looks more like friends weighing in to push a map forward instead of responding to the content.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Incandenza on Mon May 04, 2009 9:53 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:Trying to settle map questions by "you are wrong" is unproductive and looks more like friends weighing in to push a map forward instead of responding to the content.


This is a math question, not a map question. And when someone is wrong in a math question, as you are here I'm sorry to say, then the appropriate response is "you're wrong."
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM

Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
User avatar
Colonel Incandenza
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Medals: 44
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (8)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Mon May 04, 2009 10:47 pm

I'd love to see the working for the 7.2% number.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby oaktown on Tue May 05, 2009 12:44 am

Merciless Wong wrote:There are 5 provinces with cities, assuming conquer club will place them all with on player or the other there are 2x2x2x2x2 possibilities.

As I have already said, this is where your first set of numbers were wrong. CC can place the players on specific territories if you tell it to, which I'm not. So 1/3 of all territories will start neutral.

You're close about the odds of a player dropping four cities being about 9.1%. My ability to do math ain't what it used to be, but I think that your way of working the numbers is a bit simplistic. Yes, in a three-start scenario there are 22 possible combinations for the four cities, but those combinations are replicated many times over in the millions (I'm being conservative) of possible starting scenarios. The 4-0 and 3-1 starts aren't replicated as often as are the other starts.

I got the 7.2% from the spreadsheet that MrBenn developed... he's come out with two versions, one for strict bonuses and one for "make your own" bonuses like this one. His formula may be off and this number may be low, but if it is I would bet that the actually number falls somewhere between his and yours, since his formula considers the total number of starting territories and how that impacts the start %s - yours do not.

Anyway, all that really matters is that player 1 not drop a bonus, since player 1 gets a chance to break it. Even your calculation of a 4.525% chance of this happening is something I - and I'd imagine most CC users - can live with. 1 in 20 games will be lopsided... so what else is new in 1v1? I'd say 100% of 1v1s are lopsided because somebody gets to go first. :lol:

I'm comfortable with the odds, as is the gameplay crew. Let's please move on. If you'd like to continue the discussion about how to calculate start odds I'd be happy to do so (because I'd like to better understand it) but let's not do it in the map thread.
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: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Tue May 05, 2009 10:30 am

I think if you look at the thread that you got Mr Benn's spreadsheet from - there are considerable qualifications from those who tested it and Mr Benn himself.

I'll stand by the number I put up for 1v1 with neutral starts which is 9% not 4.5%.

I mean everyone can weigh in and just support their friends without any actual knowledge of the method being used to calculate start odds but its certainly inconsistent with the "quality map approach" and the "open to feedback or else" that is used by moderators and stampholders to justify their actions.

I'm not sure what the exact threshold on starting bonuses tolerated by gameplay is - I have no view on that issue. Just doing the foundry a favor and putting a number and some working out there.
I'll note in the England map, there's been some hardcoding of start positions so it still seems to be an issue.

I'm comfortable with the odds, as is the gameplay crew.


Oh, I'm sorry - I didn't know you spoke for them or had settled the issue through some alternative private process and avoided forum discussion. That seems fair. You should just move this to quenched without discussion then. Congratulations!!! =D>
Last edited by Merciless Wong on Tue May 05, 2009 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby AndyDufresne on Tue May 05, 2009 10:41 am

I'm horrible at math. If both of your numbers are low percentages, I could care less.

You can't eliminate random good luck drops, and I wouldn't anyone to really want to. It's part what I like about some of the older maps that don't take into account everyone trying to fix the randomness.

So both of you, place nice, or I'll thump your skulls for you. :)


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25450
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: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Tue May 05, 2009 10:44 am

What's a low percentage? Curious to know because there must be other maps out there that could benefit from clarity on this issue and arguably reached this impasse first.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby oaktown on Tue May 05, 2009 7:58 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:I'll stand by the number I put up for 1v1 with neutral starts which is 9% not 4.5%.

As I've said, Wong, the 4.5% came from your figure. Using your figure of there being a 9% that somebody will drop the bonus it means that the first player to go only has a 4.5% chance of getting the bonus on the start. Two players, one is half of two, half of 9 is 4.5. If the second player gets the bonus, so be it - the first player has a free turn and 4 extra armies to do something about it.

I consider 4.5% to be a low enough percentage that I can live with it. If you don't, then we'll just have to disagree with each other on this one and leave it to the gameplay stamper. 8-)
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: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Wed May 06, 2009 11:40 am

I'm just wondering if other maps got held up on the starting issue. I think the England map had 4 hard-coded starts over a similar issue. So the threshold seems pretty high.
That is if we are being consistent here.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby AndyDufresne on Wed May 06, 2009 2:01 pm

Well the math seems to be settled.

Graphically, the only thing I might consider doing is adding a little more strength to the other two animal outlines (Bull of Heaven looks fine). But other than that, this map is splendid, and I can't see much else.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
Retired Administrator
 
Posts: 25450
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: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby MrBenn on Wed May 06, 2009 2:02 pm

The issue on the England map is to do with the fact the bonus regions are so large. The collections on this map belong in a very different kettle of fish...
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: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Wed May 06, 2009 4:21 pm

An advantage at start is an advantage at start... regardless of the bonus structure that gives rise to it. It's just a question of how large it is and how often it happens.

The chance of starting with 4 cities when there are 5 being randomly distributed is larger than the odds of starting with Australia in Classic Risk - clearly. I'm just saying, if you stick in one more meutral city you get there to the Australia level which would settle the city starting advantage thing.

Is one of the animal challenges still being coded neutral? That made great sense to me (especialy Humbaba). Also for the starting risk issue.

The Sumer balance issue is still back though. As previously pointed out, Sumer has 4 territories to defend if you expand and take the Bull of Heaven dead end and the one across the water. Clearly better than the only other large continent around.

I note for historical reasons you want sumer to be uber-sumer but without coding the starts in (can't see in the map on the front post whether you are still doing this or not) and putting them all in Sumer.. the game is likely to go to the best lay.

I just feel that a lot of the feedback changes has been put in to 'settle' issues then removed again. I don't see a lot of honest gameplay change to the map.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Incandenza on Wed May 06, 2009 4:30 pm

No, one of the challenges is not going to be neutral to my knowledge.

You have to understand something: if every map were held to the "any bonus drop % for 1v1 must be <= that for australia", then many maps would be basically unplayable, and neutral starts would spread like smallpox. Personally, my rule of thumb is that anything below 10% is doable (not ideal, but doable). For the record, that threshold is based on the odds of someone dropping a flag bonus in a 1v1 waterloo game.

And believe me, I'm right there with ya in terms of trying to keep map drops reasonably fair. But the fact is, there's no perfect solution, and 1v1s are always a bit, well, dicey anyway. Blind chance cannot be eliminated from this game. At this point, oaktown's done quite a bit to mitigate unfair 1v1 drops, and to do more would potentially ruin the map for settings other than 1v1, of which there is a preponderance.
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM

Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
User avatar
Colonel Incandenza
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Medals: 44
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (8)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Wed May 06, 2009 4:42 pm

He actually hasn't done that much other than remove a few cities and hard code 1. Much of the changes he made have been reversed.

Appreciate the, "there are maps already up with this flaw" standard but no one is particularly nice to map makers who try that excuse when trying to defend a lower graphical standard. And if exceptions are made, it looks bad and discourages other contributors for ex-moderators and moderators to get those exceptions.

The issue is not just the cities. Its the Cities and the Challenges. The Cities is a 9% chance of giving someone an edge.
The Challenges, another 9% or so (2/27). So your chance of having no starting bonuses or so is about (1-9%)^2.
So you are talking about a 18% chance of either 1 or 2 starting with an advantage - which would beat the 10% level you quoted.

Looking more at it.. the overall continent balance is lacking. Its going to partly be a who gets Sumer game, with a slight chance of getting a victory out of the niche +2 positions. There are 2 continents that are next to undefendable with little combination options. Sumer has too many obvious opportunities to reduce the number of territories it has to defend and too many synergies with the neighboring small continent.

I think 1 more neutral city and 3-4 hardcoded starts in Sumer would be the way to make this work without correcting the Sumer balance issues.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby the.killing.44 on Wed May 06, 2009 4:44 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:The issue is not just the cities. Its the Cities and the Challenges. The Cities is a 9% chance of giving someone an edge.
The Challenges, another 9% or so (2/27). So your chance of having no starting bonuses or so is about (1-9%)^2.
So you are talking about a 18% chance of either 1 or 2 starting with an advantage - which would beat the 10% level you quoted

I'm not going to go into your other complaint, but your math is wrong. If you're saying that it's 9^2 with a max of 18. Which is blatantly wrong. 9^2 = 81.

.44

Edit: weird wording …
Last edited by the.killing.44 on Thu May 07, 2009 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby whitestazn88 on Wed May 06, 2009 4:55 pm

jesus christ wong... get it thru your thick skull that you're not gonna get the map changed for your 1v1 desires.

2ndly, i'm tired of seeing you post stupid shit comparing every map in the foundry to your stupid prince of the city map. that thread is where you should discuss it

finally, there are probably 1000s of examples where people have had crazier drops... for example, you can drop asia on classic, its just rare... fucking deal w/ it.

oaky, i've been a strong supporter of this map since it was in the centerscape revamp. i haven't checked in in a while, but i like where its gone. my number 1 concern is the fact that the cities are packed too closely together... maybe if there were 1 city in each bonus region the board would be more balanced, rather than having an orgy in the middle over the fact that 5 of the cities are within 2 territs of each other
Sergeant 1st Class whitestazn88
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:59 pm
Location: behind you
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Incandenza on Wed May 06, 2009 5:04 pm

Merciless Wong wrote:Appreciate the, "there are maps already up with this flaw" standard but no one is particularly nice to map makers who try that excuse when trying to defend a lower graphical standard. And if exceptions are made, it looks bad and discourages other contributors for ex-moderators and moderators to get those exceptions.


NO, that is NOT what I said, and willfully misrepresenting people's posts isn't the best way to make yourself heard. What I said was that holding every map to your australia standard is insane and unworkable. As it stands, the only map I can think of off the top of my head where bonus drops are a real, persistent issue is Pearl Harbor, and discussions are underway to remedy that. And as whitestazn said, sometimes shit happens. I played an AoM 1v1 where the other guy dropped, get this, over 20 armies worth of bonuses. Needless to say, I lost. Should AoM be drastically overhauled? No, because A) the vast majority of the time, the drops are fair, and B) when you so obsessively drop-proof a map for 1v1, you really run the risk of substantially diminishing the map for every other game type, a point I made that you so cleverly chose to ignore.

Wong, you've made your point. Poorly and combatively, but your point has been made and refuted to the satisfaction of everyone but you. Since that puts you in a minority of one, and since you yourself in the Poison Rome thread said that one disagreement should not be enough to derail a map, let's move on. If you have additional comments on other aspects of the map's gameplay, knock yourself out.

whitestazn, the clumped cities actually works, both historically (those were the centers of civilization back in the Sumerian days) and gameplay-wise (they add bonus options to a large, not-terribly-likely-to-be-held-for-bonuses are, making the middle of the map more of an option for a standup fight than was previously the case when this was a Middle Earth revamp). Sprinkling the cities around the map would be, IMHO, a mistake.
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM

Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
User avatar
Colonel Incandenza
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls
Medals: 44
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (2) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1)
Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) Tournament Achievement (6) General Achievement (3) Clan Achievement (8)
General Contribution (4)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby whitestazn88 on Wed May 06, 2009 5:19 pm

i see what you mean about the cities not being spread out.

and i did figure it was historically accurate... but it doesn't mean that our map makers have never stretched the truths of history... for example, pearl harbor features no japs (whats up with that?)

and i actually like pearl harbor although there are definitely a lot of unfair drops in it...
Sergeant 1st Class whitestazn88
 
Posts: 3127
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:59 pm
Location: behind you
Medals: 28
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1)
Freestyle Achievement (2) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Speed Achievement (1) Teammate Achievement (2)
Random Map Achievement (2) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (3) General Achievement (2) Clan Achievement (1)

Re: Gilgamesh; cities simplified pg 7

Postby Merciless Wong on Wed May 06, 2009 8:38 pm

the.killing.44 wrote:
Merciless Wong wrote:The issue is not just the cities. Its the Cities and the Challenges. The Cities is a 9% chance of giving someone an edge.
The Challenges, another 9% or so (2/27). So your chance of having no starting bonuses or so is about (1-9%)^2.
So you are talking about a 18% chance of either 1 or 2 starting with an advantage - which would beat the 10% level you quoted

I'm not going to go into your other complaint, but your math is wrong. If you're saying that it's 9^2 with a max of 18, 9^2 = 81. Which is blatantly wrong.

.44


I'm not sure if you noticed but ^ is the power symbol.
(1-9%)
=91%
91%^2
=approx 81%

Chance of no bonus is 81%
Chance of bonus is 100% -81% = 19%

Just giving you the numbers and letting the game play people read and decide. I'll just say they have to draw a standard
and it should be the same across the foundry, with no exceptions for mapmaker status.
I don't think having people just say "you are wrong" or "I don't care" contributes very much. Approach this with a genuinely open mind and stop fighting for your map or that of your friends.

I've reported the whitestazn88 post as a flame. I haven't mentioned Prince of The City in my comments. So this is uncalled for.

jesus christ wong... get it thru your thick skull that you're not gonna get the map changed for your 1v1 desires.

2ndly, i'm tired of seeing you post stupid shit comparing every map in the foundry to your stupid prince of the city map. that thread is where you should discuss it


Lastly, cairnswk was effectively forced out for refusing one item of feedback. I agree thats seems stiff, but it seems unfair to leave Poisonrome out and let this through.
Last edited by Merciless Wong on Wed May 06, 2009 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sergeant 1st Class Merciless Wong
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:12 pm
Medals: 3
Standard Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (1) General Contribution (1)

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Login