Moderator: Cartographers
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.
Merciless Wong wrote:Any chance you could make one more city neutral.
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.
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.
Wong, your numbers are wrong, and just add confusion
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.
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.
I'm comfortable with the odds, as is the gameplay crew.
Merciless Wong wrote:I'll stand by the number I put up for 1v1 with neutral starts which is 9% not 4.5%.
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
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.
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
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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users