[GO] Manual Territory Selection: Choose or Draft Territories

[waltero]

Oh, here comes the sour puss. No problem Greenoaks...you no like any suggestion

You think Bogus Drop is a good Idea.

[DoomYoshi]

Another problem with the draft is that high level players would be able to discuss the merits of certain territories in the draft. It would start with classic and go from there. It wouldn't take long for clams to figure out ideal team rankings.

All in all, it's a lame idea.

[sirgermaine]

Another problem with the draft is that high level players would be able to discuss the merits of certain territories in the draft. It would start with classic and go from there. It wouldn't take long for clams to figure out ideal team rankings.

All in all, it's a lame idea.

I don't really see why something that adds strategy is a lame idea.

That said, this thread could use some clarification on exactly what the OP is suggesting, so that we can all know exactly with what we are dealing here.

[greenoaks]

Oh, here comes the sour puss. No problem Greenoaks...you no like any suggestion

You think Bogus Drop is a good Idea.

saying i don't like a poor idea doesn't make me a sour puss.

choosing your terits is great if everyone is in the room at the same time. here we are not.

[waltero]

AH, I see no use in trying to get an idea across. It is either Too complicated (most always) for the current program.
OR people simply don't want to add anything to the game.

I would assume, that any suggestion that would be implemented would automatically be an option to chose from..while setting up the game.

If you don't like it Don't use it?

I for one do not like playing a game where the drop has already decided the winner of the game before it even starts...and I really hate taking a win like that.

A person comes up with an idea and post it. other people enter and Contribute, trying to make it work.
Pointing out potential problems...it is all helpful.

Coming in a room and saying I don't like it. OR it is a lame idea, does not help anything.

Won't work..can not work. Same room same time (speed game) only way this will ever work.

Where is your imagination...your creativity?

[greenoaks]

AH, I see no use in trying to get an idea across. It is either Too complicated (most always) for the current program.
OR people simply don't want to add anything to the game.

I would assume, that any suggestion that would be implemented would automatically be an option to chose from..while setting up the game.

If you don't like it Don't use it?

I for one do not like playing a game where the drop has already decided the winner of the game before it even starts...and I really hate taking a win like that.

A person comes up with an idea and post it. other people enter and Contribute, trying to make it work.
Pointing out potential problems...it is all helpful.

Coming in a room and saying I don't like it. OR it is a lame idea, does not help anything.

Won't work..can not work. Same room same time (speed game) only way this will ever work.

Where is your imagination...your creativity?

no point crying because your idea doesn't have universal support.

CC is not going to implement every idea just because a handful of players want it as an option. it is hard enough to get things lots of players want.

[waltero]

Not crying. That is just it...to hard to get implemented and far too long. Not worth the time or energy and frustration to bother with. I play this game for a short time then move on to other. Come back in a few years to see if anything new going on around here.

Some areas have a real need for change. Random set up sucks! But I suppose it is the best you can come up with.

Bad idea: Move to Reject

[sirgermaine]

I mean, if you want to act like I've never worked to make a suggestion thread worth reading, then you obviously haven't read the thread I currently have stickied.

Seriously if you care about this suggestion do some basic leg work:
1. Be as clear as possible what exactly you are suggesting. I am still not clear on exactly what it would look like to a player to have the system you are proposing. Walk us through each step where something would be different than the current setup.
2. Actually search this forum (with the search, not just looking through a few pages) thoroughly for other threads that are similar to this one, and explain why your suggestion is different than each of them, or if they are the same, note that. If your search doesn't yield any results, try a broader search or with different terms. When I looked, even capitalization seemed to make a difference.
3. Please try not to berate other people for what they say in your thread. If someone thought it was a truly bad idea, they'd say that. It seems like mostly people have questions about how applicable this would be for a broader selection of games, and from what you're saying, I think that part of this comes from not fully understanding what you are proposing.

Thanks

[betiko]

I think that's a very good suggestion. Zynga used to have a risk like game on facebook (well actually a risk game, they just had to change the name like cc does) and this was one of the options for speed games.
the auction thing isn't a bad idea, but i'd say round 1 everyone choses his first territory, round 2 you give you selection of territories by importance and you get them in an auction base that the server calculates.
round 3 would be the first actual round, unless you put the "manual" option that we have now.

of course, the territory selection would be another selection that gives a new type of medal

[agentcom]

@ betiko: interesting idea

@waltero: this suggestion is your idea, you're starting to hear from a lot of different people about how/whether it could/should work. Lots of times people just stop by and say they don't like the idea. While that's not the most useful feedback ever it is nice because it lets you and everyone else see the popularity of this idea. You can try to win those folks over or just ignore them and hope there's enough people who do support it.

Also, just to keep expectations realistic, I think that this would be a somewhat major gameplay addition. These things take (lots of) time. So, don't expect this idea to go anywhere until (at a minimum) you have figured out EXACTLY what you are proposing and have made that CRYSTAL clear in the OP.

It's perfectly fine to go back and edit the OP as new ideas or changes are proposed. If you would like more information on how to do that and the best practices for doing so, I just wrote someone else a lengthy PM that I can forward to you.

[elonpuckhog]

I was thinking, and I think the OP suggested this, that we set up a "fantasy type" draft for this option. So, when you join a game with this option, all the territories would be ranked in alphabetical order, and you could change the rank. So if you really wanted Los Angeles (on the classic map), you would rank that #1. If you're first to go, you would get Los Angeles. The next person would get either their #1 choice (unless it was LA) or their #2 choice. So, rankings are done in advance to cut down on the time thing.
I think it would be a great addition, but I'm sure its been suggested before. I went looking a couple of days ago and couldn't find anything specific.

The problem with this is that usually people don't want a certain territ, they want to set their territs based on where everyone else is claiming territs. So it they go first and snag one in Aus, but then the next 3 players grab an aus, they may want to try to do something different. So I do not think any type of fantasy draft/ranking would work.

I just thought of another problem: in fog games, you would see where everyone is deploying. The best way around that I can think of is to have all territs except yours appear as "?"s. Then you get an error message if you pick a territ that has already been chosen. The downside to this solution is that toward the end of the territ selection you would either have to flip this so that it shows available territs (but then possibly giving away some info) or continue with the above (and have players potentially selecting 100 territs on a map like World 2.1 before finding an available one).

Thus, I think we've found another restriction on this: it couldn't be used for fog.

So, you'd only be able to do sunny premium/speed games.

Yeah, I know there are pitfalls to my suggestion, which is one the reasons I didn't start my own topic on it. I was trying to think of a way this could work, since obviously we aren't all in the same room at the same time (or all on the site at once). This was the best I could come up with. While I would like something like this (however we could get it accomplished), I realize that if we don't already have it, its probably not high on the list. There does seem to be lukewarm support though.

Perhaps we could do an auction system. The auction order would be predetermined and known to the players (for example, alphabetical order). Each player, then, when they enter this type of game (call it auction territories mode), is allocated a number of "points" or "dollars" or some "currency". When signing up for the game, they would have to allocate their amount of points to all the territories. If they want AUS, they would allocate more points to the AUS territories. Downfall of this is that perhaps someone would get less territs and someone would get more territs. The computer would then go to the first territ, and give it to the person who has the most points allocated to it. (The points each player allocate is not known).

[waltero]

I am clearly not cut out for this. It was a mistake for me to post ''any'' suggestion. I do understand that it not the Idea that people do not like but rather the mechanics in which to implement said idea (was not the case on two previous suggestions).

It is not my intention to berate other gamers.

But to enter three of my (awesome) Suggestions and simply say ''I don't like it" equals ''Sour puss"

It is too much work...Not really worth it to me.

[betiko]

I am clearly not cut out for this. It was a mistake for me to post ''any'' suggestion. I do understand that it not the Idea that people do not like but rather the mechanics in which to implement said idea (was not the case on two previous suggestions).

It is not my intention to berate other gamers.

But to enter three of my (awesome) Suggestions and simply say ''I don't like it" equals ''Sour puss"

It is too much work...Not really worth it to me.

too much work, what are you talking about? are we asking you to do the coding? you come up with a half thought through idea, which is not genuine because it's one of the variants of the original board game, and we are trying to find the best way to adapt it to a web brwser non-real time game and you walk away... you haven't thought about the issues this concept has and you don't even try to find solutions to it. Are you like that at work?
whatwere you expecting, your "genius" idea to be implemented within days?

[agentcom]

I don't think it's too much to ask that if CC is to seriously consider a suggestion that there be at least one person who wants it enough to follow up on it. If that one person can't even be found, it's doubtful that the suggestion would be very desirable to a large number of users anyway.

[chapcrap]

I've remained silent, but I'll say that I like this suggestion. It's just another layer of strategy into the game. The more strategy, the easier it is to differentiate players' skill levels.

I would say that if implemented, players should pick territories in a snake fashion, like a fantasy football draft. Yes, the game may take longer, but it would be fun. I would suggest that players get to pick more than one territory at a time based on map size/starting positions. For Doodle, pick one. For Classic pick two. For World 2.1 pick 4. Or something along those lines.

[agentcom]

Being allowed to pick more than 1 territ at one time might be a good idea. There are bonuses on 2.1 and other large maps that are 4 or fewer territs large. But I think it's likely people could get those even if they didn't get to place 4 at a time.

And don't get me wrong, I'm personally not against this suggestion. I like it. I don't think it works for foggy games and I think it has to limited only to premium and possibly only to speed games, but I like it.

[waltero]

was not a half thought out plan.

I will try one more time to explain it.


We have a game board with 16 territory's. (yes small, just for example)

first turn........Red------1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16
second turn...Blue-----1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16
third turn.......Green---1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16
fourth turn.....Pink-----1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16

Every player would receive 1-14 Placement Chits (choices)

Everybody would place one number on a single territory, until every number has been placed.
24 hours to place. in turn order
Concealed not concealed no matter (what ever works for you).

Once all the numbers have been place on the board or the 24 hours have passed...the Computer would take over and Figure out who would get what.
Placement would be in turn order...so number one (first turn) player would pick and place all his chits (choices) down at one time. Second player would do the same...the only place he could not put (have a choice to place) a chit would be on player ones first choice territory. the last player (say 5th) would not be allowed to place his first placement number (choice) on any of the previous four players first choice number (it would block him from doing so)


Now let us Say Green placed his number 2 chit on same territory (Kalamazoo) as Red. You have red and green on same territory with the same number.
Green would have to concede that Territory to Red...Being that red is first on placement order (turn order).

Now what would happen to Greens number 2 chit (choice).
Keep in mind that all players (computer) are now deciding everybody 2nd placement (choice). ( 1 has already been dealt with in turn order. there could be no conflict.).

Green would be displaced...he would place his Army on his number 3 Chit (choice) territory (Timbuktu).
his 2nd choice would now move to his 3th placement. Because he was not able to receive his number 2 choice, he would see if he gets his number 3 choice.

OK now let us say..Blue has already got his number 2 on Timbuktu, Which is also Greens (now) 3rd choice? Green would have to (because Blue is before Green in turn placement order) then place his army on his number 4 choice (territory, chit). His number 4 would now be his number 2...5 would be his three 6 would change to fourth and so forth.
The computer would keep track of all his.


Every player would end up having 4 territory's at end of set up.

I understand that people like to place there units on territory's for this reason or that reason...This would still be better than Random.
Might bring new ideas and strategy on Placement.

Light up a region (not territory) that has a number one Choice (chit) in it...so the player can see where the others have made there first choice placement. If multiple players are in one Region (for there first choice) multiple colors would light up that Region.

Or you could just have everybody place at the same time...and any displace chits (choices )could be dropped random.

Game start, reverse turn order.

Bid for territory's might work as well. simply place your armies (the armies you receive for game play) on Territory, and one with most armies win the bid

[sirgermaine]

Looks good, hypothetical question, what about terits that nobody chooses, and what happens if someone misses a turn?

[waltero]

Every teriit will have as many numbered chits (choices) as there are players. Every player will place one Chit (Numbered Choice) on each terit.
41 terits 41 numbered Choices 1-41
So at the end of the set up phase, every Terit will have 5 (if it be a five player game) Separate (one for each of the individual player) Numbered chits on each terit.

Set up is a one time placement. It will be in turn order. If a player misses his set up he would either get rejected from the game or simply get what ever terits are left over.

If neutrals are a factor...might give last Placing player the choice to chose taking Neutral owned Terits or the ones he picked.

I do not think placing in this way would be too bad. As long as there is some color to show how many players dropped first choice in what region. Not color of the player. Just so a player can see that region (not territory) is number one choice of his opponent. Color terit up with as many colors as players in said territory.

So if I am starting my set up phase (say fourth player, turn)...I would see the entire board and notice one color covering the entire continent of South America...Now I know that another player has chosen a territory in south America as his first choice.

If South America has Three colors covering the entire continent, I would know that there are at least three individual players that have placed there first Choice placement somewhere in south America.

Then I would place my first Choice in South America to make it even Everybody would end up with one terit in south America...thus Probably throwing first players 2nd 3rd and fourth choice placement off. No matter his fifth choice (could)will now be his 2nd choice. Just as if we were placing in real time.

[DoomYoshi]

Another problem with the draft is that high level players would be able to discuss the merits of certain territories in the draft. It would start with classic and go from there. It wouldn't take long for clams to figure out ideal team rankings.

All in all, it's a lame idea.

I don't really see why something that adds strategy is a lame idea.

That said, this thread could use some clarification on exactly what the OP is suggesting, so that we can all know exactly with what we are dealing here.

It doesn't add strategy, it takes it away.

Instead of their being multiple ways to start the game (with random territories) there will only be one (good one).

Here's what I am saying in a more logical sense:

Assume that there is a best strategy called X.
Assume that a bunch of clanheads and players can actually find the strategy.

This means that playing without X is a poor choice. All players will play with X. That means there is no more strategy anymore; the beginning of the game is already decided, unless you want to play irrationally.

This basically means that before too long, every map will have the same strategic level of City Mogul, for example. Now there is strategy in City Mogul, and some people like that. But compare the level of strategy to the level of Strategy in Conquer Rome. There is a lot less of it, especially in the early turns.

This option will have the result of a Suggestion entitled:

MAKE STARTING POSITIONS ON MAPS STANDARD

except it will take longer.

It is absolutely a pointless setting, no matter which system it is done with, be it bidding or lottery or whatever.

[chapcrap]

Using this word chit bothers me.

[waltero]

@chapcrap, probably not the best word I could of used. They are ''temporary'' placement numbers.

@ DoomYoshi, Just as you said...find a strategy and run with it, until others find one to counter it?
Random set up sucks on some boards more than others.

I have been playing this game for many years. A person is limited on the number of Strategy he can chose from.
Random Sucks! and with random set up, strategy is just the same...you pull one (out of a few) from a hat and run with it.

At least with this you are able to chose your ''own'' Strategy (FROM THE GET GO) and make new ones rather than have to replay same old ones.

NEW Game...new strategy.


This would be an option...your choice to play with or not.

Besides, how many strategy's can a player pull from a hat when Random set up is used.

Might be a person will have to learn the game all over again.

This would take no longer than one Extra turn.

The only reason I posted this was because I had invited two Friends to team against me and another guy.
Started the game and it was a joke! we had best drop ever. Now me friends do not come to anymore invites and they hate that particular board.
Not to mention, we went first...making it double whammy!

I really do not understand how an idea could put the fear in somebody, thinking that the Strategy will be already fixed...just because placement is a fixed setting. It is still random...you do not know how others are going to place. Plenty of unorthodox players out there to screw with your ''fixed'' strategy.

This turn based fog, placement...will bring excitement and some new fun Strategy into play

[greenoaks]

The only reason I posted this was because I had invited two Friends to team against me and another guy.
Started the game and it was a joke! we had best drop ever. Now me friends do not come to anymore invites and they hate that particular board.
Not to mention, we went first...making it double whammy!

so we should change the way we do things here because of 1 game you played.

i like this even less now.

[waltero]

Yes we know that you do not like this Idea (in fact not the Mechanics but the entire idea of manual placement).

I am not asking anybody to change a thing. Simply have other options.

I play games to be around my friends and for my enjoyment.
It is no longer enjoyable to me if my friends do not want to play because the game is askew from the start.

I posted this idea because of one game I have played!
I have always disliked Random set up and do think something better is out there.
I have not bothered posting anything up till now (on set up)why should I bother.

Up until I was bothered with the ''one game I played''
Which coincidentally is the last game (of this) my friends will play.
Just trying to find a way for this game to be a game that is enjoyable to everyone.

[agentcom]

Conflicting thoughts about this one ...

1. It's a whole different type of gameplay, rather than just copying the initial placement of other board games, but that makes it way more complicated.
2. The flip side of this is that I think a more "traditional" manual territ selection would be more popular and more simple to implement.