Conquer Club

sempaispellcheck wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Sure is a lot of interest in this one....2 votes for gameplay??

Personally, I think the 20 start with -1 decay would work much better, so I've been waiting for you to add that option to the poll.

sempai

sempai. it has not been added to options since this was never discussed amoungst the original crew that provided this map.
..and it is not my vision for the map.
i think the current 3 variations are enough to consider.

generalhead wrote:

cairnswk wrote: i am not convinced that anyone has the absolute insight into how this will play in every combination available, without at least trying it.

That would be nice to be able to try it with each bonus type to be able to see what would work the best. That seems like that would be the only way
to tell with out some what guessing. Too bad you couldn't set the map up in a test (not open to the public) to see what would work the best before you open it to the public in beta. It would be nice to have it right before beta because you don't want to turn any one off from the map right off the bat.

That would indeed be wonderful in an ideal world, however, we don't have that luxury pre-beta since no-one has developed a tool for it yet.

cairnswk wrote:

sempaispellcheck wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Sure is a lot of interest in this one....2 votes for gameplay??

Personally, I think the 20 start with -1 decay would work much better, so I've been waiting for you to add that option to the poll.

sempai

sempai. it has not been added to options since this was never discussed amoungst the original crew that provided this map.
..and it is not my vision for the map.
i think the current 3 variations are enough to consider.

Fair enough. Then I'll vote 3 start, no autodeploy.
As I see it, if you're not going to put in the -1, then there's no way the 20 will work - I'm not going to attack 23v20 if there are other 20s all around, and we'll end up with stalemates all over the place.
Also, I totally agree with what ian said about the autodeploy and how the first player will always attack 4v3 as much as possible.
I've voted no to the half-bonuses for now, but I could still be sold on them yet.

sempai

sempaispellcheck wrote:...
Fair enough. Then I'll vote 3 start, no autodeploy.
As I see it, if you're not going to put in the -1, then there's no way the 20 will work - I'm not going to attack 23v20 if there are other 20s all around, and we'll end up with stalemates all over the place.
Also, I totally agree with what ian said about the autodeploy and how the first player will always attack 4v3 as much as possible.
I've voted no to the half-bonuses for now, but I could still be sold on them yet.
sempai

I thought the half-bonus would be easier to achieve in order to give someone a hands-up in the case of a bit of a stalemate.

On the other note of 4 v 3, while that might occur, how successful would it be.
Are there any stats out there to prove/disprove otherwise?

if u attack 4v3 and keep attacking even when u have 2 troops left, then u will conquer the target 47% of the time. in other words, u will expect to remove 47% of ur opponent's auto-deploy bonuses. expressed another way, if both players each start with 17 auto-deploys (for the sake of argument), then player 1 receives +17 and player 2 only +9 on average because he loses 8 of them before his first turn. to restore parity, player 2 must use his remaining 9 auto-deploys to conquer at least 8 auto-deploys from player 1; the odds of player 2 regaining at least 8 auto-deploys are 31% if we assume that player 2 always has 3 troops against 1.

ian.

iancanton wrote:if u attack 4v3 and keep attacking even when u have 2 troops left, then u will conquer the target 47% of the time. in other words, u will expect to remove 47% of ur opponent's auto-deploy bonuses. expressed another way, if both players each start with 17 auto-deploys (for the sake of argument), then player 1 receives +17 and player 2 only +9 on average because he loses 8 of them before his first turn. to restore parity, player 2 must use his remaining 9 auto-deploys to conquer at least 8 auto-deploys from player 1; the odds of player 2 regaining at least 8 auto-deploys are 31% if we assume that player 2 always has 3 troops against 1.

ian.

Sorry ian, i'd like to see evidence of that.
do you use an online site or similar to divulge that % or what is the machanism that shows you that?

The poll has finished but because of the low numbers, i am uncertain as to whether to take this as an indication.
While one of the options won by one vote out of 5, there was not a clear majority over the other 3.
I also think 5 votes is far too low.

1. 3 start for each dueler, +1 autodeploy for each dueler/turn , plus regional and royal bonus combinations?
1
20%

2. 3 start for each dueler, +1 autodeploy for each dueler/turn , plus half-regional and full regional bonuses plus royal bonus combinations?
1
20%

3. 3 start for each dueler, No autodeploy, with regional and royal bonus combinations?
1
20%

4. 3 start for each dueler, No autodeploy, plus half-regional and full regional bonuses plus royal bonus combinations?
2
40%

5. 20 start for each dueler, no autodeploy, with regional and royal bonus conbinations?
0
No votes

6. 20 start for each dueler, no autodeploy, plus half-regional and full regional bonuses plus royal bonus combinations
0
No votes

cairnswk wrote:The poll has finished but because of the low numbers, i am uncertain as to whether to take this as an indication.
While one of the options won by one vote out of 5, there was not a clear majority over the other 3.
I also think 5 votes is far too low.

So what's next then for the map cairns?

koontz1973 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:The poll has finished but because of the low numbers, i am uncertain as to whether to take this as an indication.
While one of the options won by one vote out of 5, there was not a clear majority over the other 3.
I also think 5 votes is far too low.

So what's next then for the map cairns?

Well firstly i'd like to hear from ian as per my post above.
then i'd like to know if:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=198130#p4331242
Test mode, allowing for the first time maps to be play tested before release
Map Management - allowing the Map Team to update their own maps in the test environment

us cartos are going to be allowed to participate in this process or is it the exclusive realm of the Foundry team.
EDIT: Apparently from IcePack, cartos are going to be allowed to be involed in the Test Mode.

Not for now cairnswk, we still have to work on the test tools, it's not a finished product!
But trust me bigWham is working hard for us all and very soon we will have all we need.
About what IcePacksaid, I think that with Cartographers, he was referring to the Cartos Group, at least for now.
However, I'll make announcement with more details tomorrow....be patient for other few hours or so.

thenobodies80 wrote:Not for now cairnswk, we still have to work on the test tools, it's not a finished product!
But trust me bigWham is working hard for us all and very soon we will have all we need.
About what IcePacksaid, I think that with Cartographers, he was referring to the Cartos Group, at least for now.
However, I'll make announcement with more details tomorrow....be patient for other few hours or so.

Thank-you tnb80.
I'd be most dissappointed if the mapmaker was not involved in the process of testing...afterall this is main person that needs to see these things.
I doubt if allowing one extra person i.e. the mapmaker into the test phase would be a great issue.

cairnswk wrote:I doubt if allowing one extra person i.e. the mapmaker into the test phase would be a great issue.

Already asked if this is possible. I have nothing against it till it doesn't become something different from what it was supposed to. (i'm testing your promontory summit map right now )
Anyway, we're going off topic here, as said i'll explain everything in detail tomorrow, you can ask for all the info in the topic as soon as post it, I'll be happy to give all the info you need.

cairns, a thought for you on this.

Exclusions, a new feature of Maps enabling Map Specialization... which means that a Map can be designed for specific combinations of Game Play options rather than having to be simultaneously designed for every set of options (an increasingly impossible task!)

Why not think about excluding the small game from this map? This might be a way to try and some of the things on the map you want without destroying it. With the size of the map, you will always get problems in small games anyway no matter how much we all try to exclude them, but make the map 6+ or 8+ players, you get rid of the majority of problems straight away.

Thoughts?

koontz1973 wrote:cairns, a thought for you on this.

Exclusions, a new feature of Maps enabling Map Specialization... which means that a Map can be designed for specific combinations of Game Play options rather than having to be simultaneously designed for every set of options (an increasingly impossible task!)

Why not think about excluding the small game from this map? This might be a way to try and some of the things on the map you want without destroying it. With the size of the map, you will always get problems in small games anyway no matter how much we all try to exclude them, but make the map 6+ or 8+ players, you get rid of the majority of problems straight away.

Thoughts?

Yes that could very well solve some issues koontz, thank-you. 6+ would be good.
But it still doesn't solve the issue of whether to use the autodeploy or have a straight type of game as per option 4.
and it would not solve the issue of the first player.
some testing would be good.
btw, r you able to pull down the poll please.

cairnswk wrote:6+ would be good.

That was my thoughts. A large map for the larger game. We all know how people hate some large maps in 1v1. It always makes life differcult for the map makers.

cairnswk wrote:But it still doesn't solve the issue of whether to use the autodeploy

But it would make the auto deploy easier to handle. As ian said, the 1v1 game you get so many more troops and only one opponent. In 6/8 player games, less troops, more opponents, easier to balance. As I say, have a think about it as it might be a way (not saying it would happen) to get it on or a version of it.

cairnswk wrote:some testing would be good.

True. But that is not my dept.

cairnswk wrote:btw, r you able to pull down the poll please.

I can, do you want it gone?

koontz1973 wrote:...
I can, do you want it gone?

yes please.
btw, this is map 41.

Poll gone as requested.

As for map 41, you seem to be slowing down cairns, I expected you to be at map 51 by now.

cairnswk wrote:

iancanton wrote:if u attack 4v3 and keep attacking even when u have 2 troops left, then u will conquer the target 47% of the time. in other words, u will expect to remove 47% of ur opponent's auto-deploy bonuses. expressed another way, if both players each start with 17 auto-deploys (for the sake of argument), then player 1 receives +17 and player 2 only +9 on average because he loses 8 of them before his first turn. to restore parity, player 2 must use his remaining 9 auto-deploys to conquer at least 8 auto-deploys from player 1; the odds of player 2 regaining at least 8 auto-deploys are 31% if we assume that player 2 always has 3 troops against 1.

ian.

Sorry ian, i'd like to see evidence of that.
do you use an online site or similar to divulge that % or what is the machanism that shows you that?

try the site below to confirm the 47%, which is close to 8/17. 3v1 is 75.4%, so there is 0.754^9 = 7.9% chance of player 2 gaining 9 regions from player 1 and 0.754^8*(1-0.754)*9 = 23.2% chance of regaining exactly the 8 regions, giving a 31.1% chance of success.

http://riskodds.com/

ian.

iancanton wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

iancanton wrote:if u attack 4v3 and keep attacking even when u have 2 troops left, then u will conquer the target 47% of the time. in other words, u will expect to remove 47% of ur opponent's auto-deploy bonuses. expressed another way, if both players each start with 17 auto-deploys (for the sake of argument), then player 1 receives +17 and player 2 only +9 on average because he loses 8 of them before his first turn. to restore parity, player 2 must use his remaining 9 auto-deploys to conquer at least 8 auto-deploys from player 1; the odds of player 2 regaining at least 8 auto-deploys are 31% if we assume that player 2 always has 3 troops against 1.

ian.

Sorry ian, i'd like to see evidence of that.
do you use an online site or similar to divulge that % or what is the machanism that shows you that?

try the site below to confirm the 47%, which is close to 8/17. 3v1 is 75.4%, so there is 0.754^9 = 7.9% chance of player 2 gaining 9 regions from player 1 and 0.754^8*(1-0.754)*9 = 23.2% chance of regaining exactly the 8 regions, giving a 31.1% chance of success.

http://riskodds.com/

ian.

Thanks ian, i will reply...but probably not straight away...exam in a week and need some time to run some of those odds.

I just don't get the point. Another too-big, too-crowded map where it will be impossible to estimate your relative strength without the aid of BOB or some other add-ons, and the non-specialists will just come to get farmed.

Cut the number of dueling pairs in half and you will have a map worth playing.

Dukasaur wrote:I just don't get the point...

what is there about this you don't understand Dukasaur?

Current version pre-poll...

Before changing (forget V14 and 15), this was where the gameplay discussion was at.

The only change i'd add here is to allow a half-region bonus as well as full region and royal bonuses.

cairnswk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:I just don't get the point...

what is there about this you don't understand Dukasaur?

There's simply too many terts. It will be impossible to estimate your relative strength just by having a look. You will need to use either an add-on like BOB or some manual accounting system to keep track of your armies and plan your attack, and at that point it becomes more work than play.

The key to a map that's fun to play is that you can tell at a glance what is your strength in various areas without having to actually count your armies. And that could be achieved here, I think, if the total number of duellers was reduced.

Dukasaur wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:I just don't get the point...

what is there about this you don't understand Dukasaur?

There's simply too many terts. It will be impossible to estimate your relative strength just by having a look. You will need to use either an add-on like BOB or some manual accounting system to keep track of your armies and plan your attack, and at that point it becomes more work than play.

The key to a map that's fun to play is that you can tell at a glance what is your strength in various areas without having to actually count your armies. And that could be achieved here, I think, if the total number of duellers was reduced.

Initally, i had conceived that this map might be ideal for a Battle Royal map of about 116 or 58 with two starts.
Would it suit that better?

cairnswk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:I just don't get the point...

what is there about this you don't understand Dukasaur?

There's simply too many terts. It will be impossible to estimate your relative strength just by having a look. You will need to use either an add-on like BOB or some manual accounting system to keep track of your armies and plan your attack, and at that point it becomes more work than play.

The key to a map that's fun to play is that you can tell at a glance what is your strength in various areas without having to actually count your armies. And that could be achieved here, I think, if the total number of duellers was reduced.

Initally, i had conceived that this map might be ideal for a Battle Royal map of about 116 or 58 with two starts.
Would it suit that better?

Yeah, actually, I think this size and scope would be good for a Battle Royale.

Even has the right theme!