Conquer Club

Just make them starting territs with a cap of 4. Do not underline the territs with neutrals and your drops, while still random in all games will make the drops far better. So in 1v1 games, both sides will recieve 4 in the decay (8) and the remaining 4 with then go into the random drop. So the odds of getting 2 extra over your opponent is very small. Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.

koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.

We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.

And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.

Game 10903390
I started with 5 in the decay (out of 7)
My opponents COMBINED had 7! (x2 x2 x3 x0)

I nearly managed to win it, but at the same time shouldn't have been so lopsided.
To compare, the player with 0 in the decay starts turn with 21 troops.
My first turn was 16, my second was 11....

And to be clear, I was the target that was eliminated in the game. Had it not been so lopsided who knows who would have won. But even my opponent said it wasn't fair.

IcePack

koontz1973 wrote:Just make them starting territs with a cap of 4. Do not underline the territs with neutrals and your drops, while still random in all games will make the drops far better. So in 1v1 games, both sides will recieve 4 in the decay (8) and the remaining 4 with then go into the random drop. So the odds of getting 2 extra over your opponent is very small. Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.

Capping it at 4 is pointless. See my earlier analysis of terrs/drops etc.

nolefan5311 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.

We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.

And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.

That is the foundry of today nole. If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them. Even classic has to have some. When will it all end. Do we really need to go through the process of making all maps even more the same or can we leave some maps that have quirks like this one alone. Considering this map has 77 games waiting for players or playing now, 16 1v1 games, this does not seem to be an unpopular map as it is. If these changes where truly needed, it would of come up a lot sooner considering this map was quenched in 2008.

@MrBenn, read it and it would not work.

koontz while it maybe "popular" I think it would get more games and attention if some of those drops weren't so god awfully one sided.
I stopped playing it after that assassin game and wot play it again unless something's done.

With 212 maps available, not playing some is not really a problem though is it. Would you play it again if the drop had gone the other way? I doubt that this is a popular map but my point is, why have every map the same? Can we not have a little variaty?

koontz1973 wrote:

nolefan5311 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Leave the starts at 12 or you end up with another bland map.

We don't pass maps through the GP phase unless the drop numbers correlate with the golden numbers. There are 36 starting territories on this map, and if the map were still in the Foundry, we would ask the creator to add/remove territories, or code neutral starting positions, to get it into the golden number range. So I do feel this map needs a change.

And chap, those games you linked are absolutely crazy. I'm 100% supportive of this change.

That is the foundry of today nole. If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them. Even classic has to have some. When will it all end. Do we really need to go through the process of making all maps even more the same or can we leave some maps that have quirks like this one alone. Considering this map has 77 games waiting for players or playing now, 16 1v1 games, this does not seem to be an unpopular map as it is. If these changes where truly needed, it would of come up a lot sooner considering this map was quenched in 2008.

@MrBenn, read it and it would not work.

I don't understand the hesitation on this, to be honest. It's not as if we're undertaking a renovation of all maps made prior to 2010 or something. Someone noticed this issue with this one map, requested and received the mapmakers permission to change it, and is in the process of seeing if there is support to change it. We're not going through a process of making all maps identical. If a map has a quirk that makes gameplay inherently unbalanced, should it not be looked at? Or should we leave it alone for the sake of leaving it alone, only because it has those quirks?

And for the record, there are no changes that need to be made to the Classic map to ensure balanced gameplay.

And in reference to your most recent post, what about this change makes this map the same as any other map? There's still going to be the very unique aspect of the decaying territories in the center. It's not like this map is being remade into the Classic map or something.

If someone requested it and permission was given, then why ask for opinions about it and just do it. But considering one player in 5 years has seen this as a problem, does this really make it a problem.

koontz1973 wrote:With 212 maps available, not playing some is not really a problem though is it. Would you play it again if the drop had gone the other way? I doubt that this is a popular map but my point is, why have every map the same? Can we not have a little variaty?

With 212 maps available, no its not a problem. But That's hardly the pint, having a flawed map regardless of how many other choices are available is the problem. Just as you "hypothesized", if we only had 5 maps available would your opinion of the map change?

And that game was where I realized how bad the drops could be. If the drop had gone the other way and my opponent had gotten the bad drop - I still wouldn't play it today bcuz the map has the potential for serious problems.

I don't understand how fixing a map is lessening the variety. I personally am not asking for a specific drop count or anything - I still think there shouldb e a range. But one player getting 5 and another 0 is such a big swing...the potential is there for someone to get 0 and another all 7.....it's totally unfair.

You want variety and luck drops to still "be there" fine but let's shorten up the potential for shit games and give a little are for quality of game.

IcePack

koontz1973 wrote:If someone requested it and permission was given, then why ask for opinions about it and just do it. But considering one player in 5 years has seen this as a problem, does this really make it a problem.

More then one player sees this as a problem. And just bcuz no one says anything for years doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Look at the glaring problem with bamboo jack that was just fixed. Years - and no one said anything.

Sorry mate but what you're saying isn't making much sense.

chapcrap wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Remember Pearl Harbour? It got changed and no one liked it.

No, I don't remember Pearl Harbour. I know the Pearl Harbor map and it's great.

pmchugh wrote:I agree with agentcom in that a bad drop is annoying but part of the map.

That's a ridiculous statement. It doesn't have to be part of that map. That's the whole point.

pmchugh wrote:I would also be willing to hazard a guess that first turn advantage would be stronger in 1v1 anyway.

You mean like this game? Game 10926098 You went first, but had 5 in the decay area. The other guy only had 1. You lost.

nagerous wrote:I like this map the way it is...

You have played 12 games total on it and only 4 1v1. You haven't played since 2010. Do you even remember the map?

benga wrote:Don't change!

Why? You've lost 4 of your last 5 on the map. Probably because of drops.

No need to be a patronising ass. Of course I remember this map hence why I commented on it, and my opinion is just valid as yours no matter how aggressively you try and push your agenda. Part of the fun of this map is the unpredictability of it.

nagerous wrote:Part of the fun of this map is the unpredictability of it.

This is what I remembered too, but I decided to create a few 1vs1 games to get a fresh experience. We'll see if any of my thoughts have changed.


--Andy

koontz1973 wrote:If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them.

Not really related with the map, but what you say it's already been tried, twice. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=163140
Honestly I would go with it, but it's something that needs lot of time and effort since every small change has to be discussed because it has a very important impact on the player side.

But,to my eyes, if a map need a fix, then it must be fixed. No matter how old it is or how many maps we have.
Mapmaking point to the perfection, always!

benga wrote:Don't change!

Why? You've lost 4 of your last 5 on the map. Probably because of drops.[/quote]

Cause I like it as it is.

It gives something else and it's unique it's in own way.

You have tons of others that are balanced.

And it's fun playing it, especially with 4+ players.

benga wrote:And it's fun playing it, especially with 4+ players.

I can't speak for what chap had in mind, but I think the changes to game types with 4 or more players would be minimal, if at all.

nagerous wrote:No need to be a patronising ass.

Too true. Sorry for that.

koontz1973 wrote:But considering one player in 5 years has seen this as a problem, does this really make it a problem.

That statement is false. I'm just the one who took initiative. Read a few game chats. Multiple people said they would never play the map again after an awful drop in the first game they played.

nolefan5311 wrote:Someone noticed this issue with this one map, requested and received the mapmakers permission to change it, and is in the process of seeing if there is support to change it.

That is true. If I knew XML better, I would already have the necessary changes made. I have the permission.

Having played 287 1vs1 games on this map, I totally agree that it needs to be more balanced. I have actually stopped playing 1vs1 games on Dust Bowl because of the unbalanced map settings, though I like the map and the idea of the decaying area.

In my opinion, each player should start with 10 or 9 regions in 1vs1 games. The current 12 is the worst option possible.

As for the decaying regions, I do like that it is unpredictable how many of your regions will be there. There can be very uneven drops, though, which is another reason why this map is unbalanced now. I think that the solution would be to keep it random how many starting regions are in the decaying area, but it should be an even number, and both players should start with the same number of decaying regions. Would it be possible to code this with the current XML?

chapcrap wrote:

pmchugh wrote:Remember Pearl Harbour? It got changed and no one liked it.

No, I don't remember Pearl Harbour. I know the Pearl Harbor map and it's great.

You are aware then that the plane bonus got reduced because it gave an unfair drop, but then was changed back due to a community outcry?

MrBenn wrote:As cairns has already explained, the map was changed a while back and the bonuses balanced out a bit from the drop. However, there was massive outcry from the rest of CC that changes had been made (despite a number of announcements, and discussion in GD) and the CC community decided to revert to the original version.

Not every map needs to be 100% balanced at the point of the drop, for the rest of the game is not balanced.

pmchugh wrote:I would also be willing to hazard a guess that first turn advantage would be stronger in 1v1 anyway.

You mean like this game? Game 10926098 You went first, but had 5 in the decay area. The other guy only had 1. You lost.

You will also notice I failed to take a territory on my first go, negating the advantage of it.

Game 10966861

In this game I went first, with 6 decaying regions to 3. I won. One game means f*ck all. 56/101 games seems to be slightly better but you really need to do a proper statistical analysis to see the weighting given over a larger sample set, it should also be noted that only just over half of the games played seem to suffer from "bad drops" where as all of them suffer from first turn advantage.

pmchugh wrote:One game means f*ck all. 56/101 games seems to be slightly better but you really need to do a proper statistical analysis to see the weighting given over a larger sample set, it should also be noted that only just over half of the games played seem to suffer from "bad drops" where as all of them suffer from first turn advantage.

Yes, well that's pretty representative. Even if it was slightly high at over 55%, even 30% is still too high, IMO. And there is no way it's that low.

I don't disagree with the first turn advantage as well. I mean, if that can be fixed too, then I am for that, but just because there is also a first turn advantage, does not mean that there should still be such crazy drops.

Jatekos wrote:Having played 287 1vs1 games on this map, I totally agree that it needs to be more balanced. I have actually stopped playing 1vs1 games on Dust Bowl because of the unbalanced map settings, though I like the map and the idea of the decaying area.

In my opinion, each player should start with 10 or 9 regions in 1vs1 games. The current 12 is the worst option possible.

As for the decaying regions, I do like that it is unpredictable how many of your regions will be there. There can be very uneven drops, though, which is another reason why this map is unbalanced now. I think that the solution would be to keep it random how many starting regions are in the decaying area, but it should be an even number, and both players should start with the same number of decaying regions. Would it be possible to code this with the current XML?

+42 167 from 288(58%)

that's 4% better of your avg win rate


Chap at this point this looks like your personal crusade,
maybe put it to vote so we see where we stand?

And one thing too add, haven't played much 1v1s lately (referring to all maps),
but from I have seen, there has been increase in number of neutrals
to make things fair, but 1v1 will never be fair,
now I struggle to fight neutrals to brake other guys bonus from unfair drop.

In 1v1 games will never be fair, you work with what you got.

benga wrote:

Jatekos wrote:Having played 287 1vs1 games on this map, I totally agree that it needs to be more balanced. I have actually stopped playing 1vs1 games on Dust Bowl because of the unbalanced map settings, though I like the map and the idea of the decaying area.

In my opinion, each player should start with 10 or 9 regions in 1vs1 games. The current 12 is the worst option possible.

As for the decaying regions, I do like that it is unpredictable how many of your regions will be there. There can be very uneven drops, though, which is another reason why this map is unbalanced now. I think that the solution would be to keep it random how many starting regions are in the decaying area, but it should be an even number, and both players should start with the same number of decaying regions. Would it be possible to code this with the current XML?

+42 167 from 288(58%)

that's 4% better of your avg win rate


Chap at this point this looks like your personal crusade,
maybe put it to vote so we see where we stand?

And one thing too add, haven't played much 1v1s lately (referring to all maps),
but from I have seen, there has been increase in number of neutrals
to make things fair, but 1v1 will never be fair,
now I struggle to fight neutrals to brake other guys bonus from unfair drop.

In 1v1 games will never be fair, you work with what you got.

It is hard to compare with my previous games that contain multiplayer games, but thanks for the info. I may have also gained some experience over time. Still, the map is unbalanced regardless of my win %.

benga wrote:Chap at this point this looks like your personal crusade,
maybe put it to vote so we see where we stand?

Umm, I'm not sure you're reading the same thread as me...Let's have a look, shall we?

Night Strike wrote:I just had a 1v1 where I dropped with 6 of my 12 territories in the dust. Then I lost all 4 from my deployment on bad dice. There's no chance I can win.

White Moose wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I just had a 1v1 where I dropped with 6 of my 12 territories in the dust. Then I lost all 4 from my deployment on bad dice. There's no chance I can win.

I had about the same. Dropped 7 in the dust which i lost. I won the game.. but still.

MrBenn wrote:I just had a thought; could all the dustbowl territories start with 4, so on the first turn they decay to 3 rather than 2?
I'm not sure what I think of that, but it might be a way to mitigate against the drop?

Jatekos wrote:

chapcrap wrote:Can the XML be changed on this to have equal amounts of starting territories in the decaying zone?

It just makes sense. It would make games more fair and probably get more people to play the map.

That would be great.

Decreasing the number of starting regions in 1 v 1 games would make the games even more balanced, in my opinion. Currently both players get 12 regions.

ooge wrote:yes change it,along with italy

puppydog85 wrote:It sounds like a fair suggestion to me. Go ahead and change it.

IcePack wrote:PLEASE do this. I can't tell you how many times i've been screwed on the drop. I remember the worst was a multi player game and i think 6 out of 8(?) territories were all in the decay zone.
Brutal, all they had to do was eliminate the other two spots and i basically had no chance...Needs to be addressed.

IcePack

nicestash wrote:Do change it

DiM wrote:we have the power to change this so i say we do it. make the decay are drop to be fair and reduce the starting terits from 12 to 11.

thenobodies80 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them.

Not really related with the map, but what you say it's already been tried, twice. http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=163140
Honestly I would go with it, but it's something that needs lot of time and effort since every small change has to be discussed because it has a very important impact on the player side.

But,to my eyes, if a map need a fix, then it must be fixed. No matter how old it is or how many maps we have.
Mapmaking point to the perfection, always!

Yeah, go ahead and put it to a vote. I think that would be great for the map.

Guys, do you want a poll?

thenobodies80 wrote:Guys, do you want a poll?

yes please

not sure how many votes are needed for the change

you foundry guys have some experience with this stuff...