Conquer Club

an initially-neutral downtown station means that someone must make a conscious effort to take what is one of the pivotal regions on the board, instead of it being handed over on a plate.

shakeycat wrote:I've seen starts with the 4 territory bonuses owned too. I didn't put starting positions on them, but I'm not so sure what's normal on other maps. Would it ruin the fun to put starting positions, or is it just making things more fair? If anywhere, Burnaby would need them, due to the large bonus.

can we use the opportunity to fix burnaby by adding a burnaby region to each of the start positions because of its +5 bonus? we can happily leave maple meadows as random, since this is equivalent to classic south america in terms of both zone size and bonus.

shakeycat wrote:I don't like making the bonus higher than the territory count, but places like Burnaby would be very difficult to hold, as would any train system.

now that we mention burnaby, this bonus is a bit high. ur spreadsheet did put it at +5, but only because u removed the -1 adjustment that cairnswk had in the original formula! however, if the +5 doesn't make the map unbalanced, then there's no need to upset games in progess by changing it.

ian.

So would I be doing start positions on Burnaby regardless of whether it's a +5 or +4 bonus? I don't mind lowering the bonus. New Westminster often blocks the 6th border anyway, making 4 more reasonable in those cases. Besides, it's not often we get a bonus higher than number of territories held to earn it.

I would probably just put three of the territories on start positions, unless it's normal to have start positions where 1, 2, and 3 all have three territories, while 4 gets only one. At 3 x 3 (and not 3 x 3 and 1 x1), would only mean you couldn't drop with the bonus, which is what we want.

Okay. I don't understand all the XML stuff (I'm glad you folk do) but I want to say that as this map develops I enjoy it more and more. As I move up into (as I am now) 3v3 and hopefully soon (4v4) I'm confident that this will be one of two maps I will choose. The other is the new England map... which I should talk about in another post I'm sure.

So. All the tweaking and adjusting I'm sure is important but I still believe this map (and that other one that starts with an "E") can, for larges crews and small, end up as premier, top 10 CC maps in the future.

Cheers.

E.

There's still a little bit of discussion about starting positions etc... I'll double-check again shortly and see what the fuss is about

Right... I'm a little confused now... Which version of the XML is live?

We have neutrals on Downtown Station and New Westminster, right?

The starting positions should be fine as they are, which will ensure that nobody drops the bonus. I think that ender516 summed it up quite well:

ender516 wrote:

shakeycat wrote:Ender, good point. Perhaps I could dummy in Port Moody station or Fraserview Station instead? Or even Downtown itself.

Thanks Fenrir, glad to hear it NYC was the first map that I really was blown away by. I thought it was really cool to have the trains. Plus the bonus structure offers a wide range. I'm also a big fan of Charleston, just because it's so PRETTY.

I'm not sure you need any of the stations in the starting positions if Downtown Station is always a neutral, because Expo Line cannot then be dropped, which was the concern. The fact that the none of the train lines can be dropped is a good thing, but incidental, and I don't think the concern for balance usually extends to the point of ensuring no one almost drops a bonus.

Could somebody summarise how things are now, and any proposed amendment (if indeed there is one)... I don't see there being much of a problem at all - and there have been no further complaints about the sizes/values of any bonuses... Once my confusion has ended, we should be good for a final stamping

MrBenn wrote:We have neutrals on Downtown Station and New Westminster, right?

no, we don't. in beta version 2 that is playable just now, new westminster always starts neutral, while downtown station starts neutral if it's not 1v1 (or if it's neither a red nor green start position in 1v1). this means each player in 1v1 sometimes starts with 22 regions and sometimes with 23, which some players find disconcerting, even though it's perfectly acceptable for gameplay stamp purposes.

MrBenn wrote:The starting positions should be fine as they are, which will ensure that nobody drops the bonus.

in 2% of 1v1 games, 3% of 1v1v1 games and 1.5% of 2v2 games, someone will drop the +5 burnaby bonus. no-one would bat an eyelid if the bonus were only +2.

ender516 wrote:I don't think the concern for balance usually extends to the point of ensuring no one almost drops a bonus.

i think everyone agrees with this!

shakeycat wrote:So would I be doing start positions on Burnaby regardless of whether it's a +5 or +4 bonus? I don't mind lowering the bonus. New Westminster often blocks the 6th border anyway, making 4 more reasonable in those cases. Besides, it's not often we get a bonus higher than number of territories held to earn it.

I would probably just put three of the territories on start positions

it's now proposed that both new westminster and downtown station will always start neutral. start positions will apply on burnaby whether it's a +5 or +4 bonus. there will be 3 sets of start positions, each of which has 3 regions. the easiest way to do it is to copy the start position code from beta version 1, then replace each canada line station by a burnaby region. one burnaby region will necessarily be left out of the start positions. 2-player games will then start with each player always having 22 regions, with 23 neutral.

purely as a gameplay note, 22 regions each, instead of 23, favours player 1 slightly more. one way to restore the starts to 23 regions per player is to have 3 sets of 4 regions for the start positions, at the cost of a non-random maple meadows zone. this is not currently under consideration.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

MrBenn wrote:The starting positions should be fine as they are, which will ensure that nobody drops the bonus.

in 2% of 1v1 games, 3% of 1v1v1 games and 1.5% of 2v2 games, someone will drop the +5 burnaby bonus. no-one would bat an eyelid if the bonus were only +2.

Personally I think that anything under 5% is effectively insignificant. The unwritten rule-of-thumb that has been bandied about is 10%... With that in mind I wouldn't suggest that there is a need for any change.

I think this is entirely up to you shakeycat... If you want to swap the Canada Line starting positions for some in Burnaby, then that sounds like a plan which requires minimal effort and should settle the debate that's been rumbling on...

What say you?

Great map! And I'm not just saying because I won my first game on it. I can't seem to find any flaws in it. Gameplay is nice and refreshing.

i still don't understand why this map is labeled as vancouver 2...

whitestazn88 wrote:i still don't understand why this map is labeled as vancouver 2...

It's a side-effect of a change to the map graphic (in case people had an old version cached at the time of the update). The 2 will be dropped in due course...

MrBenn wrote:

iancanton wrote:

MrBenn wrote:The starting positions should be fine as they are, which will ensure that nobody drops the bonus.

in 2% of 1v1 games, 3% of 1v1v1 games and 1.5% of 2v2 games, someone will drop the +5 burnaby bonus. no-one would bat an eyelid if the bonus were only +2.

Personally I think that anything under 5% is effectively insignificant. The unwritten rule-of-thumb that has been bandied about is 10%... With that in mind I wouldn't suggest that there is a need for any change.

I think this is entirely up to you shakeycat... If you want to swap the Canada Line starting positions for some in Burnaby, then that sounds like a plan which requires minimal effort and should settle the debate that's been rumbling on...

What say you?

Any word from the mapmaker???

That's funny, I could've sworn I posted a few hours ago.

Burnaby I am more concerned about, so I'll swap it to that one. This work? And I forget, are we keeping the +5 or lowering it to +4?

Code: Select all

<positions>
−
<position>
<territory>Ambleside</territory>
<territory>Cypress Mountain</territory>
<territory>Edmonds</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<territory>Dundarave</territory>
<territory>Seymour Mountain</territory>
<territory>Deer Lake</territory>
</position>
−
<position>
<territory>Horseshoe Bay</territory>
<territory>Grouse Mountain</territory>
<territory>Metrotown</territory>
</position>
</positions>

Burnaby is an awesome bonus for the map. I think unrandomizing territories on a map makes it less fun. Burnaby has so many break points that it should be left completely random. Tuning it down to a +4 bonus is probably fair considering each territory protects itself but please dont make the territories default to different players. The random advantage of having 2 of the burnaby territories adds to team game excitement and is so rare it should matter in most games. Its like saying that the dice should be fixed so that after so many rounds the players are even on their wins/losses. Or maybe it isnt like that.
But I think Burnaby should remain completely random in terms of starting territories.
-js-

it looks as if there's nothing wrong with the new start positions.

don’t worry, justcallmestupid. in most 2-player and 3-player games with the start positions, at least one player will continue to start with at least 2 burnaby regions. the start positions merely prevent someone from starting with all 4. games with 4 or more players, including all team games, will have no start positions and burnaby will be completely random.

a +4 bonus for burnaby seems fairer (except to those players who are holding it in a game just now).

ian.

http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/gva/vanc.jpg
http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/gva/vancs.jpg

http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/ ... couver.xml

Updated with Burnaby bonus +4 and start positions.

There have been no further issues, so once these changes have gone live, it shouldn't be long before we can take this out of Beta.

Good to know, thanks MrBenn

I haven't been able to participate in this thread so far because I took a lengthy break from CC. Wish I'd been here from the beginning. I want to congratulate you on a fun and very playable map.

I do have just a few suggestions with the accuracy of the names. "Musqueam" is the biggest concern. I see the need for the territory, but Musqueam is simply not in that location. It's in Vancouver, where "Kerrisdale" is located.
I guess one could argue that a huge chunk of the map is the traditional territory of the Musqueam people, but most associate the word 'Musqueam' with the rez in Vancouver.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musqueam

If this territory must be kept I suggest renaming it. One thing that logically and immediately comes to mind is "South Delta". The territory represented on the map is a sort of agricultural no man's land between Ladner and Tsawwassen.

Alternately, because it is on the coast of that territory, perhaps 'Deltaport' --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_Bank_Superport

Deer Lake would barely touch the actual Deer Lake, if at all. "Brentwood" or "The Heights" would be more suitable geographically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnaby_Heights

There are other geographic issues I have with it, but they would probably qualify as "nitpicky" so I'll leave it at that.

Please take these suggestions with a large dose of respect for the work done and regret for not having been able to contribute earlier! I really enjoy playing this map and I know plenty of others do too.

I would be very interested in collaborating with someone on a "BC" or even "BC coast" map. Perhaps in some way based on this template and maybe with ferry routes? I've had ideas and sketches. Anyway, thanks again.

Best,
Konq.

Konquerer,

Thank you for your input, I wish you had come around a year ago!! I used various maps to pick names from, as my familiar territory only stretches so far. North Burnaby is one of those places I am not very familiar with. Actually, I'm more concerned about the North Burnaby territory name than Musqueam

Deer Lake and Willingdon (more appropriately Brentwood or The Heights, as you said) were two seperate territories when I first drew the map, but it made Burnaby too busy to have so many territories. When I expanded Deer Lake to the North, even though the Deer Lake itself is probably in the Metrotown territory, I kept the name because it fit physically, not geographically. It just doesn't work in that spot to have a long name, unless I split it and hyphenate it. The Heights works, or Brent- wood (willing- don?).

Musqueam. After marking off the obvious areas in Delta on the aerial from Google, there was this blank area. The only word there was Musqueam 4, as there is a reservation before the road to Deltaport, so I put that. I wanted unique names too, not ones where I would misdeploy to. Deltaport and Roberts Bank both occur offland, which makes Musqueam reserve the only thing onland, even if the Southlands one is more well-known. Deltaport I won't use because I'll probably mix it up when deploying. Roberts Bank may work, as it is a unique name.

Something more like ... ?
http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/gva/decs.jpg

I'm surprised you didn't point out how I named Reifel Island

And, I'm also considering a larger BC map, I'm curious to hear your ideas.

...But we've all been playing on this map with these names for the last few months. Is it a bit late to change the names of territories? Though in the long run, accuracy may be best.

Hey, I'd be amiss if I didn't give you kudos for spelling Tsawwassen correctly.

You're tempting me to add comment about those other 'minor quibbles' (yes, yes, 'Bird Sanctuary' was originally one of them-- and actually the main island mass shown on the map is 'Westham Island'), but I think I'll withhold further name critique.
Because really, I'm quite late to the party.

I like the updated map with Roberts Bank.
Don't have a bone to pick with the hyphenated Brent-wood, but others might I guess. Comes down to a matter of minor geographical accuracy vs minor aesthetic, I s'pose.
Whether it's too late for these changes, I guess someone else here can answer that one.

Regardless, thanks for hearing me out anyway. I will upload a BC map someplace or other for your perusal soon. Certainly poses its fair share of challenges! Will save that talk for elsewhere.

Konq.

it certainly isn't too late to change the names, if no one objects. we must ensure that the order of the names in the xml file remains exactly the same as before. i imagine that this will be the final update before the map goes fully live. thanks for popping in to contribute to the map, konquerer!

ian.

http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/gva/van.jpg
http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/gva/vans.jpg
http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/gva/vancouver.xml

Simple search and replace on the XML, all should be in order.

I am keeping Bird Sanctuary as is, unless someone objects. The island is called Westham Island, and is home to the Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary which takes up half the island. I figure that Bird Sanctuary is a more interesting name, and explains the dead-end.

Apparently there's some discrepancies between the new image files and the updated XML...

What changes have you made?

I know there were some amendments made to the XML by lack previously - you might need to take the XML file from the site (http://www.conquerclub.com/maps/Vancouver_2.xml) to use as your new master copy...

Try this one:
http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/gva/Vancouver_2.xml

shakeycat wrote:Try this one:
http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/gva/Vancouver_2.xml

Are all the region names the same as the new map image? I think there was a discrepancy - did you rename a couple of terrs?

Yes, Roberts Bank/Musqueam and Brentwood/Deer Lake. The van/vans images should line up with the latest XML.