MrBenn wrote:I'm satisfied that I've done all I can do to make 1v1s as balanced as possible, without adversely affecting other gametypes. If it transpires that there is an overwhelming disadvantage once the map is in play, I think we'll have to revisit it then.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
edbeard wrote:1. apologies for not reading everything but here's a viewpoint from someone just looking at the image
2. the region (note the CC-ified name change) bonus thing isn't explained well enough
a. "No Region Bonus" is a bad idea as seen in the Poker Club map because you always get +1.
b. The rest of it is just confusing. If I think it's confusing in nature then it's going to be a problem for a lot of people.
7 regions in same [area] +2, 10 regions +4, 13 regions +6, etc..
3. I'm not really fond on the gameplay on this map. I really hate having to do starting positions to make the gameplay "work". I think for this reason and because holding bonus regions is very very very difficult on this map, a new approach to gameplay should be taken.
a. take a page from the Brazil map and go back to your lined off areas. instead of having them be totally random, however, perhaps use major roads and highways as the inspiration for which regions allow "travel" from one "Area" to another.
b. why not just start both Northeast regions as neutral? you have 41 regions other than those. why not add one more territory and then you start with 42.
TaCktiX wrote:- Change "Area bonuses" to "Region bonuses" to mesh with CC official rules and terminology. Add a short little blurb that it's total territories owned or something like that.
saaimen wrote:"Territories" don't exist anymore, they're actually called "regions" now. And calling the bonus "region bonus" is not a good idea, as the necessary regions (here: counties) are all supposed to be in the same "area" (North/Midlands/South).
TaCktiX wrote:- Torch the cross symbols. You don't need them.
DJ Teflon wrote:I would predict that player one would often have a huge advantage from the following scenario:
Dropping 2 x +2 bonuses in the Midlands and the South in 1 v 1
With 14 territories to be handed-out, the chances of player one getting 1 of the 6 available in the Midlands and 2 of the 5 in the South are high (although difficult to calculate).
In this scenario, player one would most likely be able to deploy his 7 troops strategically and prevent player two getting either the two or one bonuses (s)he may have dropped. Certainly, player one is most likely to retain a bonus advantage going into, and beyond, round 2.
edbeard wrote:a new approach to gameplay should be taken.
Echospree wrote:I really don't like the area-bonuses at all, actually. I'd rather see them scrapped. What was the purpose of adding them in the first place, again?
MrBenn wrote:Echospree wrote:I really don't like the area-bonuses at all, actually. I'd rather see them scrapped. What was the purpose of adding them in the first place, again?
Which ones? The discrete area/region bonuses, or the larger build-your own bonuses?
DJ Teflon wrote:'Build Your Own' System
1 v 1 Games
Would it be possible to have the blue territories (in the 3-player) coded as neutral in 1 v 1? If enough of the blue Midlands and South territories were coded as neutral for 1 v 1 this would eliminate bonus drops (they could be coded as neutrals with 2 troops instead of 3 to encourage players to 'build their own? If this is possible and acceptable, I would suggest all blues in the Midlands coded as neutrals and three of those in the South.
Alternatively, and along similar lines - if, just for 1 v 1, there were no coded starts but one neutral in each of the 9 regions then the chances of player 1 dropping a +2 for 7 bonus would be 11.22% in the Midlands. If an extra neutral were in the Midlands, as opposed to the South (i.e. 4 overall - 2 in one of the regions), then this probability would drop to 7.15%.
MrBenn wrote:In 4p games, the odds for the Midlands are 5.28% for +2, trace% for +4; In the South the odds are 2.33% for +2, trace% for +4. There is 1.05% chance of getting Yorkshire, and less than 1% for any of the other discrete bonus areas. For >4 player games, the odds are significantly lower, and in 7/8 player games a physical impossibility.
DJ Teflon wrote:It's definitely the kind of direction I think we need for 1 v 1 - more neutrals reducing the probability of player 1 advantage.
But with a such a high probability of +2 for player 1, England would be on the front cover of Farmer's weekly.
2 Possible Solutions
Is it not possible to have seperate coding just for 1 v 1 with more neutrals (i.e. coding for 3p and seperate coding for 1 v 1)?
Or,if the 16 unused territories weren't handed-out, each player would start with 9 in 3p and 9+3 in 1 v 1 - 0% chance of dropping anything. This may be unsatifsactory, although the starting value of some of the neutrals could be set to 2 or 1 to encourage rapid building gameplay. That could be interesting.
DJ Teflon wrote:Now then, now then.
We still have a dangerous situation for 1 v 1. If it was +1 then there wouldn't be so much to worry about (as it would be a bit like maps with a 18/15/12 territory start).
Anyway, if this can be tested in BETA, given that we have innovative gameplay at workm then we need a 'safe' back-up plan ready in case.
I've been thinking and re-thinking and keep coming-up with the conclusion of coding loads of neutral and start positions - and to get low percentages (given that 10% is often suggested) - we are looking at lots of them. Although,if they were 1s and 2s then it would certainly encourage 'self-build' strategies.
My current thinking gives highest probs of 5% so I'll do some more tinkering tomorrow to see what I can come up with that has less coding and is still within general guidelines.
Plus, a fresh mind might enable some other idea to come up. One idea I had was for different zones - The North, The East (E Midlands & East Anglia), The West (West Mid & SW) and South-East (South & Thames)? But then,you would only be able to self-build so far.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users