oaktown wrote:Incandenza wrote:I suppose it's worth noting that I was pretty much ready to stamp this sucker before we started discussing an extra terit in el salvador, so in my mind this map is exceptionally close.
Ugh, and there I was saying that we should keep El Salvador as a two territory region but code the two territories as opposing starts so nobody could pick it up on the drop in a 1v1. The odds of picking up one of the three territory regions would then be less than 2.6%.
oaktown wrote:IanCanton, however, opposed keeping it as such because the odds of a player getting all of El Salvador in a 2v2 game are 10% - which they aren't, it's actually about 5%.
oak, i didn't say that. i said at least one of the four small bonuses, not just el salvador.
iancanton wrote:using 2 start positions instead of a neutral means that u must let player 1 have a near-10% chance of dropping one of the four small bonuses in a 2v2 game.
2v2, though popular, is by no means the most common format on small maps such as this one.
lgoasklucyl wrote:The two territ +1 is perfectly fine if coded as start positions to avoid one person dropping it in 1v1.
lgoasklucyl wrote:So: Code starting positions, no neutrals?
oaktown wrote:i think that keeping El Salvador as-is and coding two starts is the best solution.
Incandenza wrote:I would be perfectly satisfied with coding starts in El Sal and calling it a day. No neutrals, no third terit in El Sal, just a nice little +1.
i think we've reached a consensus.
ian.