Select Amount of Starting Positions

[greenoaks]

my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

why would you be against playing Classic & starting with 1

[chapcrap]

my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

why would you be against playing Classic & starting with 1

It was already stated.

Because if two people start right next two each other, then it's completely up to dice. It's a bad idea because of that.

[DoomYoshi]

my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

why would you be against playing Classic & starting with 1

It was already stated.

Because if two people start right next two each other, then it's completely up to dice. It's a bad idea because of that.

So... ?

[Metsfanmax]

my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

why would you be against playing Classic & starting with 1

It was already stated.

Because if two people start right next two each other, then it's completely up to dice. It's a bad idea because of that.

So... ?

So, I suspect that basically no one wants to be in a game where they stand a decent chance of being eliminated before even having the chance to take a turn.

[DoomYoshi]

Single Tert Battle Royales were fairly popular, except for a few high-rankers, last I checked.

AssDoodle is still a popular setting...

[greenoaks]

my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

why would you be against playing Classic & starting with 1

It was already stated.

Because if two people start right next two each other, then it's completely up to dice. It's a bad idea because of that.

but you sign up for the game knowing there is a slim chance of that happening. i don't see a problem with it.

[greenoaks]

my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

why would you be against playing Classic & starting with 1

It was already stated.

Because if two people start right next two each other, then it's completely up to dice. It's a bad idea because of that.

So... ?

So, I suspect that basically no one wants to be in a game where they stand a decent chance of being eliminated before even having the chance to take a turn.

if that is the case then those games won't fill, quickly. shouldn't those of us that want to play them be allowed to though.

[Fazeem]

my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

For random, you just pick the number you want and it would give you a map that would fit the criteria.

I disagree 1 should always be a choice. People should just be choosey about whether they play certain settings just like now. I tend to avoid games with the trench setting that is my preference other love that setting. I honestly feel this options opens up a lot more gameplay opportunities. Only Maps I can see off the back not allowing this for would be doodle and random.

[chapcrap]

my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

For random, you just pick the number you want and it would give you a map that would fit the criteria.

I disagree 1 should always be a choice. People should just be choosey about whether they play certain settings just like now. I tend to avoid games with the trench setting that is my preference other love that setting. I honestly feel this options opens up a lot more gameplay opportunities. Only Maps I can see off the back not allowing this for would be doodle and random.

So, you're all for free choice unless it's Doodle Earth? But Luxembourg is ok even though it only has one more territory than Doodle Earth? Your logic does not make sense to me.

[Fazeem]

my understanding of how this would work is you choose a map, the starting position dropdown would then allow you to select a number between 1 and the normal amount.

but how will this work for random?

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

For random, you just pick the number you want and it would give you a map that would fit the criteria.

I disagree 1 should always be a choice. People should just be choosey about whether they play certain settings just like now. I tend to avoid games with the trench setting that is my preference other love that setting. I honestly feel this options opens up a lot more gameplay opportunities. Only Maps I can see off the back not allowing this for would be doodle and random.

So, you're all for free choice unless it's Doodle Earth? But Luxembourg is ok even though it only has one more territory than Doodle Earth? Your logic does not make sense to me.

I do not play Luxemburg typically so no need to be a douche bag about your response. GIven that data I would say like I said earlier in maps where it is not feasible to use code it to not work like Manual does not work on a number of maps because of the way the maps are set.

This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

the drop is random though so the odds of being right next to someone and having only chosen 1 starting point on most maps is quite a large spread. Not saying it is impossible but unlikely this will ever be more of a factor. The odds are almost as likely for a manual drop and incredible dice to win in one turn to happen as this worst case scenario. Also on a map like doodle earth where this is a likely issue it could be made to not work like manual does not work on some maps.

That all said how does a good idea get vetted and moved to the next steps?

[chapcrap]

Sorry if I seemed like a douche, but you didn't really respond to the criticism and your argument still doesn't make sense.

Why exclude Doodle Earth if you are for free choice? Why not exclude Luxembourg if you are for excluding Doodle Earth?

[Fazeem]

Sorry if I seemed like a douche, but you didn't really respond to the criticism and your argument still doesn't make sense.

Why exclude Doodle Earth if you are for free choice? Why not exclude Luxembourg if you are for excluding Doodle Earth?

Actually I did repsond to the criticism in multiple posts 1 of which I quoted already with my last response to the issue but for the record in maps where it is not feasible to work because the territ amount is too low make it not work just like manual does not work on some maps because of how they are made and play conditions. This would include the feudals, the age of and maps like luxemburg and doodle or whatever other maps meet the unrealistic criteria(again nothing is concrete I am just naming some maps I think would have issue with the coding or not make a difference on). Again this option like manual does not need to be able to work on all maps but it would on the majority of maps like manual. Classic though would be an ideal map for 1 starting point and have lower odds then others to be dropped right next to one another. I hope this further reiteration provides some clarity if not I am unsure of what else to say to define it better for you and hope someone else that does grasp what I am stating might be able to better explain.

[chapcrap]

Ok, so you are saying people should be able to choose to play this option with 1 starting territory if they want, because they know the risk they are taking. However, they should not be able to do it if the map is small because that would be unfair.

I understand what you are saying, I'm saying it doesn't make sense. You are arguing on both sides of the fence. You can not argue for choice and for restrictions. That is what I am saying.

[Fazeem]

Ok, so you are saying people should be able to choose to play this option with 1 starting territory if they want, because they know the risk they are taking. However, they should not be able to do it if the map is small because that would be unfair.

I understand what you are saying, I'm saying it doesn't make sense. You are arguing on both sides of the fence. You can not argue for choice and for restrictions. That is what I am saying.

Now I am thinking you are just arguing to be arguing.

Manual does not work on all maps for example Jamaica it does not work on but it potetntially could. What I am saying makes perfect sense for the same reasons manual does not work on certain maps. My argument hinges on the ability to select starting points on the majority of maps on this site which would be a new dynamic of gameplay while it appears yours simply wants to be petty and split hairs because it cannot be used on all maps.

Saying that it should and could be available on most maps is not contradictory to recognising that it might not and probably should not be available on a minscule minority of maps. All that said for the umpteenth time please feel free to continue on with not grasping and wasting mental energies whether intentioanlly or unintentionally on derailing what should be a discussion on how to implement and best use this great idea.

[chapcrap]

Ok, so you are saying people should be able to choose to play this option with 1 starting territory if they want, because they know the risk they are taking. However, they should not be able to do it if the map is small because that would be unfair.

I understand what you are saying, I'm saying it doesn't make sense. You are arguing on both sides of the fence. You can not argue for choice and for restrictions. That is what I am saying.

Now I am thinking you are just arguing to be arguing.

Manual does not work on all maps for example Jamaica it does not work on but it potetntially could. What I am saying makes perfect sense for the same reasons manual does not work on certain maps. My argument hinges on the ability to select starting points on the majority of maps on this site which would be a new dynamic of gameplay while it appears yours simply wants to be petty and split hairs because it cannot be used on all maps.

Saying that it should and could be available on most maps is not contradictory to recognising that it might not and probably should not be available on a minscule minority of maps. All that said for the umpteenth time please feel free to continue on with not grasping and wasting mental energies whether intentioanlly or unintentionally on derailing what should be a discussion on how to implement and best use this great idea.

Disagreement is not being petty. I'm trying to understand your thought process. Why do you think it can work with 1 territory to start, but it can't work on Doodle Earth?

As far as my thoughts, I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed on smaller maps. There just needs to be a way to make sure it's coded properly for maps like Feudal War, King's Court, Clandemonium, etc., or just not used for maps like that.

My thought is that there needs to be some measurable way to decide a range of options that is appropriate for each map. I like that 3-whatever the normal starting positions are is a good idea for that. I would like to be able to go above 14 on Classic, but that can't be done for games that aren't 1v1. So, I think a blanket statement of only allowing the normal starting position number should be the rule.

[Fazeem]

Ok, so you are saying people should be able to choose to play this option with 1 starting territory if they want, because they know the risk they are taking. However, they should not be able to do it if the map is small because that would be unfair.

I understand what you are saying, I'm saying it doesn't make sense. You are arguing on both sides of the fence. You can not argue for choice and for restrictions. That is what I am saying.

Now I am thinking you are just arguing to be arguing.

Manual does not work on all maps for example Jamaica it does not work on but it potetntially could. What I am saying makes perfect sense for the same reasons manual does not work on certain maps. My argument hinges on the ability to select starting points on the majority of maps on this site which would be a new dynamic of gameplay while it appears yours simply wants to be petty and split hairs because it cannot be used on all maps.

Saying that it should and could be available on most maps is not contradictory to recognising that it might not and probably should not be available on a minscule minority of maps. All that said for the umpteenth time please feel free to continue on with not grasping and wasting mental energies whether intentioanlly or unintentionally on derailing what should be a discussion on how to implement and best use this great idea.

Disagreement is not being petty. I'm trying to understand your thought process. Why do you think it can work with 1 territory to start, but it can't work on Doodle Earth?

As far as my thoughts, I see no reason why this shouldn't be allowed on smaller maps. There just needs to be a way to make sure it's coded properly for maps like Feudal War, King's Court, Clandemonium, etc., or just not used for maps like that.

My thought is that there needs to be some measurable way to decide a range of options that is appropriate for each map. I like that 3-whatever the normal starting positions are is a good idea for that. I would like to be able to go above 14 on Classic, but that can't be done for games that aren't 1v1. So, I think a blanket statement of only allowing the normal starting position number should be the rule.

we will have to agree to disagree then as you do not grasp my point and have tunnel vision based on your own misconceptions about the idea. I would like to point out that a map like feudal never gives anyone more then 2 starting territs anyways so again it would be not feasible for this idea but clandemonium would be ideal for this setting in small numbers games likes 2,3 or 4 players.

[chapcrap]

I have zero misconceptions about the idea. Again, just because people do not see eye to eye with you, doesn't make them douchebags, idiots, petty, petulant, or mean that they have misconceptions. I have a different idea about this should be implemented and you didn't even address it. Instead of brushing me aside by diatribing and attempting to say that I am only trying to fight with you, try addressing my ideas. I shouldn't have to go on a allocution about proper forum discussion for you to recognize that differences in ideas aren't attempts at fighting. See the Unique Map Ribbon thread for an example. There are a few of us there that have different ideas about how it should be done. The reason for this is so that we can flesh out every possible scenario about what might happen, about what is the best for the site, about why people might be drawn to certain ideas or aspects of this idea. We need to go through all of that so that we can present an idea in its best form to the site admin. If you want to see this "great idea" implemented, then you can simply disregard differing opinions.

Now, moving forward, please know that I have nothing against you. I am not trying to bait you, flame you, or otherwise have this thread get off topic or out of hand. I'm trying to discuss the different possibilities various ways that this idea might be implemented. Keep in mind that just because we come up with an idea that we think is best, it may not be able to implemented that way. We need to discuss all options.

[Fazeem]

I have zero misconceptions about the idea. Again, just because people do not see eye to eye with you, doesn't make them douchebags, idiots, petty, petulant, or mean that they have misconceptions. I have a different idea about this should be implemented and you didn't even address it. Instead of brushing me aside by diatribing and attempting to say that I am only trying to fight with you, try addressing my ideas. I shouldn't have to go on a allocution about proper forum discussion for you to recognize that differences in ideas aren't attempts at fighting. See the Unique Map Ribbon thread for an example. There are a few of us there that have different ideas about how it should be done. The reason for this is so that we can flesh out every possible scenario about what might happen, about what is the best for the site, about why people might be drawn to certain ideas or aspects of this idea. We need to go through all of that so that we can present an idea in its best form to the site admin. If you want to see this "great idea" implemented, then you can simply disregard differing opinions.

Now, moving forward, please know that I have nothing against you. I am not trying to bait you, flame you, or otherwise have this thread get off topic or out of hand. I'm trying to discuss the different possibilities various ways that this idea might be implemented. Keep in mind that just because we come up with an idea that we think is best, it may not be able to implemented that way. We need to discuss all options.

While you may be trying to say 1 thing now your various posts have said something else you have become caught up on the exception rather then the rule and yes your initial point of conflict in this conversation came off very douchey as to the idiot petulant and mean parts those are all freudian projections of your own guilty conscience.

I addressed your concern and to me it seems like a frivolent nonissue that is overreaction that you are overtly stressing without fully thinking out. My idea in its simplest form allows for a vast variety of gameplay and with out over complicating it is a simpleidea that as has been pointed out will require exclusion on some maps.

In the same vein of thought on fleshing things out like I saw in other threads the implmentation for each idea is one that the sites esteemed admin and coders deems worthy or not and figures out how to best integrate into the overall CC experience. Different maps have different specifications for a win and limitations on gameplay this feature would be yet another that could change gameplay dynamics.

A maximum would be the default already associated with the map while a minimum should be one. One is important as a minimum for many reasons most important being that the less complicated the and more universal the system for choosing the amount of starting territs the easier it should be to implement. Again all features do not work with all settings like assasin does not work for 2 player games as it is pointless.

I say exclude the ones it is not feasible on and this is not a huge intellectual leap given that already occurs with the popular feature of manual. There is no conflict or arguing both sides it is really quite simple and you either get what I am saying from the examples or do not. If you disagree with the Idea that is your perogative go throw your support behind another one.

Again this is nothing personal and I am only stating how I perceive your posts and concerns on this topic, I do strongly feel that your energy would be better served trying to understand the general concept of what has already been stated and how it already addresses what you have asked about instead of getting caught up with a small misperception like the luxemburg doodle 1 territ difference concern.

[Metsfanmax]

Single Tert Battle Royales were fairly popular, except for a few high-rankers, last I checked.

AssDoodle is still a popular setting...

You are quite right, of course. I withdraw my objection to having 1 territory starting games, at least for the maps where it is feasible.

And everyone, please remember to be respectful in here. We're all working towards the same common goal of getting great features implemented onto the site

[Fazeem]

I added a Poll after seeing that could be done.

[chapcrap]

I added a Poll after seeing that could be done.

I edited the poll so that you could only pick one option instead of two.

[rishaed]

I added a Poll after seeing that could be done.

I edited the poll so that you could only pick one option instead of two.

I do like the changes though.

[Fazeem]

I think my next suggestion should be all polls should be public or at least have the option to make a poll public lol

[iamkoolerthanu]

The poll is public?..

As for the idea I like it a lot, I think it should be excluded for certain maps like team games on fuedal, etc.

What I think chapcrap was trying to say before though, Fazeem, is that you are making two arguments. One argument was this:

I think that 1 should not be a choice for classic style maps.

...

I disagree 1 should always be a choice. People should just be choosey about whether they play certain settings just like now. I tend to avoid games with the trench setting that is my preference other love that setting. ...

But then in the same sentence, you finish by saying:

Only Maps I can see off the back not allowing this for would be doodle and random.

So what you said is that you think that you should be able to pick 1 territ games, and have the small chance of having two people next to each other, BUT you can't have 1 territ games in small maps, because there too much of a chance that you will end up next to each other. You are basically saying its okay for the chance to happen, but only sometimes, and I'm not sure why, and I think that chapcrap doesn't know either

I for one would love to be able to have 1 territ in a doodle earth game! As well as other maps. So why take that option from me, I would love that setting, but you might not, so you can make the choice not to play those games.

[greenoaks]

well put iamkoolerthanu.

make it available for all maps and those who don't want to risk it on small maps don't have to join those games, much like me now with Trench.