Select Amount of Starting Positions

[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.

[Fazeem]

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.

In a way you are right as I am talking on 2 seperate points but overall, No I am saying I can see how this option is not feasible to work in some maps and scenerios and in those cases it can just not work much like manual now.

My argument and suggestion are seperate things that are connected as I have continually stated that on all maps that the optional setting would be feasible you should have the option of a minimum of 1 and maximum of whatever the default for the number of players playing would be. If the sites oh so gracious programmers are not concerned by the possibility of a 1 territ game on a small map creating problems then they would not restrict it. I did not raise the issue I simply addressed it logically. I used examples of maps I could forsee it being a issue with nothing more or concrete.

Not sure how recognising that every option cannot always work in all situations after someone else raised the issue is being anything less then a realist. I gave examples of game settings that are already implemented and also come with limitations where they are not playable in all maps/scenerios. I do not get how anyone shy of the obtuse could not grasp what I am saying at this point.

[betiko]

this is a good idea, i like it.

[Fazeem]

The poll is public?...

Unless there is a way to see who voted for what then this Poll is not the type of public I am referring too. I am a member on other forums with poll options and they allow for on a public polls for the members to see which members voted whatever way on the poll topic.

[iamkoolerthanu]

...
If the sites oh so gracious programmers are not concerned by the possibility of a 1 territ game on a small map creating problems then they would not restrict it. I did not raise the issue I simply addressed it logically. I used examples of maps I could forsee it being a issue with nothing more or concrete.
...

Okay I see what your saying, you don't actually want to restrict this setting on small maps, you were just saying that it could be restricted, if and only if there is an issue with small maps. You weren't actually stating that you wanted to restrict small maps. Now that we are past this confusion, I agree completely, I would want to see this implemented, and to make a comment on whether or not small maps should be excluded, I think they shouldn't. It should only, IMO, be excluded for maps where you cannot change the territ count, like maps you already start off with 1 territ, because it's just redundant. All other maps should be able to have this setting

The poll is public?...

Unless there is a way to see who voted for what then this Poll is not the type of public I am referring too. I am a member on other forums with poll options and they allow for on a public polls for the members to see which members voted whatever way on the poll topic.

Very cool I've never seen a poll like that as far as I can remember, that actually would be a cool option!

[Fazeem]

The poll is public?...

Unless there is a way to see who voted for what then this Poll is not the type of public I am referring too. I am a member on other forums with poll options and they allow for on a public polls for the members to see which members voted whatever way on the poll topic.

Very cool I've never seen a poll like that as far as I can remember, that actually would be a cool option!

yes I frequent a few other forums on religion and music and they all have the option when making a polling thread to either hide who voted for what or make the poll public showing who voted whichever way. I Like the option of transparency so I can see who is sitting where on a subject.

[Fazeem]

After reading some of the feedback and the ideas in other suggestions I have thought of a what could be a easy varient and even a name for it. Conquest Mode. Same Idea but simplified Conquest mode changes from the deafult amount to 1 starting territ. I still like the idea of customizable but it may be more difficult just having 1 territ which seems to be the most popular point of.

[Blazer87]

I would select starting number of territories but it cannot be on places with killer neutrals and cannot be like a whole continent on the starting turn. I would also like to put in a suggestion of limiting the number of troops in a particular territory on manual deployment so you cannot plop all of the troops on one territory and steamroll with it.

[darth emperor]

I would select starting number of territories but it cannot be on places with killer neutrals and cannot be like a whole continent on the starting turn. I would also like to put in a suggestion of limiting the number of troops in a particular territory on manual deployment so you cannot plop all of the troops on one territory and steamroll with it.

Don't worry, that's not possible. Killer neutrals, are never a starting position.
Well, that's luck, is not like you can decide where to deploy. With this suggestion, you have less chances of this happening, than what's currently.
That's a completely, different suggestion. You should search if there's a similar suggestion and post there. If not, make a new thread about that suggestion.

[agentcom]

Couldn't have said it better myself, darth.

On another note, while playing around in a sandbox somewhere, I was able to play some games like this. I didn't think much of this suggestion before I did that, but it was fun. A whole new type of gameplay, especially on foggy. You go for a lot of bonuses that you wouldn't think about holding in other games. I think this would be a fun addition to the gameplay options.

[rishaed]

Can we get a suggs. mod to sticky it?

[nicestash]

Hmm, I have a split opinion on this one. I like the idea, but I worry about clutter in the game finder. A lot of players search for specific game options, and making a large number of new options (1 troop, 2 troop, 3 troop... all the way up to 123 (is this number righttroops on hive could really disperse the available games. It's hard enough finding a 1v1 game without meddlesome options like fog, nukes, and manual, and this could make it very difficult. Also, hive would be a b1tch to code for as the programmers would need to make 123 options; I don't know about you, but I'd rather see that time spent on several somethings. That being said, this is a very interesting idea. I've played risk against friends where we each started with 1 territory and fought from there, and this could be very fun in a trench game (albeit long depending on the map). Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1. I can't see people playing with a lot of other settings and that would be easier to program.

Also chapcrap, I'd like to commend you for staying level headed during your "conversation" with fazeem; just reading through that discussion I wanted to socket punch him in the face a couple times.

[Fazeem]

Hmm, I have a split opinion on this one. I like the idea, but I worry about clutter in the game finder. A lot of players search for specific game options, and making a large number of new options (1 troop, 2 troop, 3 troop... all the way up to 123 (is this number righttroops on hive could really disperse the available games. It's hard enough finding a 1v1 game without meddlesome options like fog, nukes, and manual, and this could make it very difficult. Also, hive would be a b1tch to code for as the programmers would need to make 123 options; I don't know about you, but I'd rather see that time spent on several somethings. That being said, this is a very interesting idea. I've played risk against friends where we each started with 1 territory and fought from there, and this could be very fun in a trench game (albeit long depending on the map). Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1. I can't see people playing with a lot of other settings and that would be easier to program.

Also chapcrap, I'd like to commend you for staying level headed during your "conversation" with fazeem; just reading through that discussion I wanted to socket punch him in the face a couple times.

Interesting so you came in with problems and no solutions and to make a snarkey comment on top of it. Solution Idea to your issue would be instead of making it 1 through whatever number split it into 3 option sets that would be map based. Normal Territs, Half Territs and Minimum/1 Territ. now you can go back to making your nose discolored and riding the illogic train.

[nicestash]

Really? Let's analyze what I said:

Problem: Lots of coding if programmers have to make a value for all values between 1 and 123 (starting # in hive)
Solution:

Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1.

Screw off fazeem

[greenoaks]

Really? Let's analyze what I said:

Problem: Lots of coding if programmers have to make a value for all values between 1 and 123 (starting # in hive)
Solution:

Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1.

Screw off fazeem

i like your idea nicestash.

How would such an option be displayed on the Join A Game and Game Finder Pages?

I am sure one of the site geniuses would find a spot much like they did with Trench and Fog

this would be a part of Initial Troops - Automatic, Manual or Conquest

the normal or 1 terit option would also mean it works perfectly for Random as well.

[Fazeem]

Hmm, I have a split opinion on this one. I like the idea, but I worry about clutter in the game finder. A lot of players search for specific game options, and making a large number of new options (1 troop, 2 troop, 3 troop... all the way up to 123 (is this number righttroops on hive could really disperse the available games. It's hard enough finding a 1v1 game without meddlesome options like fog, nukes, and manual, and this could make it very difficult. Also, hive would be a b1tch to code for as the programmers would need to make 123 options; I don't know about you, but I'd rather see that time spent on several somethings. That being said, this is a very interesting idea. I've played risk against friends where we each started with 1 territory and fought from there, and this could be very fun in a trench game (albeit long depending on the map). Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1. I can't see people playing with a lot of other settings and that would be easier to program.

Also chapcrap, I'd like to commend you for staying level headed during your "conversation" with fazeem; just reading through that discussion I wanted to socket punch him in the face a couple times.

Interesting so you came in with problems and no solutions and to make a snarkey comment on top of it. Solution Idea to your issue would be instead of making it 1 through whatever number split it into 3 option sets that would be map based. Normal Territs, Half Territs and Minimum/1 Territ. now you can go back to making your nose discolored and riding the illogic train.

Really? Let's analyze what I said:

Problem: Lots of coding if programmers have to make a value for all values between 1 and 123 (starting # in hive)
Solution:

Personally, I'd like the only options to be the current number of territories or 1.

Screw off fazeem

And yet the solution given went over your head or you intentionally ignored in order to continue riding the Snarkey wave. Yes the single territ(conquest mode) starting point would probably be the easiest solution and half the normal starting territs would also be something I could see being popular and either way woulkd be a great addition to the game settings. But given the way you decided to make attacks and jumpin to try and rekindle a side off topic issue that had nothing to do with you I take your posts with a grain of salt.