Moderator: Cartographers
paulk wrote:I understand that if the 8 yellow balls are assigned as start positions, then there currently is no way around the hick-up that in a 2 player game they will start with 4 yellow each.
I say, so be it.
paulk wrote:There is a slight problem here that you easily could start a 1 vs 1 game with a mini square of 4 yellow balls = +1+1+1+1+1=5.
To avoid this to happen, any mini square only consisting of yellow balls could render a bonus of 0 instead.
iancanton wrote:to minimise the chance of someone starting with a minisquare that has 2 or more yellows, let there be 2 (and only 2) start positions, with the 4 yellow balls in each start position being the corners of a regular tetrahedron.
iancanton wrote:in 1v1, each player will start with 22 balls, while 2v2 games will have each player starting with 16 balls; both numbers are reasonable..
This threads first post wrote:In a 2 player game this means 22 starter balls each and 20 neutrals. (0 of the neutrals yellow) << changed
In a 3 player game this means 20 starter balls each and 4 neutrals. (2 of the neutrals yellow)
In a 4 player game this means 16 starter balls each and 0 neutrals. (0 of the neutrals yellow)
In a 5 player game this means 12 starter balls each and 4 neutrals. (3 of the neutrals yellow)
In a 6 player game this means 10 starter balls each and 4 neutrals. (2 of the neutrals yellow)
In a 7 player game this means 9 starter balls each and 1 neutrals. (1 of the neutrals yellow)
In a 8 player game this means 8 starter balls each and 0 neutrals. (0 of the neutrals yellow)
iancanton wrote:so far, in combination with ur changes in red, this sounds workable. i have no idea yet what the chances of receiving a dropped +1 or +2 bonus are but, to give a guideline, if there is a less than 10% chance of +1 or more and also a less than 5% chance of +2 or more, then the drops are satisfactory.
iancanton wrote:i haven't been able to understand the proposed change to the naming system yet (but that's because i've made no attempt to do so in the very short time since i've seen it). i'll have a go after i return on sunday from my travels.
yeti_c wrote:G3 <-> GO3 <-> O3 = bad.
yeti_c wrote:With regards to your new namings...yeti_c wrote:G3 <-> GO3 <-> O3 = bad.
C.
paulk wrote:I wont. I was thinking writing it in the game log OrangeGreen3[og3] attacks Green3[g3] or similar
paulk wrote:ian, how come each time you leave a comment my head spins?
paulk wrote:You want the start positions in a 2 player game to be coded so that the positions are for example y1-y2-y3-y5 for player A and y6-y7-y8-y4 for player B.
paulk wrote:Unfortunately it is not currently possible to determine who gets what start positions. It is random.
iancanton wrote:paulk wrote:ian, how come each time you leave a comment my head spins?
maybe by assuming that anyone who designed a map like this must be a mathematician!
iancanton wrote:i find the new numbering system to be reasonably easy to see on the map in the same way as the names on any other map, but find it hard to visualise it unless i'm actually studying the map closely, since the method is not intuitive. i therefore have a slight personal preference for the previous system, though the new system has certain advantages for the purpose of discussing gameplay.
iancanton wrote:paulk wrote:Unfortunately it is not currently possible to determine who gets what start positions. It is random.
it is random in that u can't force y1-y3-y5-y7 to be red rather than green or vice versa. however, u can specify that one position is y1-y3-y5-y7 and that the other is y2-y4-y6-y8, with the game engine determining which is red and which is green.
iancanton wrote:the beauty of the cube concept is its simplicity. i think the bonus for single-coloured minisquares takes something away from it. less is more!
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users