Dust Bowl [Quenched]

[nolefan5311]

And it's fun playing it, especially with 4+ players.

I can't speak for what chap had in mind, but I think the changes to game types with 4 or more players would be minimal, if at all.

[chapcrap]

No need to be a patronising ass.

Too true. Sorry for that.

But considering one player in 5 years has seen this as a problem, does this really make it a problem.

That statement is false. I'm just the one who took initiative. Read a few game chats. Multiple people said they would never play the map again after an awful drop in the first game they played.

Someone noticed this issue with this one map, requested and received the mapmakers permission to change it, and is in the process of seeing if there is support to change it.

That is true. If I knew XML better, I would already have the necessary changes made. I have the permission.

[Jatekos]

Having played 287 1vs1 games on this map, I totally agree that it needs to be more balanced. I have actually stopped playing 1vs1 games on Dust Bowl because of the unbalanced map settings, though I like the map and the idea of the decaying area.

In my opinion, each player should start with 10 or 9 regions in 1vs1 games. The current 12 is the worst option possible.

As for the decaying regions, I do like that it is unpredictable how many of your regions will be there. There can be very uneven drops, though, which is another reason why this map is unbalanced now. I think that the solution would be to keep it random how many starting regions are in the decaying area, but it should be an even number, and both players should start with the same number of decaying regions. Would it be possible to code this with the current XML?

[pmchugh]

Remember Pearl Harbour? It got changed and no one liked it.

No, I don't remember Pearl Harbour. I know the Pearl Harbor map and it's great.

You are aware then that the plane bonus got reduced because it gave an unfair drop, but then was changed back due to a community outcry?

As cairns has already explained, the map was changed a while back and the bonuses balanced out a bit from the drop. However, there was massive outcry from the rest of CC that changes had been made (despite a number of announcements, and discussion in GD) and the CC community decided to revert to the original version.

Not every map needs to be 100% balanced at the point of the drop, for the rest of the game is not balanced.

I would also be willing to hazard a guess that first turn advantage would be stronger in 1v1 anyway.

You mean like this game? Game 10926098 You went first, but had 5 in the decay area. The other guy only had 1. You lost.

You will also notice I failed to take a territory on my first go, negating the advantage of it.

Game 10966861

In this game I went first, with 6 decaying regions to 3. I won. One game means f*ck all. 56/101 games seems to be slightly better but you really need to do a proper statistical analysis to see the weighting given over a larger sample set, it should also be noted that only just over half of the games played seem to suffer from "bad drops" where as all of them suffer from first turn advantage.

[chapcrap]

One game means f*ck all. 56/101 games seems to be slightly better but you really need to do a proper statistical analysis to see the weighting given over a larger sample set, it should also be noted that only just over half of the games played seem to suffer from "bad drops" where as all of them suffer from first turn advantage.

Yes, well that's pretty representative. Even if it was slightly high at over 55%, even 30% is still too high, IMO. And there is no way it's that low.

I don't disagree with the first turn advantage as well. I mean, if that can be fixed too, then I am for that, but just because there is also a first turn advantage, does not mean that there should still be such crazy drops.

[benga]

Having played 287 1vs1 games on this map, I totally agree that it needs to be more balanced. I have actually stopped playing 1vs1 games on Dust Bowl because of the unbalanced map settings, though I like the map and the idea of the decaying area.

In my opinion, each player should start with 10 or 9 regions in 1vs1 games. The current 12 is the worst option possible.

As for the decaying regions, I do like that it is unpredictable how many of your regions will be there. There can be very uneven drops, though, which is another reason why this map is unbalanced now. I think that the solution would be to keep it random how many starting regions are in the decaying area, but it should be an even number, and both players should start with the same number of decaying regions. Would it be possible to code this with the current XML?

+42 167 from 288(58%)

that's 4% better of your avg win rate


Chap at this point this looks like your personal crusade,
maybe put it to vote so we see where we stand?

And one thing too add, haven't played much 1v1s lately (referring to all maps),
but from I have seen, there has been increase in number of neutrals
to make things fair, but 1v1 will never be fair,
now I struggle to fight neutrals to brake other guys bonus from unfair drop.

In 1v1 games will never be fair, you work with what you got.

[Jatekos]

Having played 287 1vs1 games on this map, I totally agree that it needs to be more balanced. I have actually stopped playing 1vs1 games on Dust Bowl because of the unbalanced map settings, though I like the map and the idea of the decaying area.

In my opinion, each player should start with 10 or 9 regions in 1vs1 games. The current 12 is the worst option possible.

As for the decaying regions, I do like that it is unpredictable how many of your regions will be there. There can be very uneven drops, though, which is another reason why this map is unbalanced now. I think that the solution would be to keep it random how many starting regions are in the decaying area, but it should be an even number, and both players should start with the same number of decaying regions. Would it be possible to code this with the current XML?

+42 167 from 288(58%)

that's 4% better of your avg win rate


Chap at this point this looks like your personal crusade,
maybe put it to vote so we see where we stand?

And one thing too add, haven't played much 1v1s lately (referring to all maps),
but from I have seen, there has been increase in number of neutrals
to make things fair, but 1v1 will never be fair,
now I struggle to fight neutrals to brake other guys bonus from unfair drop.

In 1v1 games will never be fair, you work with what you got.

It is hard to compare with my previous games that contain multiplayer games, but thanks for the info. I may have also gained some experience over time. Still, the map is unbalanced regardless of my win %.

[chapcrap]

Chap at this point this looks like your personal crusade,
maybe put it to vote so we see where we stand?

Umm, I'm not sure you're reading the same thread as me...Let's have a look, shall we?

I just had a 1v1 where I dropped with 6 of my 12 territories in the dust. Then I lost all 4 from my deployment on bad dice. There's no chance I can win.

I just had a 1v1 where I dropped with 6 of my 12 territories in the dust. Then I lost all 4 from my deployment on bad dice. There's no chance I can win.

I had about the same. Dropped 7 in the dust which i lost. I won the game.. but still.

I just had a thought; could all the dustbowl territories start with 4, so on the first turn they decay to 3 rather than 2?
I'm not sure what I think of that, but it might be a way to mitigate against the drop?

Can the XML be changed on this to have equal amounts of starting territories in the decaying zone?

It just makes sense. It would make games more fair and probably get more people to play the map.

That would be great.

Decreasing the number of starting regions in 1 v 1 games would make the games even more balanced, in my opinion. Currently both players get 12 regions.

yes change it,along with italy

It sounds like a fair suggestion to me. Go ahead and change it.

PLEASE do this. I can't tell you how many times i've been screwed on the drop. I remember the worst was a multi player game and i think 6 out of 8(?) territories were all in the decay zone.
Brutal, all they had to do was eliminate the other two spots and i basically had no chance...Needs to be addressed.

IcePack

Do change it

we have the power to change this so i say we do it. make the decay are drop to be fair and reduce the starting terits from 12 to 11.

If we take this into account, then over half of the quenched maps need to have changes made to them.

Not really related with the map, but what you say it's already been tried, twice. http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 4&t=163140
Honestly I would go with it, but it's something that needs lot of time and effort since every small change has to be discussed because it has a very important impact on the player side.

But,to my eyes, if a map need a fix, then it must be fixed. No matter how old it is or how many maps we have.
Mapmaking point to the perfection, always!

Yeah, go ahead and put it to a vote. I think that would be great for the map.

[thenobodies80]

Guys, do you want a poll?

[benga]

Guys, do you want a poll?

yes please

not sure how many votes are needed for the change

you foundry guys have some experience with this stuff...

[thenobodies80]

Guys, do you want a poll?

yes please

not sure how many votes are needed for the change

you foundry guys have some experience with this stuff...

Done.

[IcePack]

I voted yes, however I dot care that they are "even" as long as the GIANT SWINGS are eliminated. IE no 0 and 5, but 1 and 3 or 2 and 3's etc are fine.

Doesn't need to be 3 n 3, 2 n 2 etc

[Jatekos]

Guys, do you want a poll?

yes please

not sure how many votes are needed for the change

you foundry guys have some experience with this stuff...

Done.

You are not referring to the decrease of the number of starting regions in 1vs1s. If the map is updated, that number should be changed as well.

[pmchugh]

Why don't we just make the dice fair from now on too. Everyone should roll 4's all the time. And flat rate should be removed as a setting, or any card based game for that matter and sequential, that is gone too (since first turn advantage). The whole game is unfair, as long as it is not grossly unfair then it doesn't need changed.

Also I started going through the games to see for myself the difference and my stats are quite different at the same number of games as yours.

Total Games: 101
Red Wins: 56 (+5.4%)
Higher Rank Wins: 62 (+11.4%)
First Turn Wins: 66 (+15.3%)
Average Number of Extra Territories Owned in the Zone for Loser (+0.47)
Number of Bad Drops: 44 (43.6%)
Wins when given Good Drop: 29 (+15.9%)
Overall percentage of games that change because of bad drops: 6.71%

This means that ~1 in 15 games have the result determined by bad drops.

Even taking your old statistics of 14/59 we get:
Overall percentage of games that change because of bad drops: 14.1%
First Turn Wins: 61 (+10.4%)

I don't understand how our statistics are so variant, and suspiciously in the direction we are trying to prove. I used the latest 102 games, excluding 1 because the guy never took a turn. It is possible that I missed some attacked territories in my counting of owning depreciating terrs or perhaps you excluded manual troops? I presume that would make a difference. I made a spreadsheet and I can give it to whoever wants it (though it is a bit messy).

[chapcrap]

Why don't we just make the dice fair from now on too. Everyone should roll 4's all the time. And flat rate should be removed as a setting, or any card based game for that matter and sequential, that is gone too (since first turn advantage). The whole game is unfair, as long as it is not grossly unfair then it doesn't need changed.

Now that you got everything ridiculous out of your system...

Also I started going through the games to see for myself the difference and my stats are quite different at the same number of games as yours.

Total Games: 101
Red Wins: 56 (+5.4%)
Higher Rank Wins: 62 (+11.4%)
First Turn Wins: 66 (+15.3%)
Average Number of Extra Territories Owned in the Zone for Loser (+0.47)
Number of Bad Drops: 44 (43.6%)
Wins when given Good Drop: 29 (+15.9%)
Overall percentage of games that change because of bad drops: 6.71%

This means that ~1 in 15 games have the result determined by bad drops.

Even taking your old statistics of 14/59 we get:
Overall percentage of games that change because of bad drops: 14.1%
First Turn Wins: 61 (+10.4%)

I don't understand how our statistics are so variant, and suspiciously in the direction we are trying to prove. I used the latest 102 games, excluding 1 because the guy never took a turn. It is possible that I missed some attacked territories in my counting of owning depreciating terrs or perhaps you excluded manual troops? I presume that would make a difference. I made a spreadsheet and I can give it to whoever wants it (though it is a bit messy).

I don't think those numbers are that drastic of a difference when we're only looking at 101 games each. It's a relatively small sample that will have some error in what is average. I did take manual game out of my search because they are differnet and do not have to be effected by the decay.

Also, I'm not sure about your percentages. You say 14/59 is 14.1%?

The bottom line is, why do you want to have unfair drops happen at all? Starting a game out even to start with is the goal here. Obviously there will be luck in any game and on any map here, but the amount that the drop changes things in Dust Bowl changes things is quite a bit.

[pmchugh]

It is +14.1% over all games. So it is weighted for how many have bad drops, and how many of them should have been won for the player had they not received a bad drop.

The bottom line is, why do you want to have unfair drops happen at all? Starting a game out even to start with is the goal here. Obviously there will be luck in any game and on any map here, but the amount that the drop changes things in Dust Bowl changes things is quite a bit.

The game is by nature unfair. That is what my rant was about. Whether or not you change the drop, it will still be unfair. I think the drop adds to the map, since it can counter act first turn or dice and you must employ different tactics depending on how many of the regions you get. Of course it can go the other way, but it doesn't seem to happen all that often anyway.

[chapcrap]

So, that's a pretty good vote count in favor of the change.

[IcePack]

I'd still like to see a change, but avoid "everyone gets the same amount" scenario and just LESSEN the amount of difference that can result in a drop. Like no player gets more than X

[nolefan5311]

As far as I know, it's either completely random, or distributed evenly. I'm not an expert on the code, but as far as I know there's no in-between.

[koontz1973]

As far as I know, it's either completely random, or distributed evenly. I'm not an expert on the code, but as far as I know there's no in-between.

You can make it more even by coding starting positions with a max. So all you would have is all of the decay regions as a starting position and place a max of 3 onto it. So in a 2 player game, both players would get 3 each from the starting position with the rest handed out equally as long as they are not coded as neutral. This would mean that all players would get say between 3-5 each and in 8 player games, everyone would get 1 or two only.

[nolefan5311]

As far as I know, it's either completely random, or distributed evenly. I'm not an expert on the code, but as far as I know there's no in-between.

You can make it more even by coding starting positions with a max. So all you would have is all of the decay regions as a starting position and place a max of 3 onto it. So in a 2 player game, both players would get 3 each from the starting position with the rest handed out equally as long as they are not coded as neutral. This would mean that all players would get say between 3-5 each and in 8 player games, everyone would get 1 or two only.

Well there you go.

[agentcom]

Voting no until someone actually does an analysis of whether this map is significantly more "unfair" than other maps. Two people have taken small samples and been able to "prove" opposite sides of this argument. I mentioned before that it wouldn't be that hard to actually analyze this, but it is beyond my abilities.

[chapcrap]

Voting no until someone actually does an analysis of whether this map is significantly more "unfair" than other maps. Two people have taken small samples and been able to "prove" opposite sides of this argument. I mentioned before that it wouldn't be that hard to actually analyze this, but it is beyond my abilities.

I think both the samples yielded essentially the same numbers. The only difference in the analysis is that I believe that the drop is unfair and the other analyst believed that the drop didn't matter, because the fact that it's 12 terts to start makes more of a difference.

So, either way, we both called for change.

[Nola_Lifer]

Would like to see the map revamped on graphics. Gotta be a better way then just solid lines to denote impassables.

[thenobodies80]

So, since it seems there's a consensus for change the starting drop.... who will change it? when? how?