Conquer Club

DiM wrote:

tokle wrote:

Oneyed wrote:

tokle wrote:And the region-divisions look pretty strange to me. What did you use for reference?

there are only 8 official regions in Slovakia. and there was a problem with too little regions for gameplay. regions used now are historical-cultural regions of Slovakia.
bonuses are based on 8 official regions.

Oneyed

Yes. I meant the bonus regions. They don't correspond to the borders of the regions as they are in reality.

i did the territories according to this map:


if you have suggestions as to how i should do the bonus regions i'm wide open.

I see. I'm guessing these are the historical-cultural regions Oneyed was talking about. And then you have tried to fit them into an approximation of the modern adminitrative divisions. Which is fair enough.

I would change Kysuce and Horne Povazie to be part of Zilina, though. Considering Zilina itself is in Povazie it doesn't make much sense to have that terit a part of a differne bonus region.

tokle wrote:I see. I'm guessing these are the historical-cultural regions Oneyed was talking about. And then you have tried to fit them into an approximation of the modern adminitrative divisions. Which is fair enough.

exactly.

tokle wrote:I would change Kysuce and Horne Povazie to be part of Zilina, though. Considering Zilina itself is in Povazie it doesn't make much sense to have that terit a part of a differne bonus region.

ok. i'll do that.

Victor Sullivan wrote:As far as bonuses go, for such a small map I don't think having a single-region bonus area is a good idea. Therefore, I think Bratislava should simply be +0. In addition, it has such a peripheral location and it only borders Trnava, so one could easily hold Trnava and Bratislava for a solid +3. Secondly, I think Presov should be lowered to +2. At first, it seems somewhat appropriate, given holding a bonus in a small map is a bit harder than it would be in a large map, however, Banska is also a 4-region bonus area and it is appropriately a +3. And, in a smaller map, smaller bonuses go further.
-Sully

i kinda like the +1 for bratislava so here's another thought.
what if i make it start as neutral and come up with an extra terit to keep the number of distributed terits at a golden 24?

Oneyed wrote:DiM, for Banska in legend use Banska Bystrica or shortly B. Bystrica.

you do not use ˇ´ but in Podpoľanie you have ľ. so maybe you would use only l.

Oneyed

changing both now

tokle wrote:You have mixed up the flags of Bratislava and Trnava. They should be the other way around.

it should be ok in the next version.

V8:
*spelling of some names
*switched bratislava and trnava flags
*split podpolajne into west and east to allow bratislava to start as neutral.
*moved kysuce and h.povazie into the zilina bonus
*changed bonus for zilina and trencin

DiM, with only Bratislava starting as a neutral 3, can I suggest you code the other regions as starting positions. You have lots of small bonuses which would seem to be dropped on in small games. If you coded the territs as a one neutral so when they are not dropped on, you do not get a sea of 3 neutrals to fight through (again because the bonuses are small).

Trnava as a 2 bonus seems small. It has 4 territs that are all borders so it would be hard to grab and hold. I know that if you grab two more territs you reduce the borders to 2 but that still means you need to attack and defend those two territs.

Some some random thoughts.

koontz1973 wrote:DiM, with only Bratislava starting as a neutral 3, can I suggest you code the other regions as starting positions. You have lots of small bonuses which would seem to be dropped on in small games. If you coded the territs as a one neutral so when they are not dropped on, you do not get a sea of 3 neutrals to fight through (again because the bonuses are small).

koontz has a point... Even with starting positions, I'm not so sure you can get it such that the drop is even, because if you don't add territories, you would have to code the positions without underlying neutrals, so, with smaller games that don't use all of the starting positions, you could still end up with someone dropping Trencin or Kosice, though it could certainly lower the probability. If the numbers look good after the starting positions, you might be okay.

Hm... Thinking about it, you could do underlying neutrals if you have exactly eight starting positions; it would just add a few extra neutrals to 3-player games and a chunk of neutrals to 6-player games.

Hm... I guess you also have to consider that both Abov and Dolny Zemplin (Kosice) could be dropped from the starting positions in smaller games (up to 4 players). Ha, this is a bit of a predicament. Perhaps it's best to make Trancin and Kosice into 3-region bonus areas.

koontz1973 wrote:Trnava as a 2 bonus seems small. It has 4 territs that are all borders so it would be hard to grab and hold. I know that if you grab two more territs you reduce the borders to 2 but that still means you need to attack and defend those two territs.

Well, I don't think it's as undervalued as it appears at first glance. If you take Bratislava, Stredue Povazie and Ponitrie in addition to Trnava, that's +4 with regions to defend. In a small map, that's pretty substantial.

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:DiM, with only Bratislava starting as a neutral 3, can I suggest you code the other regions as starting positions. You have lots of small bonuses which would seem to be dropped on in small games. If you coded the territs as a one neutral so when they are not dropped on, you do not get a sea of 3 neutrals to fight through (again because the bonuses are small).

koontz has a point... Even with starting positions, I'm not so sure you can get it such that the drop is even, because if you don't add territories, you would have to code the positions without underlying neutrals, so, with smaller games that don't use all of the starting positions, you could still end up with someone dropping Trencin or Kosice, though it could certainly lower the probability. If the numbers look good after the starting positions, you might be okay.

Hm... Thinking about it, you could do underlying neutrals if you have exactly eight starting positions; it would just add a few extra neutrals to 3-player games and a chunk of neutrals to 6-player games.

Hm... I guess you also have to consider that both Abov and Dolny Zemplin (Kosice) could be dropped from the starting positions in smaller games (up to 4 players). Ha, this is a bit of a predicament. Perhaps it's best to make Trancin and Kosice into 3-region bonus areas.

actually i disagree. there are some maps out there where you drop huge bonuses right from the start and people still play them. there are plenty others where one player is guaranteed to start with a +1 and people still play them.
so, bratislava is ok to start as neutral as that would always be dropped by some lucky guy but trencin and kosice are 2 terit bonuses that won't always be dropped or they might even be dropped equally the 2 players in 1v1. also you get just a +1 so it's not like you've already won. heck, one wrong roll and you might even lose that +1.
anyway, aside from the neutral bratislava everything else is up for grabs and i'd like to keep it that way unless some major concerns appear in beta, but i doubt it.

Victor Sullivan wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:Trnava as a 2 bonus seems small. It has 4 territs that are all borders so it would be hard to grab and hold. I know that if you grab two more territs you reduce the borders to 2 but that still means you need to attack and defend those two territs.

Well, I don't think it's as undervalued as it appears at first glance. If you take Bratislava, Stredue Povazie and Ponitrie in addition to Trnava, that's +4 with regions to defend. In a small map, that's pretty substantial.

-Sully

that's preciselly why i made it just a +2.
nobody will take just trnava or even make it a starting point for expantion. trnava will be a transition continent for those that take bratislava or trencin early on.

trnava I can easily live with, but why not code Trencin and Kosice as starting positions. Having only these two positions would mean in 1v1 games no one can start with those bonuses, or even both. I would be pretty pissed if an opponent started with one or both.

there are some maps out there where you drop huge bonuses right from the start and people still play them. there are plenty others where one player is guaranteed to start with a +1 and people still play them.

DiM, even you agree with what has come before must not happen again if it is wrong. As I said, having those four territs/two regions as positions allows the first player to grab one but maybe not to keep it. The odds of having one and going first in a 3 player game is small enough to live with.

I don't think coding a few starting positions is a bad idea. I mean, small maps are mainly played for small games, and even small advantages can be significant on small games where bonuses are small in general.

The largest bonus on your map is 3. The total bonuses on your map is 15, and the total region bonus is 8. So even a +1 is an advantage if you get it right at the start.

I'd say, code 4 starting positions, 1 region each - using the regions in both 2-region bonuses. This way, in a 2-player game, you either both drop one or neither does, and no one drops one in 4-player games. As for 3-player games, well, no one cares about 3-player games...

in my whole mapmaking career i've struggled to make maps that are as fair as possible and reduce the luck of the drop or even the influence of the dice to a minimum.
at some point i wanted to go to the extreme and make a 100% luck based map but i wasn't allowed. i was and still am a firm believer that a LOT of people would like to simply gamble their points. a map with 8 spots no attacks and a winning objective on one of the spots. whis would be the 100% luck map that people would absolutely go crazy for. anyway i do understand how this could potentially crap al over the scoreboard (not that points represent anything other than the ability to farm and abuse) so i give up on it.
but now i want to make a small map with absolutely basic simple gameplay and a fair amount of luck involved. i just want to do something i've never done before.
after this i'll just finish my 100% strategy zero luck involved map and retire from the foundry

If you really want to make this a luck map, have two positions coded, one with no bonus and the other with the 3 bonus drop. I would play that as I have a 50% chance of going first.

DiM wrote:after this i'll just finish my 100% strategy zero luck involved map and retire from the foundry

Oh sure... say, want to come over and help me wash my invisible car?

DiM wrote:i was and still am a firm believer that a LOT of people would like to simply gamble their points.

But, you also agree that just because something would be popular, is not reason enough to make it, right? Otherwise, what's stopping you from making that Jenna Jameson map...

We already have some maps that are very luck-dependent, and I think for all future maps the luck-aspect should be minimized, even for small maps... People might enjoy luck-based gambling maps as a novelty, but after a while, they will get bored of it and want something more meaningful again... Like assdoodles, those were a huge thing couple of years ago, now nobody plays them anymore.

natty_dread wrote:

DiM wrote:after this i'll just finish my 100% strategy zero luck involved map and retire from the foundry

Oh sure... say, want to come over and help me wash my invisible car?

this is serious and real.

natty_dread wrote:

DiM wrote:i was and still am a firm believer that a LOT of people would like to simply gamble their points.

But, you also agree that just because something would be popular, is not reason enough to make it, right? Otherwise, what's stopping you from making that Jenna Jameson map...

well, yeah obviously. despite still thinking knowing a 100% luck map would be hugely appreciated i'm not doing it.

natty_dread wrote:We already have some maps that are very luck-dependent, and I think for all future maps the luck-aspect should be minimized, even for small maps... People might enjoy luck-based gambling maps as a novelty, but after a while, they will get bored of it and want something more meaningful again... Like assdoodles, those were a huge thing couple of years ago, now nobody plays them anymore.

any game on doodle earth is closer to lottery than any other map and yet people play it like crazy.
people aren't just that attracted to strategy as we like to think. in fact i'm willing to bet everything i have that a 100% luck map would be much more popular than a 100% strategy map.

if you're a poor strategist (like 90% of the people on CC) then you will enjoy the 100% strategy map to the point where you realise you suck at it and then it's no fun. on the other hand the 100% luck map is a guaranteed hit if you lose it's not your fault if you win you're glad you got the points. no chance to be upset.

I think that if we were to eliminate the possibilities of anyone dropping a bonus, then we would need to place neutrals in Trencin, Kosice and Nitra. That being said, I don't think that it is necessary for this reason: Just because you drop the bonus from the get go, does not mean you will have come the second round. Look at Luxembourg, there are two bonuses that get dropped a lot, but no one really gets to keep them. I think on a small map such as this, I can live with someone dropping a bonus.

*This message in no way shape or form, constitutes an endorsement from the other blue colored people!*

isaiah40 wrote:*This message in no way shape or form, constitutes an endorsement from the other blue colored people!*

Where one blue shoe goes, the other surly follows.

koontz1973 wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:*This message in no way shape or form, constitutes an endorsement from the other blue colored people!*

Where one blue shoe goes, the other surly follows.

surly [sur-lee] adjective, sur·li·er, sur·li·est.
1.churlishly rude or bad-tempered: a surly waiter. Synonyms: sullen, uncivil, brusque, irascible, splenetic, choleric, cross; grumpy, grouchy, crabby.
2.unfriendly or hostile; menacingly irritable: a surly old lion. Synonyms: threatening, malevolent.
3.dark or dismal; menacing; threatening: a surly sky. Synonyms: ominous.
4.Obsolete . lordly; arrogant.


something is fishy ...

DiM wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:*This message in no way shape or form, constitutes an endorsement from the other blue colored people!*

Where one blue shoe goes, the other surly follows.

surly [sur-lee] adjective, sur·li·er, sur·li·est.
1.churlishly rude or bad-tempered: a surly waiter. Synonyms: sullen, uncivil, brusque, irascible, splenetic, choleric, cross; grumpy, grouchy, crabby.
2.unfriendly or hostile; menacingly irritable: a surly old lion. Synonyms: threatening, malevolent.
3.dark or dismal; menacing; threatening: a surly sky. Synonyms: ominous.
4.Obsolete . lordly; arrogant.


something is fishy ...

You know I meant surely but the surly works just as well for some.

25 regions give only on chance - Bratilava start as neutral (4 ?) and rest of regions add to players. so 3 for everyone.

DiM, what about impassables? as I said there are rivers, not mountains. will you redrawn them?

Oneyed

Oneyed wrote:25 regions give only on chance - Bratilava start as neutral (4 ?) and rest of regions add to players. so 3 for everyone.

DiM, what about impassables? as I said there are rivers, not mountains. will you redrawn them?

Oneyed

yes the impassables will be changed. i'm just waiting to see if there are any gameplay modifications.

Fair drop is a gameplay rules and it must be followed. You need to have something to prevent a lucky drop, specially with a so small map in which, as it is now, the percentages to start with a bonus are TOO high.
Is something like the 9% in a 8 players game to start with trencin or kosice and an absurd 20-30% for 2/3/4 players games.
Percentages are better with 3 regions territories, although i prefer to stay under 5% more than the old 10%, so those 3 regions bonus could be also a problem in 2 or 3 players games.

You definitively need starting positions to see this one stamped for gameplay and advanced to the graphics stage.

Nobodies

Would you consider giving up on the idea of using the current administrative divisions as your bonus structure?
It doesn't really work that well on top of the traditional regions anyway.

You could find something more arbitrary for your bonuses.

thenobodies80 wrote:Fair drop is a gameplay rules and it must be followed. You need to have something to prevent a lucky drop, specially with a so small map in which, as it is now, the percentages to start with a bonus are TOO high.
Is something like the 9% in a 8 players game to start with trencin or kosice and an absurd 20-30% for 2/3/4 players games.
Percentages are better with 3 regions territories, although i prefer to stay under 5% more than the old 10%, so those 3 regions bonus could be also a problem in 2 or 3 players games.

You definitively need starting positions to see this one stamped for gameplay and advanced to the graphics stage.

Nobodies

ok then, starting positions it is.

tokle wrote:Would you consider giving up on the idea of using the current administrative divisions as your bonus structure?
It doesn't really work that well on top of the traditional regions anyway.

You could find something more arbitrary for your bonuses.

i'd rather go with starting positions since that will provide a fair but still random drop.