georgizhukov wrote:seems like this could spawn some very unbalanced deployments...For example...on classic map if you play 3 or 4 man and dropped in Australia you would start with a huge advantage, especially if two drop near SA /AFRICA
The option has a lot of potential. So I suggest that if the current formulation can spawn unballanced deployments what should be done is to ammend the suggestion to prevent that unwanted behaviour instead of just rejecting it.
on the otherhand, those 'everyone starts the same as everyone else' games quickly become boring. i like the possibility of a little unbalance, just not Pearl Harbor size imbalances.
we have 2 versions of this suggestion.
- pure Conquest where everyone is placed randomly anywhere on the map, even adjacent to 1 or more other players.
- a modified Conquest where each player has at least 1 neutral between them, if the map is not large enough for the players involved to be surrounded by at least 1 neutral then so be it, not everyone starts with that buffer.
we have a fair amount of support for point 1 with the main objection i've noticed addressed by point 2. can anyone see problems with point 2 (besides option 1 being their preferred).
from a coding/implementation pov, option 1 appears the easiest to me. a simple code written to randomly place players similar to what we already have. players are placed on any ordinary terit (ie. no auto-deploys or killer neutrals) for standard maps or any starting position for maps containing those (Realms, Antarctica, etc). standard maps would allow any number of players to play however players on starting position maps would be limited to the number of those positions.
input from some of the IT people on CC or blake would be great regarding the difficulty of the coding required for option 2.