Conquer Club

Fazeem wrote:

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

why vote no to more options why not just play different options and let those who like it play on the maps and options they like? Voting yes would have 0 impact on you unless you choose to play the new game type.

Then why not allow every game option that get's suggested to be coded? "Heck, it's a new option! If you don't like it, don't play it". It will be hard to start a game if we have a billion options. Using that mindset isn't productive.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

why vote no to more options why not just play different options and let those who like it play on the maps and options they like? Voting yes would have 0 impact on you unless you choose to play the new game type.

Then why not allow every game option that get's suggested to be coded? "Heck, it's a new option! If you don't like it, don't play it". It will be hard to start a game if we have a billion options. Using that mindset isn't productive.

How condescending of you not very becoming of a way and approach from a site representative. Based on your emotional rant I would guess you voted no also. As to your point you are right not every game option is feasible or should be added but this one is very simple and feasible and it would not clog up anything or make starting a game anymore difficult then it already is while adding a whole new dimension of game play to the maps already in place. The disposition you displayed in this response is part of whats killing this site think about why that is for a little bit, before you break the keyboard responding with negativity. Diversity will make this site grow stagnation will continue to kill it choose which you wish to do and stick with it.

Fazeem wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

why vote no to more options why not just play different options and let those who like it play on the maps and options they like? Voting yes would have 0 impact on you unless you choose to play the new game type.

Then why not allow every game option that get's suggested to be coded? "Heck, it's a new option! If you don't like it, don't play it". It will be hard to start a game if we have a billion options. Using that mindset isn't productive.

How condescending of you not very becoming of a way and approach from a site representative. Based on your emotional rant I would guess you voted no also. As to your point you are right not every game option is feasible or should be added but this one is very simple and feasible and it would not clog up anything or make starting a game anymore difficult then it already is while adding a whole new dimension of game play to the maps already in place. The disposition you displayed in this response is part of whats killing this site think about why that is for a little bit, before you break the keyboard responding with negativity. Diversity will make this site grow stagnation will continue to kill it choose which you wish to do and stick with it.

I actually voted yes. I didn't know 2 lines is considered an "emotional rant". But I was a Suggestions Mod for 2-3 years, and to be honest, I was getting tired of everyone using the reasoning "If you don't like the option, don't play it". I still am annoyed with it being used as a reason to implement something.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

why vote no to more options why not just play different options and let those who like it play on the maps and options they like? Voting yes would have 0 impact on you unless you choose to play the new game type.

Then why not allow every game option that get's suggested to be coded? "Heck, it's a new option! If you don't like it, don't play it". It will be hard to start a game if we have a billion options. Using that mindset isn't productive.

How condescending of you not very becoming of a way and approach from a site representative. Based on your emotional rant I would guess you voted no also. As to your point you are right not every game option is feasible or should be added but this one is very simple and feasible and it would not clog up anything or make starting a game anymore difficult then it already is while adding a whole new dimension of game play to the maps already in place. The disposition you displayed in this response is part of whats killing this site think about why that is for a little bit, before you break the keyboard responding with negativity. Diversity will make this site grow stagnation will continue to kill it choose which you wish to do and stick with it.

I actually voted yes. I didn't know 2 lines is considered an "emotional rant". But I was a Suggestions Mod for 2-3 years, and to be honest, I was getting tired of everyone using the reasoning "If you don't like the option, don't play it". I still am annoyed with it being used as a reason to implement something.

it is not the amount of lines rather the words they are composed of that makes it a emotional rant but I guess the term outburst would be more accurate given your admissions here my point still remains if you do not like it do not play it. I skip over assassin and trench games because I do not like that game play. I do not believe they should be removed from the line up because I do not play them I like the idea they are there diversifying the choices I have and every blue moon I might play one of them(usually by accident of laziness). More choice is better and unless the idea is outrageously hard to implement,destroys the game play or is just plain stupid all Ideas should be judged and actualized based on what they contribute to the site and or game. But that is just my school of thought I am a half full type person trying to fill the glass the rest of the way.

TheForgivenOne wrote:

Fazeem wrote:

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

why vote no to more options why not just play different options and let those who like it play on the maps and options they like? Voting yes would have 0 impact on you unless you choose to play the new game type.

Then why not allow every game option that get's suggested to be coded? "Heck, it's a new option! If you don't like it, don't play it". It will be hard to start a game if we have a billion options. Using that mindset isn't productive.

Spot on.

I'd also like to add we have limited resources to implement new options.

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

This is my only issue with this suggestion. If I start with my terit right beside yours, and you go before me, I am dead before there is even a chance to play. I like the idea a lot, especially for maps with a medieval or historical slant, but this would be an issue I would find incredibly frustrating.

deathcomesrippin wrote:

Beko the Great wrote:I voted no, because this would imply to re-code a great amount of maps to make things fair.

If deployments were random, it could happen a player starting at the side of the other... The player that starts has almost 77% chance of winning, it's a russian roulette and it has no strategy at all.
Even solving this problem by coding starting positions, I guess a lot of maps would be pretty unbalanced as well.

This is my only issue with this suggestion. If I start with my terit right beside yours, and you go before me, I am dead before there is even a chance to play. I like the idea a lot, especially for maps with a medieval or historical slant, but this would be an issue I would find incredibly frustrating.

I already suggested a way to prevent this from happening. To repeat: only the red player's starting territory is randomized. Then a quick formula is run by the computer to make all the other starting territories as far as possible from that one and each other. This suggestion was shot down earlier, but how do you feel about it?

For the limited resources folks: a formula like this would be pretty easy to write, no comment on how difficult it is to code.

i don't like it because for the first few rounds i know i can move safely - there is no one nearby.

if it was written so all adjacent terits were neutral but not necessarily the ones on the other side of those then yes, i could support that compromise. however, that would only apply to maps large enough for the number of players participating, if they weren't then the risk of being adjacent remains and i am cool with that.

greenoaks wrote:i don't like it because for the first few rounds i know i can move safely - there is no one nearby.

if it was written so all adjacent terits were neutral but not necessarily the ones on the other side of those then yes, i could support that compromise. however, that would only apply to maps large enough for the number of players participating, if they weren't then the risk of being adjacent remains and i am cool with that.

On Hive, Conquer Rome etc. that would be next to impossible.

DoomYoshi wrote:

greenoaks wrote:i don't like it because for the first few rounds i know i can move safely - there is no one nearby.

if it was written so all adjacent terits were neutral but not necessarily the ones on the other side of those then yes, i could support that compromise. however, that would only apply to maps large enough for the number of players participating, if they weren't then the risk of being adjacent remains and i am cool with that.

On Hive, Conquer Rome etc. that would be next to impossible.

i think you mean on Cyprus or Doodle Earth it would be next to impossible to code adjacent terits as neutral. on Hive with 150 terits it should be easy to code for 8 players not starting next to each other.

greenoaks wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:

greenoaks wrote:i don't like it because for the first few rounds i know i can move safely - there is no one nearby.

if it was written so all adjacent terits were neutral but not necessarily the ones on the other side of those then yes, i could support that compromise. however, that would only apply to maps large enough for the number of players participating, if they weren't then the risk of being adjacent remains and i am cool with that.

On Hive, Conquer Rome etc. that would be next to impossible.

i think you mean on Cyprus or Doodle Earth it would be next to impossible to code adjacent terits as neutral. on Hive with 150 terits it should be easy to code for 8 players not starting next to each other.

but not necessarily the ones on the other side of those... I thought you were saying that you wanted a maximum of 1 territory separation, now I see that you actually want a minimum 1 territory separation.

a minimum of 1 neutral between players would work on almost all maps. there's just a few really small maps that wouldn't be possible for large player games but would still work for 1v1.

I just want to say that I support this suggestion. It reduces the luck factor that happens when a player gets almost a full continent (good luck) or when all the player troops are spread all around the board (bad luck)

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

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

this is a great option maybe you need to research the discussion a bit further before speaking on it or not as I see you are promoting your own alternative

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.

OliverFA wrote:

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.

1. pure Conquest where everyone is placed randomly anywhere on the map, even adjacent to 1 or more other players.
   
2. 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.

The more I think about this the more i'd be a fan of this if there was more control on it. When mixed with a trench setting, this could create some great imbalances for maps with special territs or easy bonuses. I just think some maps were designed for you to start with n number of territs, changing it to 1 for all game types would be odd.

Plus what happens on a map like Waterloo when you end up on a bombard only territ. There'd have to be control around that too.

patrickaa317 wrote:The more I think about this the more i'd be a fan of this if there was more control on it. When mixed with a trench setting, this could create some great imbalances for maps with special territs or easy bonuses. I just think some maps were designed for you to start with n number of territs, changing it to 1 for all game types would be odd.

that is part of the allure. go for an early bonus and if fog, your opponent can figure out where you are. that is how the good players play Realms.

patrickaa317 wrote:Plus what happens on a map like Waterloo when you end up on a bombard only territ. There'd have to be control around that too.

are you referring to 'bombard only' as a starting terit? if so, i believe i covered that by stating you can only start on an ordinary terit.

To clearly define, would ordinary be a territory with at least one 2-way connection?

Or would it be that definition plus the stipulation that it can't be bombardable by another potential starting territory?

DoomYoshi wrote:To clearly define, would ordinary be a territory with at least one 2-way connection?

Or would it be that definition plus the stipulation that it can't be bombardable by another potential starting territory?

in general, that it has at least one 2-way connection.

i'd have to look at individual maps to see if removing terits that bombard leaves enough terits to start with. i can't think of any that excluding those wouldn't be a problem as point 2 was that you can't see anyone from where you start and that they can't see you either.

I dont like this idea.
No fun fighting neuts 50% of the time. If i like conquest, i go play some conquest maps.

Armandolas wrote:I dont like this idea.
No fun fighting neuts 50% of the time. If i like conquest, i go play some conquest maps.

selecting this as an option turns every map into a Conquest style map

Armandolas wrote:I dont like this idea.
No fun fighting neuts 50% of the time. If i like conquest, i go play some conquest maps.

The fact that you would not play that setting does not mean that the setting should not be there. In fact that's the whole purpose of settings, tailoring the game to each player likes. Having settings that appeal to everybody is not always possible neither recomendable. Of course, if no one would ever use the setting, then that's another thing. But I believe that setting would have a more than decent number of users.

Questions?

• Who will do all of the coding (xml) for all of the maps as all maps will need to be coded again for this option?
• How will maps be made balanced for all sizes of games?
• Who will balance the maps for conquest style games?

Whilst the second and third option can be done, it is very time consuming. This setting cannot be random drops and would need to have a lot of work done to make the maps fair for all games. Alone, hours goes into each map to make it as fair as possible.

But the first one alone should of stopped this in its tracks. Who is going to code all the maps? We cannot expect map makers to do even more work and what about the maps already in play? Some do not even have the map makers around anymore. This is not something that can be done via a button on the start a game page until someone puts in hundreds of hours of work. Any volunteers for this?

Last point for this, as a map maker, I put in huge amounts of my time to make every map, I would not be happy if my maps where to go though a second round of foundry work.