Not so random maps

[TheForgivenOne]

Changing this to sticky.

[PLAYER57832]

The basic problem here is that as things stand maps are not categorized by play.

The major distinction are those who like the "plain" maps -- those that mostly resemble real places, have straight bonuses for regions and no or very little "funny stuff" (maybe a bombardment, a special bonus or attack route, but nothing major).

And the other group that likes the maps that are definitely NOT standard -- AOR, Fuedal, rails, etc.

You also have a group that likes the more complicated maps (Waterlood, Gaza Strip, etc.) Those people often "specialize".

Of course, some people like to play anything, but I have found most people tend to fall into one or the other category. They may try a different type of map on occasion, but mostly stick to a certain group.

Before implementing this idea, I think it is critical to categorize the maps better. Otherwise, you will wind up with everyone choosing their own "random" mix -- sort of defeating the purpose of the "random" category.

The exception I can see is in tournaments. For tournaments, why not give JUST tournament directors the ability to pick and choose maps for a random selection. Since it is limited to tournaments, cheating and so forth would not be likely.

(note.. I made up a list last fall, that a lot of people liked, but I can no longer access it.)

[Woodruff]

The basic problem here is that as things stand maps are not categorized by play.

The major distinction are those who like the "plain" maps -- those that mostly resemble real places, have straight bonuses for regions and no or very little "funny stuff" (maybe a bombardment, a special bonus or attack route, but nothing major).
And the other group that likes the maps that are definitely NOT standard -- AOR, Fuedal, rails, etc.
You also have a group that likes the more complicated maps (Waterlood, Gaza Strip, etc.) Those people often "specialize".
Of course, some people like to play anything, but I have found most people tend to fall into one or the other category. They may try a different type of map on occasion, but mostly stick to a certain group.
Before implementing this idea, I think it is critical to categorize the maps better.

As I said, I think any exclusions would be far more effectively made on a map-checkbox basis, rather than removing whole groups of maps. For almost everyone who would want to play the "random setting", there are only a few (10 or fewer) maps that they would absolutely want to be excluded from the play-possibilities.

Otherwise, you will wind up with everyone choosing their own "random" mix -- sort of defeating the purpose of the "random" category.

Actually...that was precisely the point...to be able to "make their own group of maps with which to "randomly pick one" (basically). They want to be able to randomly pick from amongst maps they don't despise on an individual fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants basis, rather than having it be some "predetermined random".

[BoganGod]

Excellent suggestion Lindax

[PLAYER57832]

Perhaps just have random map options depending on size from the Game Creation screen. Example, "Random - Small" "Random - Medium" "Random - Large" and "Random - All". Just an idea, but I would think for tourney and clan games in particularly the time it takes to finish a game woul be important so the small and medium sized maps would be more utilized. Perhaps they could even be check-boxes, so you could include both small and medium, medium and large, etc... The only issue I see would be determining the limits of the map size based on territory and gimmicky maps would have to be included somewhere...

This makes sense only for the same type of maps .. that is, the basic territory maps. There is little correlation between size and the other types of maps.

AOR2 is not that small a map, but plays very, very quickly.

[PLAYER57832]

The basic problem here is that as things stand maps are not categorized by play.

The major distinction are those who like the "plain" maps -- those that mostly resemble real places, have straight bonuses for regions and no or very little "funny stuff" (maybe a bombardment, a special bonus or attack route, but nothing major).
And the other group that likes the maps that are definitely NOT standard -- AOR, Fuedal, rails, etc.
You also have a group that likes the more complicated maps (Waterlood, Gaza Strip, etc.) Those people often "specialize".
Of course, some people like to play anything, but I have found most people tend to fall into one or the other category. They may try a different type of map on occasion, but mostly stick to a certain group.
Before implementing this idea, I think it is critical to categorize the maps better.

As I said, I think any exclusions would be far more effectively made on a map-checkbox basis, rather than removing whole groups of maps. For almost everyone who would want to play the "random setting", there are only a few (10 or fewer) maps that they would absolutely want to be excluded from the play-possibilities.

I am not sure that is true. There are a lot of people who would be happy to play almost any "basic territory" map, but who would not want AIR, Draknor, Fuedal, Oasis, Das Schloss, etc, etc. (far more than 10)

Hive has already been mentioned, Conquerman is similarly long-playing.

Otherwise, you will wind up with everyone choosing their own "random" mix -- sort of defeating the purpose of the "random" category.

Actually...that was precisely the point...to be able to "make their own group of maps with which to "randomly pick one" (basically). They want to be able to randomly pick from amongst maps they don't despise on an individual fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants basis, rather than having it be some "predetermined random".[/quote]

Yes, but the problem with most of the suggestions here is that they are geared primarily to those people who like the "basic territory" maps with just a few forays into other types (bombardments, alternate attack routes are OK, but resource types and strange bonus structures.. no)

I don't think its practical for each person to have their own, personnal selection. However, if the maps were grouped by play type, it would generally give people what they want.

I see 3 broad groupings --

"Standard" maps
Large, complex maps
"oddball" maps.

BUT, within those are different groupings. For example, Crossword is really just a strangely shaped standard map. Rails are their own group, with a particular following. AOR and other "resource pair" maps similarly have their own followings, and there are people who go for "just" Gaza or Iraq or Waterloo, etc.

The biggest issue with the list is that unless someone has seen the map/studied it before, they tend to not understand the variety maps. Yet, those are some of what make CC different from other sites.

[Queen_Herpes]

The basic problem here is that as things stand maps are not categorized by play.

The major distinction are those who like the "plain" maps -- those that mostly resemble real places, have straight bonuses for regions and no or very little "funny stuff" (maybe a bombardment, a special bonus or attack route, but nothing major).
And the other group that likes the maps that are definitely NOT standard -- AOR, Fuedal, rails, etc.
You also have a group that likes the more complicated maps (Waterlood, Gaza Strip, etc.) Those people often "specialize".
Of course, some people like to play anything, but I have found most people tend to fall into one or the other category. They may try a different type of map on occasion, but mostly stick to a certain group.
Before implementing this idea, I think it is critical to categorize the maps better.

As I said, I think any exclusions would be far more effectively made on a map-checkbox basis, rather than removing whole groups of maps. For almost everyone who would want to play the "random setting", there are only a few (10 or fewer) maps that they would absolutely want to be excluded from the play-possibilities.

I am not sure that is true. There are a lot of people who would be happy to play almost any "basic territory" map, but who would not want AIR, Draknor, Fuedal, Oasis, Das Schloss, etc, etc. (far more than 10)

Hive has already been mentioned, Conquerman is similarly long-playing.

Otherwise, you will wind up with everyone choosing their own "random" mix -- sort of defeating the purpose of the "random" category.

Actually...that was precisely the point...to be able to "make their own group of maps with which to "randomly pick one" (basically). They want to be able to randomly pick from amongst maps they don't despise on an individual fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants basis, rather than having it be some "predetermined random".

Yes, but the problem with most of the suggestions here is that they are geared primarily to those people who like the "basic territory" maps with just a few forays into other types (bombardments, alternate attack routes are OK, but resource types and strange bonus structures.. no)

I don't think its practical for each person to have their own, personnal selection. However, if the maps were grouped by play type, it would generally give people what they want.

I see 3 broad groupings --

"Standard" maps
Large, complex maps
"oddball" maps.

BUT, within those are different groupings. For example, Crossword is really just a strangely shaped standard map. Rails are their own group, with a particular following. AOR and other "resource pair" maps similarly have their own followings, and there are people who go for "just" Gaza or Iraq or Waterloo, etc.

The biggest issue with the list is that unless someone has seen the map/studied it before, they tend to not understand the variety maps. Yet, those are some of what make CC different from other sites.

[/quote]

Why would you want to limit people's choices by creating groups that may not fit their preference?

[drunkmonkey]

Why would you want to limit people's choices...?

[Woodruff]

The basic problem here is that as things stand maps are not categorized by play.

The major distinction are those who like the "plain" maps -- those that mostly resemble real places, have straight bonuses for regions and no or very little "funny stuff" (maybe a bombardment, a special bonus or attack route, but nothing major).
And the other group that likes the maps that are definitely NOT standard -- AOR, Fuedal, rails, etc.
You also have a group that likes the more complicated maps (Waterlood, Gaza Strip, etc.) Those people often "specialize".
Of course, some people like to play anything, but I have found most people tend to fall into one or the other category. They may try a different type of map on occasion, but mostly stick to a certain group.
Before implementing this idea, I think it is critical to categorize the maps better.

As I said, I think any exclusions would be far more effectively made on a map-checkbox basis, rather than removing whole groups of maps. For almost everyone who would want to play the "random setting", there are only a few (10 or fewer) maps that they would absolutely want to be excluded from the play-possibilities.

I am not sure that is true. There are a lot of people who would be happy to play almost any "basic territory" map, but who would not want AIR, Draknor, Fuedal, Oasis, Das Schloss, etc, etc. (far more than 10)

If they have "far more than 10" that they truly despise so much that they'd basically refuse to play it, then I would absolutely suggest that the whole idea of "random map" is not for them.

Otherwise, you will wind up with everyone choosing their own "random" mix -- sort of defeating the purpose of the "random" category.

Actually...that was precisely the point...to be able to "make their own group of maps with which to "randomly pick one" (basically). They want to be able to randomly pick from amongst maps they don't despise on an individual fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants basis, rather than having it be some "predetermined random".

Yes, but the problem with most of the suggestions here is that they are geared primarily to those people who like the "basic territory" maps with just a few forays into other types (bombardments, alternate attack routes are OK, but resource types and strange bonus structures.. no)
I don't think its practical for each person to have their own, personnal selection.

We're NOT TALKING about each person having their own, personal selection. We're talking about AT THE TIME OF GAME CREATION, being able to select (by checkbox or whatever) certain maps to exclude from the randomizer.

However, if the maps were grouped by play type, it would generally give people what they want.

Honestly, this would destroy the whole idea of "random", in my opinion...where's the skill of flexibility if you've taken away the flexibility of the process? If the only game-types available are the game-type that you specialize in, then there is no longer any benefit to the randomization. One could just as easily just pick one of those maps yourself.

[danes]

So much hate for HIVE, i personally love that map. By far my favorite. It isn't decided in one turn by someone dropping a bonus. Sure cleanup at the end of an escalating game can be rough, but it is a map that has less of a luck factor, especially for 1v1 than other maps.

[Queen_Herpes]

Does this suggestion include any limit to the exclusions?

[Woodruff]

Does this suggestion include any limit to the exclusions?

I think that's currently "up in the air".

[Queen_Herpes]

Does this suggestion include any limit to the exclusions?

I think that's currently "up in the air".

I ask because this is "Last Call" and that probably needs to be determined before pushing it forward, right?

[jrh_cardinal]

So much hate for HIVE, i personally love that map. By far my favorite. It isn't decided in one turn by someone dropping a bonus. Sure cleanup at the end of an escalating game can be rough, but it is a map that has less of a luck factor, especially for 1v1 than other maps.

we're not asking to get rid of hive totally, but many people don't like hive.

First of all, it is still just as luck-based as other maps in 1v1. It's totally about who gets better dice in the first 2-3 rounds. Then, the person who got better dice will have a much larger deploy and it's just a 10-15 round cleanup job. Also, it's a total pain in the ass to look at. Look at the Classic map, or any other normal sized map, then look at a big map (like World 2.1). It takes a second to adjust to like 120 territories. Then try looking at Classic and immediately switching to Hive. That's difficult. Finally, it takes way too long to take your turns. In a multiplayer or team game with unlimited forts it can easily take half an hour or more to complete a good turn in the early stages of the game. That's just unreasonable.

My point is, it's completely different, and a complete pain if you just want to test yourself playing random map, that is not just any random map

[danes]

So much hate for HIVE, i personally love that map. By far my favorite. It isn't decided in one turn by someone dropping a bonus. Sure cleanup at the end of an escalating game can be rough, but it is a map that has less of a luck factor, especially for 1v1 than other maps.

we're not asking to get rid of hive totally, but many people don't like hive.

First of all, it is still just as luck-based as other maps in 1v1. It's totally about who gets better dice in the first 2-3 rounds. Then, the person who got better dice will have a much larger deploy and it's just a 10-15 round cleanup job. Also, it's a total pain in the ass to look at. Look at the Classic map, or any other normal sized map, then look at a big map (like World 2.1). It takes a second to adjust to like 120 territories. Then try looking at Classic and immediately switching to Hive. That's difficult. Finally, it takes way too long to take your turns. In a multiplayer or team game with unlimited forts it can easily take half an hour or more to complete a good turn in the early stages of the game. That's just unreasonable.

My point is, it's completely different, and a complete pain if you just want to test yourself playing random map, that is not just any random map

I disagree with you entirely. I'm 69-3 on 1v1 Hive, with one of those losses in my first 1v1 on the map when i did not know how to play it. I think you will be hard pressed to find many players with a significantly higher 1v1% over so many games on any map. Thus, i find it hard to believe that hive is as much luck as you say. Yes, when both players know how to play the map perfectly, there will be luck involved on any map. It does get boring, which is why i do not have any active 1v1's except for choose your settings tournaments (where i choose hive, as I believe it gives me an advantage).

If you exclude certain maps, you place players who play well on those maps relative to others at a disadvantage.

[Hornet95]

Just throwing a thought out there. What if I wanted to create a tournament that randomly picked between 10 different maps? If we go along with the train of thought in this thread, it could be possible. While it defeats the idea of 'pure random', it adds another feature to this site. I'm all in favor of that.

[TheForgivenOne]

Just throwing a thought out there. What if I wanted to create a tournament that randomly picked between 10 different maps? If we go along with the train of thought in this thread, it could be possible. While it defeats the idea of 'pure random', it adds another feature to this site. I'm all in favor of that.

You could simply use Random.org to do this. I'm sure someone out there has done it before

Simply assign maps to numbers, and tell the generator to pick between 1-10

Map A- 1
May B- 2
etc
etc
etc...

[drunkmonkey]

Just throwing a thought out there. What if I wanted to create a tournament that randomly picked between 10 different maps? If we go along with the train of thought in this thread, it could be possible. While it defeats the idea of 'pure random', it adds another feature to this site. I'm all in favor of that.

You could simply use Random.org to do this. I'm sure someone out there has done it before

Simply assign maps to numbers, and tell the generator to pick between 1-10

Map A- 1
May B- 2
etc
etc
etc...

I use random.org's "List Randomizer". Enter the names of all the maps, randomize, and use the top one on the list. You may find that easier, but either method will work.

[Woodruff]

Just throwing a thought out there. What if I wanted to create a tournament that randomly picked between 10 different maps? If we go along with the train of thought in this thread, it could be possible. While it defeats the idea of 'pure random', it adds another feature to this site. I'm all in favor of that.

One way to make that happen would be to just use a 1D10 there at home (I've done that sort of thing for my tournaments here).

[rdsrds2120]

Just throwing a thought out there. What if I wanted to create a tournament that randomly picked between 10 different maps? If we go along with the train of thought in this thread, it could be possible. While it defeats the idea of 'pure random', it adds another feature to this site. I'm all in favor of that.

Tens a reasonable number to work with, just choose the 10 and use a randomizer to place people in certain ones, as I'm confident that the number of maps you can exclude isn't going to go over 100, let alone even a smaller number like 20.

[squishyg]

nononononono!! random has to kept just that otherwise there is no victory in being a random map champ. i love QH's suggestions in the other thread and those are the ones that should be implemented immediately. I hate hive too, but if i get it in random, so be it! keep random random!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rdsrds2120]

nononononono!! random has to kept just that otherwise there is no victory in being a random map champ. i love QH's suggestions in the other thread and those are the ones that should be implemented immediately. I hate hive too, but if i get it in random, so be it! keep random random!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, which is why it's been suggested that if exclusions were implemented when choosing random, that win wouldn't count towards a medal for the random maps. However, we have to think practically. Hive can slow down tournaments...a lot....so we have to consider that. As a whole, I really see the pros of this outweighing any cons.

[squishyg]

i get that, but if there are exclusions, it's just not random.

[jrh_cardinal]

i get that, but if there are exclusions, it's just not random.

it's not supposed to be totally random. Drawing an automatic 40+ round game in a tournament on Hive or even Das Schloss is just not helpful. Even people (particularly freemies) in public games ought to have the option of playing a random map (fun) without drawing a game that lasts a few months or more (not fun)

I totally agree with not counting it toward a possible random medal, but drawing Hive is killer (the other option is to remove Hive )

[thebest712]

great idee, but I would like more the other way around, you chose 2-20 maps and there is one pick from