[Abandoned] - A Volatile Earth

[00iCon]

+1. not much more to say apart from the obvious, graphics.

[Bob XIII]

people don't just start in the meteors, they start with one meteor each, and then a random assortment of the "orange circle" territories

is this possible with current XML options?.. what is there to stop a player being given two meteors at the start and someone else getting none?

[initus]

is this possible with current XML options?.. what is there to stop a player being given two meteors at the start and someone else getting none?

Well if it isn't XML capable then the problem with the meteors and uneven distribution will happen, though if it isn't capable the meteors will probably be removed, or turned to neutral. However, I do believe that it is possible in XML, though I haven't read through the features yet. If you notice in the Monsters map, everyone starts with a wizard and an assortment of monsters. Also, in the World Cup map, everyone started with a territory at the start on the top of each bracket that had 4 armies. So until someone says otherwise, its staying in for the moment.

[skillfusniper33]

people don't just start in the meteors, they start with one meteor each, and then a random assortment of the "orange circle" territories

is this possible with current XML options?.. what is there to stop a player being given two meteors at the start and someone else getting none?

With me writing the coding, I say it is possible, if I recall right you can call each starting positions, otherwise there would be a huge problem with Das Schloß, and really dumb luck that every game I've played in each person got one parachute.

[Industrial Helix]

Hey guys, we need an updated image before this thing gets moving.

[skillfusniper33]

Hey guys, we need an updated image before this thing gets moving.

Even for the game play section, We have submitted our brief and were waiting to move on to the game play section before doing to much that was really drastic in changes. I am sure we can get another update up in the next few days.

[initus]

Hey guys, we need an updated image before this thing gets moving.

I assume you mean graphical improvements (as opposed to gameplay changes)? We didn't really want to start working on a huge graphical overhaul until after the gameplay had begun to finalize, but if it's needed... the work will begin.

[Catarah]

just a fun note, vuur is also dutch for fire, not just afrikaans:p

anyway, this looks like an awesome map so far. i really cant find anything which should be changed at the moment

[Industrial Helix]

Well, what I'm looking for is some sign that the map is continuing progress. But then again, I'd only briefly looked through the thread and I see you've been talking about it the whole time! The key thing is to make the current map have neutrals where there are supposed to be starting neutrals and incidcate how the first round of the map is going to look. The small map looks alright and everything should fit. And finally, I'd say the graphics are good enough to indicate what the final map ought to look like, so a full graphical overhaul isn't necessarily needed just yet.

So anyway, upward and onward!

[Evil DIMwit]

My biggest fear with this is drops: In a 3p game,you'll see players dropping a bunch of +2 bonuses, with 18 territories each (which means if any player loses even one territory, their troop deployment comes down. There's also a 7-8% chance of a player dropping a +4 bonus from the mantle. This all resolves to decent advantages being dropped based on luck.

[initus]

My biggest fear with this is drops: In a 3p game,you'll see players dropping a bunch of +2 bonuses, with 18 territories each (which means if any player loses even one territory, their troop deployment comes down. There's also a 7-8% chance of a player dropping a +4 bonus from the mantle. This all resolves to decent advantages being dropped based on luck.

Yeah, we were a little worried about that, though we wanted the bonus structure for territory counts to be something different than what is standard. Possibly a different way to determine the bonus amounts? Also the bonus amounts were sort of just thrown in there, so the strength of each bonus and the number of territories needed is very changeable. Since this is replacing the territory count bonus, we are not minding that people start with a little bonus here or there, but we don't want it to be uneven.

Updated the map with a couple name changes and a rough estimate of starting troop counts, though the neutrals are probably liable to change.

26/7/10 Draft:

Click image to enlarge.

[Evil DIMwit]

Since this is replacing the territory count bonus, we are not minding that people start with a little bonus here or there, but we don't want it to be uneven.

If this bonus replaces the territory count bonus, then you should note that on the map. Though I don't think this is a good idea since the layer bonus inherently gives rise to unevenness. I recommend either dramatically reducing it or doing away with it entirely in favor of a standard-style territory bonus. If you want something a bit different from usual, you can try adjusting the territory bonus increment -- not many maps take advantage of that possibility. But even if you don't, no one will ever accuse you of lacking originality.


Also, it would be handy to be able to see the connections out from the standard magma areas.

[skillfusniper33]

Since this is replacing the territory count bonus, we are not minding that people start with a little bonus here or there, but we don't want it to be uneven.

If this bonus replaces the territory count bonus, then you should note that on the map. Though I don't think this is a good idea since the layer bonus inherently gives rise to unevenness. I recommend either dramatically reducing it or doing away with it entirely in favor of a standard-style territory bonus. If you want something a bit different from usual, you can try adjusting the territory bonus increment -- not many maps take advantage of that possibility. But even if you don't, no one will ever accuse you of lacking originality.


Also, it would be handy to be able to see the connections out from the standard magma areas.

Yes we do need to add that there is no territory bonus on the map.

With the current values for the layer bonus, it is no different than the actual region count bonus, until you get above 18 regions, which is 1 above that. By this point most of the game will probably be decided, and if not you are probably in the lead and are a target to become weakened. To own the two largest layer bonuses you have to own all but 3 regions in the light yellow, and yellow area.

In a 3 player game you can never get above the 12 region bonus, because you drop 2 meteors which have no connection to any layer bonus.

[carlpgoodrich]

I've been staring at this map for a few minutes now, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what the gameplay will be. Since there are no bonus regions and no choke points, it seems like there is little strategy to building up and protecting a layer bonus.

I haven't gone through every combination, but in the top of the outer layer, for example, you have to hold 10 and protect 3 just to get a bonus of 2... definitely not wroth it. Another possibility would be to hope you get drops on a territ that is the only territ that attacks another territ, so you can attack and not advance, thus not having to protect two territs. Again, that will only take you so far. Only other thing I can think of is getting a magma and dumping all your armies on it for that tiny +1.

Do you guys have a better feeling for how these games will unfold? If not I'm worried that this will become a novelty map that no one plays.

[initus]

I've been staring at this map for a few minutes now, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what the gameplay will be. Since there are no bonus regions and no choke points, it seems like there is little strategy to building up and protecting a layer bonus.

I haven't gone through every combination, but in the top of the outer layer, for example, you have to hold 10 and protect 3 just to get a bonus of 2... definitely not wroth it. Another possibility would be to hope you get drops on a territ that is the only territ that attacks another territ, so you can attack and not advance, thus not having to protect two territs. Again, that will only take you so far. Only other thing I can think of is getting a magma and dumping all your armies on it for that tiny +1.

Do you guys have a better feeling for how these games will unfold? If not I'm worried that this will become a novelty map that no one plays.

I'm not sure if you missed the whole every magma current (red ovalish thing that attacks in one direction) has its own region bonus thing or what, but there are definitely region bonuses. There are also chokes, at every territory beneath the crust that starts as a 1 neutral.

You are reading a little too much into the layer bonuses... those things are subject to a lot of change and/or scrapping, we haven't really thought about them too much, though as previous posts will say, they definitely need looking into. Not sure where you are getting your numbers though, "10 and protect 3 just to get a bonus of 2" as there isn't a hold 10 regions to get a bonus of 2 on the map, unless you mean 6, and by protecting 3 you meant that there were 3 territories to protect going into your layer to hold the 10 regions.

As for gameplay... yes, there will be much of it. As each current has one way attacks and it will take several territories before you come around and reach the same territory, it will lead to very interesting stack placement to try to protect any region bonuses. To travel across the map, it will lead to crazy, roundabout pathways, and assassin maps might cause you to find an entirely different path around the map. People will probably want to try to get the region bonuses that are near or under their respective meteors, as it will be less vulnerable. There will be movement along the crust when people decide to break the volcano to try to eliminate people from their meteors, or if they are pushed back to only their meteor, they can either stack or try to launch another offensive from the safety of the meteor. For the layer bonus, we had imagined that it would add a different dynamic than the straight up territory count bonus, and might cause people to travel from current to current but keeping to their layer to try to add that bonus up, though as I said, this will probably change. As for the stagnant magma, not sure if we are happy about it, they might get removed eventually, but they were added to give a different and more direct path from current to current. This is all off the top of my head and there are probably things I've forgotten, as there will probably be new strategies if the map gets to beta that will unfold.

[carlpgoodrich]

I was mainly thinking about the number of territories you would have to protect in order to hold a bonus. For example, Yangin Stream gives +2, but you have to hold 7 and protect 4. Getting rid of the magma would help, making it hold 6 and protect 3, which is much more reasonable. At the same time, the magma helps the mobility of the map a lot, so I'm not convinced it needs to be gotten rid of. Maybe just have a few normal territories border the core?

I was thinking the layer bonus would be central to the map, which is what the #s I quoted above referenced. If the layer bonuses are just an "extra", then it's not nearly as big of a deal.

[initus]

Well as this is the gameplay workshop, everything is liable to change or be altered, so the current bonus amounts could change. Do you think they are an appropriate amount for the currents if the stagnant magma was not present?

Also, what do you mean by: "Maybe just have a few normal territories border the core?"

[carlpgoodrich]

Also, what do you mean by: "Maybe just have a few normal territories border the core?"

I meant that I like the stagnant magma in that it can attack the core, but I'm worried that it's ability to also attack all the territories around it makes too hard to hold the magma currents (this is just my take, maybe others disagree). So what about making a few territories that are part of lava currents (probably territories that already connect two currents) border the core, and have a higher starting neutral?

Well as this is the gameplay workshop, everything is liable to change or be altered, so the current bonus amounts could change. Do you think they are an appropriate amount for the currents if the stagnant magma was not present?

This is a hard one, but probably. I'm mainly concerned about how the meteors have a +1 auto, and theres only a neutral of 1 separating them from the outer layer. I'm trying to decide if, were I playing this map, it would be worth it to go for a +1 lava current that is not under my starting meteor. Maybe increase the neutrals on the surface that lead down to the outer layer to 3? Maybe not. I'm not sure.

[initus]

I meant that I like the stagnant magma in that it can attack the core, but I'm worried that it's ability to also attack all the territories around it makes too hard to hold the magma currents (this is just my take, maybe others disagree). So what about making a few territories that are part of lava currents (probably territories that already connect two currents) border the core, and have a higher starting neutral?

Well, truth be told the stagnant magma doesn't attack the core, I guess the text on the map is a little ambiguous in its wording though, it is supposed to be a one way attack from the core to the stagnant magma. I do see what you're getting at with the too many borders for regions business though, I was wondering something along those lines myself.

Haha, that's funny, I was thinking of a way to redo the core-stagnant magma mechanic and came up with almost the same idea with the "some transition territories border the core" idea. Still thinking of some different ideas though.

This is a hard one, but probably. I'm mainly concerned about how the meteors have a +1 auto, and theres only a neutral of 1 separating them from the outer layer. I'm trying to decide if, were I playing this map, it would be worth it to go for a +1 lava current that is not under my starting meteor. Maybe increase the neutrals on the surface that lead down to the outer layer to 3? Maybe not. I'm not sure.

The crust territories might go up to 2, but I don't think that they would serve their function with 3. What we may end up doing is having the territories on the crust that border a lava ocean be an increased amount, perhaps 3 or 5, and the others being 1s. Well with team games the autodeploy would add a little more dynamic gameplay, as you could start working your way from ally's meteors or something, but I get what you are saying though. I probably wouldn't try to go for those, but I guess it depends, if it is early in the game and the auto deploy isn't all that high, there could be the possibility that you could get and hold those, especially if you drop most of the territories in the current. However, the currents that are attacked by a meteor probably need a bonus amount increase.

[skillfusniper33]

This is a hard one, but probably. I'm mainly concerned about how the meteors have a +1 auto, and theres only a neutral of 1 separating them from the outer layer. I'm trying to decide if, were I playing this map, it would be worth it to go for a +1 lava current that is not under my starting meteor. Maybe increase the neutrals on the surface that lead down to the outer layer to 3? Maybe not. I'm not sure.

The crust territories might go up to 2, but I don't think that they would serve their function with 3. What we may end up doing is having the territories on the crust that border a lava ocean be an increased amount, perhaps 3 or 5, and the others being 1s. Well with team games the autodeploy would add a little more dynamic gameplay, as you could start working your way from ally's meteors or something, but I get what you are saying though. I probably wouldn't try to go for those, but I guess it depends, if it is early in the game and the auto deploy isn't all that high, there could be the possibility that you could get and hold those, especially if you drop most of the territories in the current. However, the currents that are attacked by a meteor probably need a bonus amount increase.

I was actually thinking the other way around a higher number to get off the meteor, and the 1's/2's for the rest. This will slow the chance for crust bonuses early.

[initus]

Map Updated 6/8/10

Click image to enlarge.

Several changes this time around.

1) Stagnant Magma was removed, but the functionality remains in the game. Instead of the Core attacking stagnant magma, it instead bombards exactly one transition territory from each current. These territories are shown at the moment by a dark red circle, and have an auto deploy. The reasoning behind this is that it cuts down the number of borders for each current while still keeping the Core gameplay. We also increased the starting neutral amounts on these territories to make them slightly harder to go for, as people will most likely try to get them first and then move onto the current region bonuses.

2) The way the Core fits into the game is also a little different, as only half of the Qalba Tide territories now one way attack the core, so the number of troops advanced into the Core must be strategic as they can't get back out.

3) Volcano starting neutrals were slightly increased.

4) Since the stagnant magma was removed from play, bonus amounts needed to be played around with and changed.

5) The layer bonus has also been changed. The territory bonus is back in the game (people gain +1 troops for every 3 territories held over 9) and the layer bonus is now a supplemental. This should reduce unfair drops and make the layer bonus less important. Note: The number of territories held and the bonus for that number in each layer has not been thought out, and only placeholders are there for the moment.

Things still under consideration:
1) Volcanoes auto-deploying
2) Layer bonuses (will still need extensive work)
3) The numbers for the bonuses for holding a current.
4) Neutral troop sizes.
5) Increased neutral sizes for crust territories attacked by meteors and/or lava ocean bordering territories on the crust?

If people could comment on these subjects and any of the changes that they disagree with and/or don't understand.

[natty dread]

How will you name the territories? I see you have bonus area names but no individual territory names... May be a bit hard to fit them all unless you have some special plan for them?

[skillfusniper33]

How will you name the territories? I see you have bonus area names but no individual territory names... May be a bit hard to fit them all unless you have some special plan for them?

We do, it will be the first letter of the bonus, and a number, so Q1 for Qalba Tide, and for the transitions it will be QA for Qalba tide with Alov Torrent. If you would like to see all the regions I am sure we can get something up soon, it just wasn't on the top of our list to deal with right away, since we had a plan on the names.

[Evil DIMwit]

I don't think a volcano auto-deploy is necessary or appropriate. You've already got the meteor auto-deploys in the area.

Speaking of which, it's not quite clear which territories the regular surface territories can attack, since they don't have arrows.

The layer bonus seems very underwhelming now. However, the chances of someone in a 3-player game dropping the 12-territory bonus with 26 droppable territories in the largest layer is about 11%, which is quite a bit even for a 2-troop bonus. However, if you increase the requirement to 13 territories, the chances shrink to 2.45%, and with 14 territories it's just 00.32%.
Consider a chart more like this:
12: +1
15: +3
18: +5
24: +8
30: +12
36: +18
(Note that this is a rough sketch and feel free to fine-tune these values.)

Finally, if you have all the meteors as neutral-coded starting positions (as you should), then:
1. You can't really set it up so that each player always gets exactly one. The eight starting positions are evenly divided, so in 3p and 4p games, each player will get two, and in 2p games each player would get four.
2. With 56 territories, you have 48 regular territories and 8 meteors. Therefore in 3p games each player starts with 16 regular and 2 meteor territories, for a total of 18. That means the first player has a significant advantage, because if the other players only lose 1 territory, their standard troop bonus decreases. Therefore I propose reducing the number of regular droppable territories to 47, which prevents this imbalance for all player numbers.

[initus]

I don't think a volcano auto-deploy is necessary or appropriate. You've already got the meteor auto-deploys in the area.

Yeah, was thinking along those lines.

Speaking of which, it's not quite clear which territories the regular surface territories can attack, since they don't have arrows.

This has been brought up before, but now with the stagnant magma gone it clears up a little space in the bottom right area for some text. Perhaps if I leave some instructions down there on how the crust attacks? Don't really want arrows on the crust, as that would clutter it up even more than it already is.

However, the chances of someone in a 3-player game dropping the 12-territory bonus with 26 droppable territories in the largest layer is about 11%, which is quite a bit even for a 2-troop bonus. However, if you increase the requirement to 13 territories, the chances shrink to 2.45%, and with 14 territories it's just 00.32%.

Your chart starts at twelve, but if it were to start at 14, then we would get the 0.32% chance? Say, something like this:
14: +1
18: +3
22: +5
27: +8 <--- 27 territories in the outer core (middle layer)
34: +12
39: +18 <--- 39 territories in the mantle (outer layer)

By the way, if you don't mind me asking, where are you getting these numbers? Are you working them out by hand or using a website/application?

Finally, if you have all the meteors as neutral-coded starting positions (as you should), then:
1. You can't really set it up so that each player always gets exactly one. The eight starting positions are evenly divided, so in 3p and 4p games, each player will get two, and in 2p games each player would get four.
2. With 56 territories, you have 48 regular territories and 8 meteors. Therefore in 3p games each player starts with 16 regular and 2 meteor territories, for a total of 18. That means the first player has a significant advantage, because if the other players only lose 1 territory, their standard troop bonus decreases. Therefore I propose reducing the number of regular droppable territories to 47, which prevents this imbalance for all player numbers.

1. Sounds good to us, all that really matters is a relatively even distribution. If it said somewhere before that we only wanted one per player, I think that was assuming that it was eight players.
2. I personally don't like it, as easily divisible numbers look much better, however it is something that we will most likely end up doing, as your proposal is necessary for balance.