Conquer Club

TheForgivenOne wrote:If you remove a map like Hive from Random, then people will start requesting that other maps get removed.

If it is an option, then yes, it is a good suggestion. But if you want to start removing maps from the random loop, it will probably create more problems.

very true, good point.

ok, option of not including up to 2 or 3 maps is the best imo

this is not a bump


come on, I know more people like this suggestion

I still like the idea...I think it has merit.

AndyDufresne wrote:I've always supported this idea, since I think it'd be something I'd use! But I see a lot of benefit for it, from a Clan Challenge perspective, a Tournament perspective, random Private Game series perspective---etc.

=========================

How would you all see the functionality of something like this work? Say you go to the Start a Game Screen, and you select the 'Random Map'. Would it then open a pop up with the list of maps, with checkboxes for exclusion (or inclusion) (maybe looking like the Game Finder)? Or maybe instead of a pop up, an expansion of the page where the list of maps could be looked upon with checkboxes?

Ideas?


--Andy

even andy likes it. bananas for whoever submits this

but seriously, I don't see any negative comments. There are people who didn't like taking Hive out of the random loop, but we went away from that. Everyone is supporting the idea of just omitting a couple maps

Omitting your choice of maps, right?

Queen_Herpes wrote:Omitting your choice of maps, right?

right

jrh_cardinal wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:Omitting your choice of maps, right?

right

I completely agree. By offering this option players can choose the random map in speed and eliminate some of the maps that would otherwise change the game from "speed" to a lengthy game.

Great suggestion.

I love the idea, but I wouldn't want to see the # of exclusions limited. Yes, it could be abused, but there are valid reasons for it. I would like to use it for "non-castle" random games, where I could exclude Feudal, AoR, City Mogul, WWII Poland, etc.

Weird... i seriously was thinking of suggesting this yesterday, someone beat me to it...

great idea, just for random maps there could be a drop down of how many maps the person wanted to put in there that they didn't want the random map to land on....

or maybe even a addition where you could put 5 maps into a pool and 1 map would be randomly chosen between those 5 maps

-griff

As long as it's just an option, I think the best way to implement it would be to go back to the old way the map-selection was made, with the check-boxes, except that all boxes would start out as "checked". This would enable you to "uncheck" the maps that you wanted to avoid being in the random draw.

Woodruff wrote:As long as it's just an option, I think the best way to implement it would be to go back to the old way the map-selection was made, with the check-boxes, except that all boxes would start out as "checked". This would enable you to "uncheck" the maps that you wanted to avoid being in the random draw.

Hooray! Woodruff is on board!
I think that makes a quorum....

I'd also agree with no # limit to random exclusions.

In regards to some of the poor sportsmanship/abuse that could go on---say selecting all maps but 2 (I'd like to think Lack could code something that says if only 1 map is left in the random selection, then invalid) that something like that could create times where the game creator has the advantage of knowing what is excluded, and the joiner not---if the exclusions were not noted somewhere.

So would be exclusions have to be noted, or would that not be an issue?


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I'd also agree with no # limit to random exclusions.

In regards to some of the poor sportsmanship/abuse that could go on---say selecting all maps but 2 (I'd like to think Lack could code something that says if only 1 map is left in the random selection, then invalid) that something like that could create times where the game creator has the advantage of knowing what is excluded, and the joiner not---if the exclusions were not noted somewhere.

So would be exclusions have to be noted, or would that not be an issue?


--Andy

I made the suggestion mainly with tournaments in mind. In a tournament the exclusions can, and would have to be, easily noted.

Outside of tournaments I guess it could become an issue.... Don't know how easy it is to program for the exclusions to pop up somewhere.

Lx

AndyDufresne wrote:I'd also agree with no # limit to random exclusions.
In regards to some of the poor sportsmanship/abuse that could go on---say selecting all maps but 2 (I'd like to think Lack could code something that says if only 1 map is left in the random selection, then invalid) that something like that could create times where the game creator has the advantage of knowing what is excluded, and the joiner not---if the exclusions were not noted somewhere.
So would be exclusions have to be noted, or would that not be an issue?

This could easily be avoided by having the exclusions have a maximum limit of something pretty small...say ten maps.

Lindax wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:So would be exclusions have to be noted, or would that not be an issue?

I made the suggestion mainly with tournaments in mind. In a tournament the exclusions can, and would have to be, easily noted.

I would think that for tournaments, the exclusions would be noted in the "tournament start post" at the beginning of that tournament's thread.

Woodruff wrote:

Lindax wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:So would be exclusions have to be noted, or would that not be an issue?

I made the suggestion mainly with tournaments in mind. In a tournament the exclusions can, and would have to be, easily noted.

I would think that for tournaments, the exclusions would be noted in the "tournament start post" at the beginning of that tournament's thread.

yes, it would be. This would just make it easy to implement something like this, random map tournaments without auto-stalemate maps.

AndyDufresne wrote:So would be exclusions have to be noted, or would that not be an issue?

I would say they would need to be noted, it's not fair to people joining games if their favorite map(s) aren't on there. Perhaps something like this:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------two separate pics


obviously it wouldn't be the same 5 maps twice, but you get the picture. Also, there would have to be some sort of limit, even if it was like 20. If there was not a limit, people would Exclude way too many maps for that to work.

My idea would be to have the "Exclusions" thing as a mouse-over kind of like the share button used to be. It could also be clickable, doesn't really matter

Looks like a great idea Cardinal!

Don't know if 20 maps isn't too many....

Lx

Lindax, do you mind updating the first post to reflect what is being asked?

jrh_cardinal wrote:obviously it wouldn't be the same 5 maps twice, but you get the picture. Also, there would have to be some sort of limit, even if it was like 20. If there was not a limit, people would Exclude way too many maps for that to work.
My idea would be to have the "Exclusions" thing as a mouse-over kind of like the share button used to be. It could also be clickable, doesn't really matter

I think the mouseover idea is a great one for this.

Separate from that, and I realize you weren't necessarily advocating it, but I would say that 20 maps is WAY too much...

Woodruff wrote:Separate from that, and I realize you weren't necessarily advocating it, but I would say that 20 maps is WAY too much...

ya, I agree there. Some people were wanting unlimited though, and unlimited simply wouldn't work with the dropdown thing. (Can you imagine 100+ maps there, wow)

I would normally say the limit should be 5-10, but drunkmonkey also made a good point, to exclude all starting position maps, just have a random standard map. That would be about 20 maps I think, or at least close to it.

I count 15 starting position maps, not including maps like Third Crusade, which have starting positions, but are not conquest maps

TheForgivenOne wrote:Lindax, do you mind updating the first post to reflect what is being asked?

Mmmm...., I can try....

Lx

jrh_cardinal wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Separate from that, and I realize you weren't necessarily advocating it, but I would say that 20 maps is WAY too much...

ya, I agree there. Some people were wanting unlimited though, and unlimited simply wouldn't work with the dropdown thing. (Can you imagine 100+ maps there, wow)

I would normally say the limit should be 5-10, but drunkmonkey also made a good point, to exclude all starting position maps, just have a random standard map. That would be about 20 maps I think, or at least close to it.
I count 15 starting position maps, not including maps like Third Crusade, which have starting positions, but are not conquest maps

Perhaps have a single checkbox for "all starting-position maps" of that sort?

Still a great idea. I think Lindax is on vacation...perhaps upon his return we will see an update.

Wonderful idea...I have so wanted to foe The Hive for so long.

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...

Gold Knight wrote: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...

Seems to me it would be far more useful to remove maps from the random potential based on individuality rather than on size.