Conquer Club

I may be willing to compile such a list. The only 4 maps I haven't won on in some capacity are all relatively new, and I know a decent amount about how they play/complexity based on my losses on them thus far.

Thanks!

Just thinking, would be it possible to come up with a ranking system I could automate?

For example criteria for complexity could include:

Objectives or not.
Number of start positions/enforced neutrals
Bombardments
One way borders
Overrides/Territories included in multiple bonuses

Say Simple = none of the above etc.

chipv wrote:Thanks!

Just thinking, would be it possible to come up with a ranking system I could automate?

For example criteria for complexity could include:

Objectives or not.
Number of start positions/enforced neutrals
Bombardments
One way borders
Overrides/Territories included in multiple bonuses

Say Simple = none of the above etc.

Might work - however - there is visual complexity - which anything like this will never be able to take into account.

For instance - I have difficulty playing on BeNeLux - due to the weird crossing points... yet - by definition above - I think it would be Simple.

C.

Could always add extra weighting to maps/ranking criteria.

Not worth a shot?

We could always tweak weighting/ranking criteria until produced output looks sensible.

chipv wrote:Could always add extra weighting to maps/ranking criteria.

Not worth a shot?

We could always tweak weighting/ranking criteria until produced output looks sensible.

Seems like you'll be tweaking the weights - until it looks like a comittee decided list?

C.

yeti_c wrote:

chipv wrote:Could always add extra weighting to maps/ranking criteria.

Not worth a shot?

We could always tweak weighting/ranking criteria until produced output looks sensible.

Seems like you'll be tweaking the weights - until it looks like a comittee decided list?

C.

Hmm, there is surely some way of avoiding dispute.

Is there any way that you could create a limited number of tags for users to assign as they see fit, and then after a period of time aggregate them according to how most people have them categorised?

I don't know if that's possible though as it is a two-way process...

Tell you what. I'm only going to consider game complexity and ignore visual complexity for now. See what happens.

Could someone list criteria like above and weight them please?

For example number of territories might be one but that's less important so gets lower weighting.

TIA

I don't see how complexity can be weighted since you can't say that objectives are three times more confusing than bombardments. You just can't put a number on it. oh well. you guys go have your fun.

I was more thinking of giving you a comprehensive list using the 4 categories (Simple, Moderate, Complex, Conquest) and then rating each of them within their section from easiest to play to hardest.

TaCktiX wrote:I was more thinking of giving you a comprehensive list using the 4 categories (Simple, Moderate, Complex, Conquest) and then rating each of them within their section from easiest to play to hardest.

Sounds good! Thanks