Conquer Club

ender516 wrote:

HollyElizabeth wrote:Kotaro mentioned this and I found it to be a bit curious...

There is an inconsistency in this map...

Game 5739015
2009-10-12 12:12:17 - Iron Maid received 7 troops for 23 regions

While in this game:

Game 5739017
2009-10-12 12:08:35 - dowian2 received 7 troops for 22 regions

both were first turn counts
Different starting bonus' and terr counts

Looks like the difference might be the XML update which made Downtown Station a starting neutral. In [game]5739015[/game], we can see that initially Downtown Station belonged to dowian2, and Iron Maid conquered it in the first turn. In 5739017, it is currently neutral. How you get 23 regions on a 66/67 region map, I couldn't say. Did it have 69 (or more) before the last update?

the first turns should not have been affected by the XML change.

HollyElizabeth wrote:

ender516 wrote:

HollyElizabeth wrote:Kotaro mentioned this and I found it to be a bit curious...

There is an inconsistency in this map...

Game 5739015
2009-10-12 12:12:17 - Iron Maid received 7 troops for 23 regions

While in this game:

Game 5739017
2009-10-12 12:08:35 - dowian2 received 7 troops for 22 regions

both were first turn counts
Different starting bonus' and terr counts

Looks like the difference might be the XML update which made Downtown Station a starting neutral. In [game]5739015[/game], we can see that initially Downtown Station belonged to dowian2, and Iron Maid conquered it in the first turn. In 5739017, it is currently neutral. How you get 23 regions on a 66/67 region map, I couldn't say. Did it have 69 (or more) before the last update?

the first turns should not have been affected by the XML change.

Why not? That's the answer, I'm pretty sure.

Has the XML update missed the mark again? I just started [game]5751162[/game] and Downtown Station was given to darwin18 (green) on the drop.

On 1v1 or 1v1v1 player games, downtown station can be dished out, as it is included in the starting positions. In 4+ player games, downtown station should start neutral.

MrBenn wrote:On 1v1 or 1v1v1 player games, downtown station can be dished out, as it is included in the starting positions. In 4+ player games, downtown station should start neutral.

Ah, I see, thank you.

MrBenn wrote:On 1v1 or 1v1v1 player games, downtown station can be dished out, as it is included in the starting positions. In 4+ player games, downtown station should start neutral.

Okay, that's terrible. The only problem we really had with Downtown was on 1v1 or 3p games…

the.killing.44 wrote:

MrBenn wrote:On 1v1 or 1v1v1 player games, downtown station can be dished out, as it is included in the starting positions. In 4+ player games, downtown station should start neutral.

Okay, that's terrible. The only problem we really had with Downtown was on 1v1 or 3p games…

Well, the starting positions split the Coast Mountains, West Vancouver, and the Canada line bonus zones three ways, so no one gets a bonus on the drop. Is there still a problem?

So our options are:

A. Downtown Station ALWAYS starts neutral
B. Downtown Station is part of starting positions, and is dished out to player 1, 2, or 3/neutral
C. Downtown Station is neutral above 4 players, dished out if 3 or less.

When I updated the XML, my intention was to have it always neutral, but I didn't think to change the starting positions. My bad.

shakeycat wrote:So our options are:

A. Downtown Station ALWAYS starts neutral
B. Downtown Station is part of starting positions, and is dished out to player 1, 2, or 3/neutral
C. Downtown Station is neutral above 4 players, dished out if 3 or less.

When I updated the XML, my intention was to have it always neutral, but I didn't think to change the starting positions. My bad.

So, for my XML education, if you removed Downtown Station from the starting positions, its <neutral> designation would apply for all player counts? (Of course, to be fair, the other stations of the Expo Line would also be removed from the starting positions, no?)

Ender,

Yes, it would be <neutral> for all player counts.

I could still have the two remaining Expo line stations as starting positions, if we are concerned about the odds of one player getting both.

shakeycat wrote:Ender,

Yes, it would be <neutral> for all player counts.

I could still have the two remaining Expo line stations as starting positions, if we are concerned about the odds of one player getting both.

But would the system cope properly with two starting positions with three <territory> tags and one with only two? Would the players still end up with equal numbers of territories?

I just wanted to say that I love the play on this map. I've played it dubs, trips, and quads, and it has quickly become one of my top 5 favorite maps. Well done on this, seriously. It's kinda like NYC but without all the suckage.

Ender, good point. Perhaps I could dummy in Port Moody station or Fraserview Station instead? Or even Downtown itself.

Thanks Fenrir, glad to hear it NYC was the first map that I really was blown away by. I thought it was really cool to have the trains. Plus the bonus structure offers a wide range. I'm also a big fan of Charleston, just because it's so PRETTY.

shakeycat wrote:Ender, good point. Perhaps I could dummy in Port Moody station or Fraserview Station instead? Or even Downtown itself.

Thanks Fenrir, glad to hear it NYC was the first map that I really was blown away by. I thought it was really cool to have the trains. Plus the bonus structure offers a wide range. I'm also a big fan of Charleston, just because it's so PRETTY.

I'm not sure you need any of the stations in the starting positions if Downtown Station is always a neutral, because Expo Line cannot then be dropped, which was the concern. The fact that the none of the train lines can be dropped is a good thing, but incidental, and I don't think the concern for balance usually extends to the point of ensuring no one almost drops a bonus.

I'm partial to NYC myself (the first map I ever won a game on, and the map where I have my best win/loss ratio, leaving out the 1 for 1's and a 2 out of 3 on Doodle Earth) and am starting to like Charleston as well, despite having been knocked out on that map twice this week. I think it's the size of the map: not too small where the game can end too suddenly, but small enough to get my head around. I think Vancouver will be joining this group. Excelsior!

Okay, try the XML now:

http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/ ... couver.xml

Removed Canada Line from the starting positions, so Downtown Station always starts neutral.

an initially-neutral downtown station means that someone must make a conscious effort to take what is one of the pivotal regions on the board, instead of it being handed over on a plate.

shakeycat wrote:I've seen starts with the 4 territory bonuses owned too. I didn't put starting positions on them, but I'm not so sure what's normal on other maps. Would it ruin the fun to put starting positions, or is it just making things more fair? If anywhere, Burnaby would need them, due to the large bonus.

can we use the opportunity to fix burnaby by adding a burnaby region to each of the start positions because of its +5 bonus? we can happily leave maple meadows as random, since this is equivalent to classic south america in terms of both zone size and bonus.

shakeycat wrote:I don't like making the bonus higher than the territory count, but places like Burnaby would be very difficult to hold, as would any train system.

now that we mention burnaby, this bonus is a bit high. ur spreadsheet did put it at +5, but only because u removed the -1 adjustment that cairnswk had in the original formula! however, if the +5 doesn't make the map unbalanced, then there's no need to upset games in progess by changing it.

ian.

So would I be doing start positions on Burnaby regardless of whether it's a +5 or +4 bonus? I don't mind lowering the bonus. New Westminster often blocks the 6th border anyway, making 4 more reasonable in those cases. Besides, it's not often we get a bonus higher than number of territories held to earn it.

I would probably just put three of the territories on start positions, unless it's normal to have start positions where 1, 2, and 3 all have three territories, while 4 gets only one. At 3 x 3 (and not 3 x 3 and 1 x1), would only mean you couldn't drop with the bonus, which is what we want.

Okay. I don't understand all the XML stuff (I'm glad you folk do) but I want to say that as this map develops I enjoy it more and more. As I move up into (as I am now) 3v3 and hopefully soon (4v4) I'm confident that this will be one of two maps I will choose. The other is the new England map... which I should talk about in another post I'm sure.

So. All the tweaking and adjusting I'm sure is important but I still believe this map (and that other one that starts with an "E") can, for larges crews and small, end up as premier, top 10 CC maps in the future.

Cheers.

E.

There's still a little bit of discussion about starting positions etc... I'll double-check again shortly and see what the fuss is about

Right... I'm a little confused now... Which version of the XML is live?

We have neutrals on Downtown Station and New Westminster, right?

The starting positions should be fine as they are, which will ensure that nobody drops the bonus. I think that ender516 summed it up quite well:

ender516 wrote:

shakeycat wrote:Ender, good point. Perhaps I could dummy in Port Moody station or Fraserview Station instead? Or even Downtown itself.

Thanks Fenrir, glad to hear it NYC was the first map that I really was blown away by. I thought it was really cool to have the trains. Plus the bonus structure offers a wide range. I'm also a big fan of Charleston, just because it's so PRETTY.

I'm not sure you need any of the stations in the starting positions if Downtown Station is always a neutral, because Expo Line cannot then be dropped, which was the concern. The fact that the none of the train lines can be dropped is a good thing, but incidental, and I don't think the concern for balance usually extends to the point of ensuring no one almost drops a bonus.

Could somebody summarise how things are now, and any proposed amendment (if indeed there is one)... I don't see there being much of a problem at all - and there have been no further complaints about the sizes/values of any bonuses... Once my confusion has ended, we should be good for a final stamping

MrBenn wrote:We have neutrals on Downtown Station and New Westminster, right?

no, we don't. in beta version 2 that is playable just now, new westminster always starts neutral, while downtown station starts neutral if it's not 1v1 (or if it's neither a red nor green start position in 1v1). this means each player in 1v1 sometimes starts with 22 regions and sometimes with 23, which some players find disconcerting, even though it's perfectly acceptable for gameplay stamp purposes.

MrBenn wrote:The starting positions should be fine as they are, which will ensure that nobody drops the bonus.

in 2% of 1v1 games, 3% of 1v1v1 games and 1.5% of 2v2 games, someone will drop the +5 burnaby bonus. no-one would bat an eyelid if the bonus were only +2.

ender516 wrote:I don't think the concern for balance usually extends to the point of ensuring no one almost drops a bonus.

i think everyone agrees with this!

shakeycat wrote:So would I be doing start positions on Burnaby regardless of whether it's a +5 or +4 bonus? I don't mind lowering the bonus. New Westminster often blocks the 6th border anyway, making 4 more reasonable in those cases. Besides, it's not often we get a bonus higher than number of territories held to earn it.

I would probably just put three of the territories on start positions

it's now proposed that both new westminster and downtown station will always start neutral. start positions will apply on burnaby whether it's a +5 or +4 bonus. there will be 3 sets of start positions, each of which has 3 regions. the easiest way to do it is to copy the start position code from beta version 1, then replace each canada line station by a burnaby region. one burnaby region will necessarily be left out of the start positions. 2-player games will then start with each player always having 22 regions, with 23 neutral.

purely as a gameplay note, 22 regions each, instead of 23, favours player 1 slightly more. one way to restore the starts to 23 regions per player is to have 3 sets of 4 regions for the start positions, at the cost of a non-random maple meadows zone. this is not currently under consideration.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

MrBenn wrote:The starting positions should be fine as they are, which will ensure that nobody drops the bonus.

in 2% of 1v1 games, 3% of 1v1v1 games and 1.5% of 2v2 games, someone will drop the +5 burnaby bonus. no-one would bat an eyelid if the bonus were only +2.

Personally I think that anything under 5% is effectively insignificant. The unwritten rule-of-thumb that has been bandied about is 10%... With that in mind I wouldn't suggest that there is a need for any change.

I think this is entirely up to you shakeycat... If you want to swap the Canada Line starting positions for some in Burnaby, then that sounds like a plan which requires minimal effort and should settle the debate that's been rumbling on...

What say you?

Great map! And I'm not just saying because I won my first game on it. I can't seem to find any flaws in it. Gameplay is nice and refreshing.

i still don't understand why this map is labeled as vancouver 2...

whitestazn88 wrote:i still don't understand why this map is labeled as vancouver 2...

It's a side-effect of a change to the map graphic (in case people had an old version cached at the time of the update). The 2 will be dropped in due course...

MrBenn wrote:

iancanton wrote:

MrBenn wrote:The starting positions should be fine as they are, which will ensure that nobody drops the bonus.

in 2% of 1v1 games, 3% of 1v1v1 games and 1.5% of 2v2 games, someone will drop the +5 burnaby bonus. no-one would bat an eyelid if the bonus were only +2.

Personally I think that anything under 5% is effectively insignificant. The unwritten rule-of-thumb that has been bandied about is 10%... With that in mind I wouldn't suggest that there is a need for any change.

I think this is entirely up to you shakeycat... If you want to swap the Canada Line starting positions for some in Burnaby, then that sounds like a plan which requires minimal effort and should settle the debate that's been rumbling on...

What say you?

Any word from the mapmaker???