CC City Mogul [Quenched]

[yeti_c]

Plus you also need to take into account the huge number of quick 1 vs 1 that people play nowadays!!!

Why - people can choose 1v1's on many different maps?!

C.

[DiM]

the large number of armies is a genius idea

if it works

[sanosuke]

DiM you know I love your maps, and this one looks very promising...the only problem I'm having is that for me cyan is difficult to see on v10. The very light blue on a white print (even the dark blue w/ v3 is a bit tough on the eyes). I know there's not much you can do with it, just stating the ONLY con I have with the map ^_^

Keep up the excellent work DiM!

[DiM]

DiM you know I love your maps, and this one looks very promising...the only problem I'm having is that for me cyan is difficult to see on v10. The very light blue on a white print (even the dark blue w/ v3 is a bit tough on the eyes). I know there's not much you can do with it, just stating the ONLY con I have with the map ^_^

Keep up the excellent work DiM!

ugh v10 is blue not white. v11 is white.
i can see it perfectly on white

perhaps look on page 13, somebody requested a light green version: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... &start=180

is that better?

and what exactly is hard to see? the cyan house and shop or the cyan numbers? if it's the numbers then don't worry they'll be gone. if it's the house then i guess i need to tweak it a bit and make it more visible.

[yeti_c]

I would say that the house and shop icons are hard to see on the blue - I've not checked the white or green versions.

C.

[DiM]

I would say that the house and shop icons are hard to see on the blue - I've not checked the white or green versions.

C.

lol. i gave up blue and switched to white to make everything more visible. then somebody suggested green. so far i still think white is the best but i'm waiting for feedback on the situation.

[yeti_c]

White is better - but I'd move the smudge behind the top right Cyan house...

Also - the Middle left Cyan shop - is a bit tricky due to the bright white.

Otherwise it's fine... on a similar note - neutral (White) armies should show up fine as they have a black stroke - but player 8 might be tricky?

C.

[DiM]

White is better - but I'd move the smudge behind the top right Cyan house...

Also - the Middle left Cyan shop - is a bit tricky due to the bright white.

Otherwise it's fine... on a similar note - neutral (White) armies should show up fine as they have a black stroke - but player 8 might be tricky?

C.

player 8 also has a black stroke (all army numbers have a black stroke) so in theory it should be visible.

as for the smudge i can move it around.

[yeti_c]

White is better - but I'd move the smudge behind the top right Cyan house...

Also - the Middle left Cyan shop - is a bit tricky due to the bright white.

Otherwise it's fine... on a similar note - neutral (White) armies should show up fine as they have a black stroke - but player 8 might be tricky?

C.

player 8 also has a black stroke (all army numbers have a black stroke) so in theory it should be visible.

as for the smudge i can move it around.

But the Grey and Black are closer together - thus it will make it harder...

Black and White have a greater contrast thus stand out more.

C.

[sanosuke]

DiM you know I love your maps, and this one looks very promising...the only problem I'm having is that for me cyan is difficult to see on v10. The very light blue on a white print (even the dark blue w/ v3 is a bit tough on the eyes). I know there's not much you can do with it, just stating the ONLY con I have with the map ^_^

Keep up the excellent work DiM!

ugh v10 is blue not white. v11 is white.
i can see it perfectly on white

perhaps look on page 13, somebody requested a light green version: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... &start=180

is that better?

and what exactly is hard to see? the cyan house and shop or the cyan numbers? if it's the numbers then don't worry they'll be gone. if it's the house then i guess i need to tweak it a bit and make it more visible.

Aah if the numbers are going, then it would be fine..but during game play those numbers would have to be there right? Other than that, the houses were easy enough to see, it was just the numbers giving me trouble ^_^

[DiM]

DiM you know I love your maps, and this one looks very promising...the only problem I'm having is that for me cyan is difficult to see on v10. The very light blue on a white print (even the dark blue w/ v3 is a bit tough on the eyes). I know there's not much you can do with it, just stating the ONLY con I have with the map ^_^

Keep up the excellent work DiM!

ugh v10 is blue not white. v11 is white.
i can see it perfectly on white

perhaps look on page 13, somebody requested a light green version: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... &start=180

is that better?

and what exactly is hard to see? the cyan house and shop or the cyan numbers? if it's the numbers then don't worry they'll be gone. if it's the house then i guess i need to tweak it a bit and make it more visible.

Aah if the numbers are going, then it would be fine..but during game play those numbers would have to be there right? Other than that, the houses were easy enough to see, it was just the numbers giving me trouble ^_^

those numbers are going to be replaced by the official army numbers.
they represent the neutral values and i need to update them now with the new values.

[DiM]

V12

removed the cookie and dice
moved the hand print
fixed legend
changed neutral values and bonuses

image


image with starting neutral values. the coloured numbers represent the player locations and armies


army test. yeti, you can see the slate colour is very visible. same goes for white.

[yeti_c]

Looks good to me.

C.

[DiM]

Looks good to me.

C.

pleased to hear that.

[whitestazn88]

i feel like some blocks get an unfair advantage, like the all yellow block has only 6 territs to hold compared to others that have up to 10 territs.

[sanosuke]

Looks good DiM, much easier to see all of the colors now.

[DiM]

i feel like some blocks get an unfair advantage, like the all yellow block has only 6 territs to hold compared to others that have up to 10 territs.

i don't think that's really a problem because while it may be easier to take it will also give out a lower bonus. remember that each emply terit gives a +10 so by holding all yellow you get 60 for a whole neighbourhood and 20 for 2 empty blocks. while pink will be harder to take but give 60 for a whole neighbourhood and another 60 for 6 empty blocks.

[DiM]

Looks good DiM, much easier to see all of the colors now.

glad it's easy to read. that's what i want.

[whitestazn88]

i feel like some blocks get an unfair advantage, like the all yellow block has only 6 territs to hold compared to others that have up to 10 territs.

i don't think that's really a problem because while it may be easier to take it will also give out a lower bonus. remember that each emply terit gives a +10 so by holding all yellow you get 60 for a whole neighbourhood and 20 for 2 empty blocks. while pink will be harder to take but give 60 for a whole neighbourhood and another 60 for 6 empty blocks.

oh yeah, forgot to take that into account. with that in mind, i deem this map "Brilliant!"

[DiM]

i feel like some blocks get an unfair advantage, like the all yellow block has only 6 territs to hold compared to others that have up to 10 territs.

i don't think that's really a problem because while it may be easier to take it will also give out a lower bonus. remember that each emply terit gives a +10 so by holding all yellow you get 60 for a whole neighbourhood and 20 for 2 empty blocks. while pink will be harder to take but give 60 for a whole neighbourhood and another 60 for 6 empty blocks.

oh yeah, forgot to take that into account. with that in mind, i deem this map "Brilliant!"

thanks

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

the large number of armies is a genius idea

if it works

Personally I think this idea is both genius and very flawed in practise - let me try to explain.

Your proposal is that by increasing army numbers across the board, luck is reduced, and this is very true - in fact if you increase them all enough, then you reach the point where the player who goes first wins every time. We therefore instead need to find a sweet spot where the random effects of the dice are reduced, but the gameplay is still "fair".

Let's look at some numbers:

Armies______win%_________average to advance (rounded down)

6v4_________74.49%_______3
12v8________84.49%_______6
24v16_______93.15%_______11
60v40_______99.18%_______26
120v80______99.97%_______52

(using http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/Gambit/BattleOdds? )

So indeed the effect of the dice is very greatly reduced by increasing the army numbers, however making those attacks with the current interface requires either many many clicks (and time) or the use of auto attack. In fact this map as currently proposed would become intrinsically linked with auto attack for that very reason (you may or may not like that for various reasons). And by heavily promoting the use of auto attack you may well end up with gameplay that "feels" less strategic - the opposite to what you seek. (This would be less of an issue if the site or a script adds the "attack xX" or "attack until X left" functionality)

This game however isn't just about attacking, it's about defending too (which your proposal heavily discourages). In any 1v1 game (well most vs decent players) there is a period in the midgame where the territory count swings backwards and forwards (like tug-of-war) until someone manages to not have their bonus broken. This phase is most obvious in large maps with large bonuses (original AoM, BJ, Waterloo, BoA and most noteably the more recent AoMs) - where one often eventually gets to keep a bonus by ensuring that there are always a lot of active fronts (i.e give your opponent as many bonuses to break as possible and hope one fails - usually through neglect especially in the fog).

In this notional tug-of-war, there is often a point of no return - most especially seen in AoM:Might - where you HAVE to try to attack all the way through to the castle because otherwise you will be killed by the counter-attack. The larger the army numbers used, the sooner this point comes into play. In other words it becomes increasingly easy to accidentally suicide.

That is for 1v1 - for 3 player games (and all non-1v1 / team games are essentially 3 player games) - this point of no return ends up being so soon that a build game is ensured. i.e. if you cannot take out both other players, then don't bother attacking at all.

Another aspect of these huge army numbers would be that cards would be invalidated, with every game essentially being no cards in nature. This in itself isn't a problem, but again that screams "build" to me.


All a bit rambling, sorry, (and I'll come back and edit it to make sense if it doesn't when I'm less tired tomorrow), but in conclusion I think that increasing the army numbers DOES achieve the more strategic play you're looking for, but that increasing them 10 fold probably goes too far (I may have failed to explain this sufficiently and I am struggling prove this mathematically). I would suggest multiplying everything by 2 or 3 (unless we get a playtest area where a sweet spot could probably be found quite quickly).

[DiM]

i fully agree with your post benjikat. very good thinking as usual.

unfortunately as you specified at the moment it's impossible to tell if the current numbers will work or not. i usually test my games with my friends at home. of course we can't play a huge amount of games and we can't cover all the possibilities but i get a pretty good idea of what needs to be tweaked.

the problem here is that because of the large armies i can't play test this since real dice don't have autoattack and to sit in my living room rolling thousands of times just for 1 game is impossible. so unless we get a play testing area to figure exactly what the ideal multiplier is i'm afraid the only way to tweak this map is to wait for it to be released and then watch closely the first games, gather feedback and modify the xml. it would be a really easy task because it would mean simply to divide the numbers if they are too large or further increase them if they are too big.

of course if i don't get this right from the first time, many people won't come back to play it again because they won't know the xml changed but at least we'll get a decent idea on what should be done for future maps that use this idea.

or perhaps lack will finally find some time and implement the testing area for map makers. i know there is the possibility to test things but at the moment it is kept closed. for example speed games and 7-8p games were tested before getting implemented so the possibility exists.

[sanosuke]

Well I'm totally ignorant of all xml language, so I won't even try to speak on that subject...I do have a question though:

Erm, ever since I got AJAX BOB I always auto attack (simple right click and you attack pretty much until one side is defeated). From what I was able to make sense out of your post benjikat, are you saying you have a less chance to attack by using auto attack? ie. 5v3 (this happens to me almost every roll) w/ auto attack, end result is now 1v3 (I never win at your "average" game like Classic or British Isles where your armies are all spread out because of this simple fact that 3v3 - 6v3 I almost always end up 1v3 )

So if possible I'd like a clarification on that point by anyone who knows more than me lol

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

Well I'm totally ignorant of all xml language, so I won't even try to speak on that subject...I do have a question though:

Erm, ever since I got AJAX BOB I always auto attack (simple right click and you attack pretty much until one side is defeated). From what I was able to make sense out of your post benjikat, are you saying you have a less chance to attack by using auto attack? ie. 5v3 (this happens to me almost every roll) w/ auto attack, end result is now 1v3 (I never win at your "average" game like Classic or British Isles where your armies are all spread out because of this simple fact that 3v3 - 6v3 I almost always end up 1v3 )

So if possible I'd like a clarification on that point by anyone who knows more than me lol

The problem with auto-attack that I was highlighting was that it IS all-or-nothing - and often it is worth continuing to attack ONLY if you have enough armies back to defend - a tactical option that auto-attack doesn't allow.

DiM is trying to shift the luck/strategy balance with this map, but by having such large army numbers, a far larger number of players will be enticed to use auto-attack, which may in fact create a less strategic map.

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

The short version of my late night ramblings above is this:

Multiplying the army numbers across the board (i.e. all starting numbers and all bonuses) does 2 main things:

1) The odds of each successful attack are greatly increased

but

2) The point at which an attack should either stop or try to go "all the way" becomes closer and closer to the starting position - i.e. doing nothing could very often be the "best" tactic, because the potential counter attack is far more likely to be lethal for you. For this reason, in it's current state, this map would be the biggest noob-killer on the site, as well as creating a stale mate in most games involving more than 2 decent players.

Personally I think that the first try for this kind of thing should be a factor of about 3, rather than the 10 or 20 DiM has proposed.

(and I volunteer for any play test, because I would love to see whether my theories hold any validity)