The HIVE [Quenched]

[natty dread]

Hmm.. it should be at least 300. Otherwise, it'll be problematic for 2-3 player games...

[WidowMakers]

We've expanded the objective to include continents. This will lead to maps with more flexible winning objectives like "hold 60% of the world". For more information about map development, please visit the Map Foundry.

I was hoping that a victory condition of that type could be implemented here.
There have been requests for it throughout this thread before the XML update was made. At least you know it's possible.

Assuming it's something that WM would be happy to implement, how much of the map should be required (in terms of territory numbers - there are 350 in total)

Sounds good to me. I say 2/3rd of the map is good. That way in a 2 or 3 player game the goal of killing everyoen is not as important as just grabbing hexes.

[MrBenn]

So in a 2/3 person game, each player starts with 115 terrs? (actually it's fractionally more for 2 player games because of the starting positions, but nevermind that). So the objective could be for 230 hexes? Does that sound reasonable? Or should we just say 250 because it's a 'rounder' number?

[killerpit4e]

i would say 250 since its a rounder number

[ManBungalow]

I know I'd play the map more if it was easier to finish the games in this way.

i would say 250 since its a rounder number

Vote +1.

Perhaps we should open a discussion thread in General Discussion for some more opinions before making a change?
We all know that changes don't always go down with the appropriate level of gratitude...

[MrBenn]

Rather than a GD discussion thread, I've just posted a site headline to gather attention to the proposal, and collect feedback relating to the change, which is to require 250 terrs (of a total 350) as a victory condition...

[psychobkrazy]

250 out of 350 sounds good to me.

[billssn]

I play hive and would much prefer the 250 criteria. The last several rounds get pretty boring...

[Fazeem]

leave it be I like it the way it is and have played it often

[TaCktiX]

I agree with adding a victory condition. The map is big, and by the time you own 66%* of the map, you have a commanding advantage.

*71.43%

[john9blue]

If you've already basically won after you get 250 territories, why bother adding a victory condition? Just to save a few turns? In an escalating game, you could definitely lose after getting 250 territories, if the cards are high enough.

[Draco74]

once you hold 250 the remaining ones shouldnt be that hard to conquer. leave it bee

[giantrascal]

this map has proved to be extremly difficult under fog of war. I would fully agree to the 250 territ hold but maybe not for a 2 player game. more people, sure.

[BBoz]

You could do something like 66% of the cells AND must hold All 5 Honey Storage Cells for 1 turn to ensure the person really has dominance on the map.

[I_am_DOOZY]

I'll agree with others to a point on here...if 250 territories are held by one player, the game is basically over, and the rest is basically so many rounds of finishing the game up. Not really a point to that, though it would clear up spots quicker for freemiums, like myself.
Something I have thought to myself was that the map could easily be an objective map with the objective being to hold all the storage cells. Thinking that before, I like BBoz's idea of controlling 250 territories, including the storage cells, for a conditional win. Though as I already said, there wouldn't really be a point...the dominant player would almost be in total control by then.

[I_am_DOOZY]

Taking a look at my current game, the power is in total control and is only holding 195 territories/regions at this point. So the objective of 250 territories/regions I believe is totally unnecessary.

[carlpgoodrich]

The point of this 250 territ condition is to end games quickly without changing the eventual winner, not to change the gameplay (which I don't think it will). I like the idea of also holding all the storage cells.

[mattattam]

250 sounds good

[volrazz]

If escalading spoils + fog never finish !!! it s possible to hide a big army !!!

[Chariot of Fire]

I think the escalating spoils argument is a fair one. I'd pity the player who holds two pairs (when trades are big) while the opponent mops up most of the board and can't be taken under 250 on the next turn. Having to hold an objective, e.g. all storage cells, would be a fairer proposition as it gives an opportunity to the player holding two pairs to at least hit one of them and stay in the game. There would therefore be a greater impetus on strategy (gearing up to take and hold all storage cells with sufficient troops) rather than tailoring the new win rule to the player who has probably had the luckier dice and/or cards.

[skeletonboy]

I disagree with the victory condition because on escalating, the cards get very high. I played a game when I held almost 300 teritories, but the other player had a set worth over 500 and then another the next turn. He then won the game.

[squishyg]

i just want to be clear- would this proposal make Hive an objective map?

[Orange-Idaho-Dog]

I've never played this map, but I can assume it's rather annoying because of it's size. While the 250 territory objective would be a pretty big task in itself, it would seem to me at least, to make under dog victories impossible.

If you still have 100 territories left, I'd think you could still have a chance with some decent dice going your way, which does happen, and strategic moves. Then again I've never played the map, so what do I know. I'm sure an objective of some sort should be put into place here though.


*Edit

When I posted the above, I was mainly talking about flat rate or no spoils. I completely forgot about escalating, which would give the under dog an even better chance at pulling out the win.

[mattattam]

In a game with an objective gametype like... St. Patrick's comes to mind, there are certainly times where u get two pair and could have won otherwise if you cashed. It would be rare in Hive where the escalating spoils would have to be high enough to make that difference. If you lose this way I don't think it is a problem. Makes it more a strategy to try and take 250 territories and end it when you might not win otherwise. I'm not too familiar with this map though.

My question is in escalating game would it really happen much at all where a player could get 250, hold that count for one turn, and still lose?

[saaimen]

... you own 66%* of the map, ...
*71.43%

?