[GO] Manual Territory Selection: Choose or Draft Territories

[waltero]

Here it is again...Such a great suggestion I think It needs to be re posted

[greenoaks]

you can't do this in one 24 hour period. what i select will be impacted by what you select. what you select will be impacted by what i select.

with consecutive turns picking territories, weeks may go by before everyone has completed their picks.

[waltero]

I can not figure out why you continue to think that greenoaks?

When you join in the game...you can have players chose there first terit at that time. Then once game begins everybody would chose the remaining terits. Onces the 24 hours has past the computer would do the rest (allocate the terits according to the player choice (pick) in turn order.

It is workable. TIs far better than Random! looks to be a basic program as well.

[DoomYoshi]

I can not figure out why you continue to think that greenoaks?

When you join in the game...you can have players chose there first terit at that time. Then once game begins everybody would chose the remaining terits. Onces the 24 hours has past the computer would do the rest (allocate the terits according to the player choice (pick) in turn order.

It is workable. TIs far better than Random! looks to be a basic program as well.

That system does not work.

IIRC, the SOC (Society of Cooks) spent a lenghty thread discussing territories on Classic. Long story short, Chicago is the best territory. If people choose their first territory when they join a game then the game creator will always get Chicago.

[greenoaks]

I can not figure out why you continue to think that greenoaks?

When you join in the game...you can have players chose there first terit at that time. Then once game begins everybody would chose the remaining terits. Onces the 24 hours has past the computer would do the rest (allocate the terits according to the player choice (pick) in turn order.

It is workable. TIs far better than Random! looks to be a basic program as well.

but i won't know what terits i want until i see what other players have already chosen, they won't know what they want until they have seen what i have chosen.

that is how you play it at home, 1 selection at a time.

[waltero]

@doomYoshi, Not true! Games (of Risk) are played with this start up all the time.

@ Greenoaks, Some people do not like to play with random draw. Even fewer players like to use random draw on many of the maps that CC provides.
Many maps are not playable using random placement when there are less than four players.

Have you ever played Risk with the option to chose your terits?
Risk is played with this option all the time...CC does not provide an option for this.

Not sure what you are wanting? Players of CC wish to have a Manual placement of Terits. The Suggestion I have proposed is real close...not much different than what players get while sitting at a table (better if you ask me) Playing Risk. You see where the first player places then on to the second and then you decide (if you are the third player) where it is you want to place.

SO if you see that joe Shmuckatelly has placed his first Army (terit) in South America...what you going to do? You can oppose him and place in the same country as he or you can place in a Country that no other has place and try to control that region.

If you are worried about where players place there Armies (entire forces) just have 3 per terit.


It is always the first Army that is placed that decides what and where a player will place his other units. When A player Places his first unit in South America you know where he will place next. Now of course every now and again you get an oddball (such as myself) that places all willy nilly. Is that really going to effect your subsequent placement?

[DoomYoshi]

@doomYoshi, Not true! Games (of Risk) are played with this start up all the time.

@ Greenoaks, Some people do not like to play with random draw. Even fewer players like to use random draw on many of the maps that CC provides.
Many maps are not playable using random placement when there are less than four players.

Have you ever played Risk with the option to chose your terits?
Risk is played with this option all the time...CC does not provide an option for this.

Yes, I have played that way. That's why I know it's a terrible setting, even if it didn't take tons of time.

[waltero]

Yes I have tried it this way (my Suggestion). Four players; four decks of cards (risk cards).
It was a fun game. Everybody picked there first terit in turn order (Open for every player to see). Then we gave everybody a risk deck (full deck minus there first terit choice) and then put all four decks on table and pulled first card form the first players deck...followed by second player and third then fourth.

It works!

Even if it is as you say, Terrible setting. Many players would disagree with you. I do not know how many games of Risk I have played. I would guess I have played over 60% with the drop army (pick Territory) method.

Taking a normal game of Risk (Original board) It might not be so fun. I would like to state that more than a few of the boards that CC has come out with...Random is not playable and really sucks.

It just might be that we come up with a system that works.

So we just sit and do nothing. Play with the only option available (no Option at all).

[greenoaks]

It just might be that we come up with a system that works.

So we just sit and do nothing. Play with the only option available (no Option at all).

yes, lets do that.

[waltero]

Yes, Keep it simple. No need for any of this Malarkey!
In game Suggestions are null and void.
Coding will take too long and too many man hours involved (to implement anything worthwhile)
CC has many people wanting to play the game as it is.

For those of us who are getting bored with this game, best to move on.
CC is going nowhere. This game is all Dice and will continue to be so...therefore it is a silly (fun) Game and never going to be a real War game.
No imagination or creativity for 'real' game change.

Risk is good for what it is. But I do not think that CC is looking for (game) change.

[agentcom]

The OP pretty much covers the debate here. Someone suggests manual selection. People say it takes to long. Two "fixes are offered": speed games only and preference lists. I'll refer you to the OP for a concise explanation of why those don't work.

I've been in favor of this suggestion as a premium-only option for as long as I can remember. The only reason I say premium only is that I would hate for a freemium to accidentally stumble into one of these. I don't like the argument that it makes games take too long as long as players are voluntarily choosing to play this way. But alas, I don't think this one is going to be implemented any time soon. Doesn't mean we can't keep trying though!

[waltero]

5 players Manual set up could take 5 days just to get started.

How much time is considered too long?

What if you use my method and do it in increments?

Essentially you would be able to view everybody's first few picks then it could swap first turn (turn to chose terits) player and cycle trough each individual player to have first pick.

Time is no longer an issue.

[Fazeem]

I still think this should be a premium only feature that could only be used for speed games. That resolves the biggest issues with it and also provides yet another incentive to go Gold.

[georgizhukov]

New deployment type- Choose territories

This admittedly has probably been discussed before, but I cannot find it after a quick search so I will throw it out there. The game of risk was played by picking territories one person at the time in a sequential fashion, and I would love to see that option available on CC. Some maps obviously would not work with this setting (any map with defined starting positions). This setting would probably work best in a speeder due to time concerns in a casual game, but their might be application to both...but this would introduce entirely new strategy to the site.

This would benefit the site by: introducing a new deployment option/ new strategy/ etc

Let me know what you think or if this has already been axed..

The General

[spiesr]

MERGED:

• New deployment type- Choose territories
• Choosing Placement

[chapcrap]

I haven't really seen any negatives to this other than it taking a long time to choose territories. Any objections right now?

[DoomYoshi]

I haven't really seen any negatives to this other than it taking a long time to choose territories. Any objections right now?

It still needs to be decided specifically how this interacts with fog. I think it would just be best to not allow the option with fog.

[chapcrap]

I haven't really seen any negatives to this other than it taking a long time to choose territories. Any objections right now?

It still needs to be decided specifically how this interacts with fog. I think it would just be best to not allow the option with fog.

Yeah, that's probably the best. Or allow it anyway. In 1v1 games, the neutrals would get to pick some places as well, so you wouldn't necessarily know where the person was dropping. And, if you had enough time to check all that in an eight player game, then good on you.

[agentcom]

I haven't really seen any negatives to this other than it taking a long time to choose territories. Any objections right now?

That's really been the main impediment. And it's a poor argument. Not allowing a game play option because not enough people would play it is fine. But not allowing an option because we don't think people can choose for themselves how to spend their time is not.

The only situation where that really comes into play is with new users who wouldn't know what they're doing when joining games and might get stuck in one and leave the site in boredom. This argument could be extended to all freemiums just because we don't want to risk that someone will accidentally choose this and eat up a quarter or more of their game slots.

Both problems have easy solutions that are already in place for other options: restrict the gameplay to no NRs or premium only.

[JamesKer1]

MERGED several

[Lord Arioch]

If time is the only negative .. go for it ...ive got it to spare:) and it would bring another strategic dimension to the game:)!

[lykoz]

This could be an option for speed games with a 10 second timer....If you miss your select.... You get random assigned...

Im sorry but this would take too long to complete in 24 hr games... I cant wait 10-20 round just to to start a game... I mean it will take a several days, if not over a week for the game to start...


Another way of doing it, is for each player to create a list from 1-30 clicking on the territories he wants in the order he wants... The guy that clicked first on territory gets prefference... i.e. 1st pick beats someone elses 2nd pick... Any conflicts can be assigned randomly... I would imagine however this system to work efficiently would require some pretty serious coding...

[JamesKer1]

This could be an option for speed games with a 10 second timer....If you miss your select.... You get random assigned...

Im sorry but this would take too long to complete in 24 hr games... I cant wait 10-20 round just to to start a game... I mean it will take a several days, if not over a week for the game to start...


Another way of doing it, is for each player to create a list from 1-30 clicking on the territories he wants in the order he wants... The guy that clicked first on territory gets prefference... i.e. 1st pick beats someone elses 2nd pick... Any conflicts can be assigned randomly... I would imagine however this system to work efficiently would require some pretty serious coding...

That's been part of the issue with this suggestion, and why it hasn't been submitted.

Please note that having each player submit a preference list won't work either. Territory selection in the second and later rounds is often conditional on what was selected in previous rounds.

One option that would decrease these concerns would be to allow this option only for speed games. The main concern here (and when this idea is brought up in response to many of the suggestions here) is that many users say they would not like/play this option as it would prolong "speed" games. Another response is that speed game-only features benefit a relatively small number of the users on this site.

[lykoz]

Thanks for the reply. Decent reasoning.

[lencollard]

"Please note that having each player submit a preference list won't work either. Territory selection in the second and later rounds is often conditional on what was selected in previous rounds."

This response is absolutely incorrect. The conditional factor is so simple that any beginning programmer can handle it. The preference lists have to be complete for all the territories. When it is time for the computer to assign a new territory for a player, the computer starts at the top of the player's list and compares the player's top choice against a list of all still available territories - if the choice is available, then it is assigned. If the choice is not available the computer steps down the list and performs the same comparison. This process continues until a chosen territory is on the available list and it is assigned.

For example, if there are two players and four territories and each has there list as 1,2,3,4. The first player would get 1, the second player would get 2, the first player would get 3, and the second player would get 4. A fairer approach would be to do a serpentine selection. The first player would get 1, the second player would get 2, the second player would get 3, and the first player would get 4.

None of this is complicated, so I am astounded that anybody would declare it to be impossible. If the computer programmer's are informing you that it is impossible, then you need to change programmers.