Conquer Club

Preface
As more and more maps are added to the site it becomes more and more difficult for new players to determine which maps would suit them best.

Several ideas have been thrown around to combat this problem.

One such idea was to place the maps into categories. This ran into several problems.

First, people wanted to sort by theme, but then we discovered nobody could come up with a good set of easily identifiable themes. I think the closest we got was Geography, History, and Abstract? Regardless it wasn't very helpful.

Second, we wanted to sort by territory count. This didn't seem to bad except for that it looked even more chaotic then the alphabetical sort with Classic first that we use now, so in the end, not very helpful either.

Towards the end we wanted to sort by complexity. I actually believe this would be the best way, except that DiM correctly pointed out that complexity is completely arbitrary. We have absolutely no way to mathematically determine complexity accurately.

I think I've come up with a way, but we'll get to it later.

Another idea, was to add some sort of link to an information page for each map, so that players could click and learn more about it. This actually looks promising. The only problems are who writes these pages and where do the links go?

So, I want to help combat all the problems with these two ideas, categories and information links and then put together something solid to submit to lackattack.

I'm pretty sure I'll need your help.

Where We Are Now
Over the past few days I've put together a complete list of our maps with the following information:

Name
Territories: <number>
Continents: <number>
Avg Cont Value: <number>
Features: <list>

I'm going to post this list in plain text in the next post, but if you want the 46 mb word file pm me your email and I'll send it.

Thanks WidowMakers for the following:
Gameplay Feature Groupings:

Troop Movement/Attack Features
Bonus Granting Features
Territory/Continent Sorting Features
Radical Features

Adjusted Territory Bonus - Instead of your standard +1 for every 3 after 9 territories the territory bonus amounts have been adjusted to give out differently.

Autodeploy - Armies are automatically placed or taken away from specific territories on the map. If taken away the total army count on the territory cannot go below one.

Buildings - Multiple territories in one area of the map are represented by a single territory in another part of it.

Bombardments - Some territories bombard instead of attacking. After the attacker wins in a bombardment the defending territory is replaced with a neutral army and the attacker cannot advance.

Capitals - A specific form of double dipping that appears as a single or a group of single strategic territories.

Collections - Unlike continents these only require a specific amount of the designated territories to gain a bonus.

Conquest Gameplay - Players only start with a small number of territories and must conquer most of the map away from neutrals before reaching other players.

Dead Space - There are territories that don’t provide any sort of continent bonus.

Double Dipping - Territories show up in multiple continents.

Naming Confusion - The territory names are written in a complex way occasionally causing deployment mistakes.

Negative Bonus - There are negative bonuses on the map so that you lose armies instead of gaining armies for holding certain combinations of areas.

One Way Borders - Borders where attacks can only occur in a single direction.

Out of Play - Through bombardments and one way borders a portion of the map can be taken out of play for the remainder of the match.

Ranged Attack - Some territories on the map are connected without touching.

Strategic Resources - Instead of continents specific territories or combinations of territories provide bonuses.

Trapped Territory - Due to one way borders there is no way to attack out of the territory.

Victory Condition - Players can win by holding a set of specified territories instead of eliminating the other players.

* Feedback Point 1 *
Is this a complete enough list of features. Did I miss something?

Our Maps
Classic
Territories: 42
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4
Features: None

Africa
Territories: 45
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4.167
Features: None

Age of Merchants
Territories: 58
Continents: 16 (Tentative)
Avg Cont Value: 4.67 (Tentative)
Features: Capitals, Dead Space, Double Dipping, Ranged Attacks, and Strategic Resources

Age of Realms: Might
Territories: 6 Starting - 87 Neutral - 93 Total
Continents: 30 (Tentative)
Avg Cont Value: 2.067 (Tentative)
Features: Conquest Gameplay, Dead Space, Ranged Attacks, Strategic Resources, and Victory Condition

Alexander’s Empire
Territories: 42
Continents: 7
Avg Cont Value: 3.571
Features: Dead Space

Ancient Greece
Territories: 40
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4
Features: None

Arctic
Territories: 48
Continents: 8
Avg Cont Value: 4
Features: None

Asia
Territories: 42
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4.667
Features: One Way Border

Australia
Territories: 36
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 3.833
Features: None

Bamboo Jack
Territories: 86
Continents: 13
Avg Cont Value: 5.308
Features: Buildings

Battle For Australia
Territories: 66
Continents: 10
Avg Cont Value: 4.1
Features: None

Battle Of Actium
Territories: 96
Continents: 13
Avg Cont Value: 6.923
Features: Bombardments, Double Dipping, Naming Confusion, and One Way Borders

BeNeLux
Territories: 41
Continents: 8
Avg Cont Value: 3.25
Features: Capitals

Berlin 1961
Territories: 40
Continents: 6 (Tentative)
Avg Cont Value: 2.5 (Tentative)
Features: Autodeploy, Bombardments , Capitals, and Collections

Brazil
Territories: 45
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4.333
Features: None

British Isles
Territories: 42
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4.333
Features: One Way Border

Cairns Coral Coast
Territories: 60
Continents: 10
Avg Cont Value: 4.1
Features: One Way Border

Canada
Territories: 41
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4.167
Features: None

Caribbean Islands
Territories: 42
Continents: 8
Avg Cont Value: 3.375
Features: None

CCU
Territories: 43
Continents: 7
Avg Cont Value: 3.571
Features: Dead Space

Chinese Checkers
Territories: 60
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 3
Features: Dead Space and Double Dipping

Circus Maximus
Territories: 30
Continents: 0
Avg Cont Value: 0
Features: One Way Borders

Conquer Man
Territories: 151 (10 are neutral)
Continents: 17 (Tentative)
Avg Cont Value: 0.824 (Tentative)
Features: Adjusted Territory Bonus, Autodeploy, Dead Space, Naming Confusion, Negative Bonus, Ranged Attacks, and Strategic Resources

Crossword
Territories: 48
Continents: 8
Avg Cont Value: 3.375
Features: Naming Confusion

D-Day: Omaha Beach!
Territories: 72
Continents: 16
Avg Cont Value: 2.813
Features: Dead Space, Double Dipping, Naming Confusion, Negative Bonuses, One Way Borders, and Ranged Attacks

Discworld
Territories: 43
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 3.833
Features: Capitals

Doodle Earth
Territories: 18
Continents: 4
Avg Cont Value: 3
Features: None

Duck and Cover
Territories: 24
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 2.667
Features: Bombardments, and Double Dipping

Europe
Territories: 48
Continents: 7
Avg Cont Value: 4.143
Features: One Way Borders

Extreme Global Warming
Territories: 46
Continents: 7
Avg Cont Value: 4.286
Features: Dead Space

France
Territories: 44
Continents: 7
Avg Cont Value: 3.714
Features: None

Germany
Territories: 42
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4.167
Features: None

Great Lakes
Territories: 48
Continents: 9
Avg Cont Value: 3.444
Features: Collection

Hong Kong
Territories: 42
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4.167
Features: None

Indochina
Territories: 31
Continents: 5
Avg Cont Value: 4.6
Features: None

Ireland
Territories: 32
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 3.833
Features: None

Italy
Territories: 36
Continents: 5
Avg Cont Value: 3.6
Features: Capitals

King Of The Mountains
Territories: 45
Continents: 7
Avg Cont Value: 4
Features: Capitals, Collections, One Way Borders, and Ranged Attacks

Madness
Territories: 36
Continents: 10
Avg Cont Value: 3.1
Features: Dead Space, Double Dipping, One Way Borders, and Ranged Attacks

Middle Earth
Territories: 46
Continents: 7
Avg Cont Value: 4.143
Features: One Way Border

Middle East
Territories: 42
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4.833
Features: None

Mongol Empire
Territories: 40
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4.167
Features: None

Montreal
Territories: 49
Continents: 8
Avg Cont Value: 3.125
Features: Capital

North America
Territories: 60
Continents: 8
Avg Cont Value: 4.375
Features: None

Pearl Harbor
Territories: 60
Continents: 11
Avg Cont Value: 4.909
Features: Bombardments, Capitals, Collections, Naming Confusion, Double Dipping, and One Way Borders

Philippines
Territories: 48
Continents: 7
Avg Cont Value: 3.714
Features: Capitals and Ranged Attacks

Portugal
Territories: 36
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4.833
Features: None

Puget Sound
Territories: 42
Continents: 7
Avg Cont Value: 4.286
Features: None

Rail USA
Territories: 42
Continents: 13
Avg Cont Value: 4.231
Features: Double Dipping and Naming Confusion

San Francisco
Territories: 42
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4
Features: Capital, One Way Borders, and Trapped Territory

Siege!
Territories: 56
Continents: 13
Avg Cont Value: 2.692
Features: Double Dipping and One Way Borders

Solar System
Territories: 67
Continents: 12
Avg Cont Value: 3.083
Features: Collection, Dead Space, Double Dipping, and Ranged Attacks

South America
Territories: 43
Continents: 8
Avg Cont Value: 3.75
Features: None

Space
Territories: 42
Continents: 7
Avg Cont Value: 3.571
Features: Double Dipping

Tamriel
Territories: 48
Continents: 7
Avg Cont Value: 4.429
Features: Capitals

USA
Territories: 42
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4.167
Features: None

USApocalypse
Territories: 45
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 5.333
Features: Capitals

U.S. Senate
Territories: 65
Continents: 7
Avg Cont Value: 4.857
Features: None

Valley Of The Kings
Territories: 53
Continents: 10
Avg Cont Value: 2.4
Features: Capitals, One Way Borders, and Ranged Attacks

World 2.1
Territories: 112
Continents: 22
Avg Cont Value: 5.773
Features: Double Dipping and Dead Space

WWII Eastern Front
Territories: 44
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4.333
Features: Capitals

WWII Iwo Jima
Territories: 36
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 3.833
Features: None

WWII Western Front
Territories: 39
Continents: 6
Avg Cont Value: 4
Features: Bombardments , Capitals, Dead Space, One Way Borders, and Out of Play

8 Thoughts
Territories: 42
Continents: 8
Avg Cont Value: 3
Features: Capitals, Dead Space, Double Dipping, and Negative Bonus

* Feedback Point 2 *
Did I screw up in here? Disagree with me? Anything to add?

What We Can Derive

At this point I realized that there may be a way to determine complexity from this. Players tend to get more confused as territory count and continent count rise, but they are all relatively comfortable with classic.

Also, if we can agree on an accepted list of gimmicks, the number of these present in a map increase complexity.

With this information I came up with a formula to determine complexity for a map.

Complexity = ((Territories / 42) + (Continents / 6) + Gimmicks)

This actually turns out to form a really accurate scale that looks like this:

1.01-2.00
2.01-3.00
3.01-4.00
4.01-5.00
5.01-6.00
6.00+

Edit: My formula wasn't very good. I now use a new formula, check out this monster...

(MIN(((Territories/18)+(Continents/6+Average Value of Continents)),10)+MIN((SUM(Total Gimmick Value + Gimmick Frequency Rating)),10))/2

Gimmick Frequency Rating is as follows
Total Gimmicks - Rating
0 to 1 - 0
2 to 3 - 0.25
4 - 0.5
5 - 1
6 or More - 1.75

In the end this results in a scale of 1 to 10 in complexity.

With that here are all our maps sorted by complexity:


* Feedback Point 3 *
Do you think the complexity formula is good? How could it be improved? Am I even on to something with it?

* Feedback Point 4 *
Do you think that a way to see complexity or sort by it would improve the gameplay experience for players?

Our Evolving Post To Lackattack

Greetings from the map foundry!

We in the foundry have begun to realize that as we add more and more maps to your game the learning curve for new players continues to increase.

It was never our intent to contribute towards alienating new players by shoving a giant list of unfamiliar maps down their throats. We recognize that when you came up with the alphabetical listing for the maps you had a great idea in putting Classic first, as it allows new players to instantly find something familiar right away.

Unfortunately, these new players often eventually want to try new maps and right now the alphabetical list, while convenient in many instances, is not the best medium for new players to decide what their second map should be.

So the foundry has been hard at work to provide you with a list of possible solutions to this problem.

We want players to be able to find maps that suit them quickly and efficiently in a way that is comfortable to them.

With that in mind We've come up with a few effective ways of helping new users identify which maps would be good for them to try.

1) Info Links Under The Pictures

These would be well written (we aren't sure by who yet) information about each map. This information would include how to play, interesting features, individual map statistics, etc.
(Will Be Link To Information Posts For Each Map Currently Released)

2) Community Map Rating System

Next to the links we brought up in 1) There could be 5 CC stars. A perfect map has 5 red cc star. A horrible map has 5 gray cc stars.

These stars are an average rating from players who have completed the maps. Our idea is at the end of the game when you load up the links for players to leave feedback for one another you also give them the option to rate the map.

Under our system players can only rate maps they have played and they can only rate once.

3) Map Feedback System

Players have feedback, why not maps? This is an alternate idea for the Map Rating System where each map gets a profile page and can have feedback left for it by players that have played on them.

4) Map Sorting By Categories (Still working on this part)

On the game finder and start a game screen players can choose between different ways of sorting the maps. When they click one the display changes and the maps split up into categories. Inside these categories they would display alphabetically as normal.

Map Size

• 18-36 Small: 10 Maps
  
• 37-47 Normal: 31 Maps
• 48-66 Large: 16 Maps
• 67+ Huge: 7 Maps
• (Will Be Link To Exact List)
Map type (Fiction, geography, historical Abstract, ect)

Rating

Complexity/Difficulty
• 0.00-1.99 Simple/Easy: 10 Maps
• 2.00-3.49 Normal/Medium: 32 Maps
• 3.50-5.49 Complex/Hard: 13 Maps
• 5.50+ Insane: 10 Maps
• (Will Be Link To Exact List)

Crossword has 48 (Use BOB!)

I think that maps could quite easily be grouped by number of territories - then alphabetical...

So For instance...

18-30 - Small Maps
30 - 50 Normal Maps
50 - 80 Large Maps
80+ Huge Maps

You work out which maps are in what then sort them!!

C.

yeti_c covered crossword, but here's a few others I found:
D-Day has one way borders;
Solar System has dead space;
and I don't think there's a one-way border in Australia. I could be wrong, I don't play it much, but I don't see any.

I agree with yeti_c

As far as breaking things down for people to navigate the type of game easily, the number of territories is a pretty good first step.


On another note, South America has 44 territories.

PS - no way World 2.0 or Conquer Man is more complex than Pearl Harbour...

C.

yeti_c wrote:Crossword has 48 (Use BOB!)

I think that maps could quite easily be grouped by number of territories - then alphabetical...

So For instance...

18-30 - Small Maps
30 - 50 Normal Maps
50 - 80 Large Maps
80+ Huge Maps

You work out which maps are in what then sort them!!

C.

Okay, but then it looks like this, out of order, since the point I'm making is that this isn't a very even distribution.

18-30:
Doodle Earth, Duck and Cover, Circus Maximus
30-50:
Circus Maximus, Indochina, Ireland, Portugal, WWII Iwo Jima, Italy, Australia, Madness, WWII Western Front, Ancient Greece, Mongol Empire, Berlin 1961, Canada, BeNeLux, Classic, Germany, Hong Kong, Middle East, USA, Puget Sound, Caribbean Islands, Asia, British Isles, Alexander’s Empire, Space, Rail USA, San Francisco, 8 Thoughts, South America, Discworld, CCU, France, WWII Eastern Front, Africa, Brazil, USApocalypse, King Of The Mountains, Extreme Global Warming, Middle Earth, Arctic, Crossword, Europe, Philippines, Tamriel, Great Lakes, Montreal
50-80:
Valley Of The Kings, Siege!, Age of Merchants, North America, Cairns Coral Coast, Chinese Checkers, Pearl Harbor, U.S. Senate, Battle For Australia, Solar System, D-Day: Omaha Beach!
80+:
Bamboo Jack, Age of Realms: Might, Battle Of Actium, World 2.1, Conquer Man

yeti_c wrote:PS - no way World 2.0 or Conquer Man is more complex than Pearl Harbour...

C.

I think you're right. It might be better to just remove territory count from complexity or weaken it's impact on it.

Coleman wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Crossword has 48 (Use BOB!)

I think that maps could quite easily be grouped by number of territories - then alphabetical...

So For instance...

18-30 - Small Maps
30 - 50 Normal Maps
50 - 80 Large Maps
80+ Huge Maps

You work out which maps are in what then sort them!!

C.

Okay, but then it looks like this, out of order, since the point I'm making is that this isn't a very even distribution.

18-30:
Doodle Earth, Duck and Cover, Circus Maximus
30-50:
Circus Maximus, Indochina, Ireland, Portugal, WWII Iwo Jima, Italy, Australia, Madness, WWII Western Front, Ancient Greece, Mongol Empire, Berlin 1961, Canada, BeNeLux, Classic, Germany, Hong Kong, Middle East, USA, Puget Sound, Caribbean Islands, Asia, British Isles, Alexander’s Empire, Space, Rail USA, San Francisco, 8 Thoughts, South America, Discworld, CCU, France, WWII Eastern Front, Africa, Brazil, USApocalypse, King Of The Mountains, Extreme Global Warming, Middle Earth, Arctic, Crossword, Europe, Philippines, Tamriel, Great Lakes, Montreal
50-80:
Valley Of The Kings, Siege!, Age of Merchants, North America, Cairns Coral Coast, Chinese Checkers, Pearl Harbor, U.S. Senate, Battle For Australia, Solar System, D-Day: Omaha Beach!
80+:
Bamboo Jack, Age of Realms: Might, Battle Of Actium, World 2.1, Conquer Man

Mine was an example - could tweak it to be a more even spread...

And/Or introduce more groups around the middle size.

C.

KOTM has one-way borders.

Helipads can attack Kings but Kings cant attack back.

And Conquer Man has dead space as well.

yeti_c wrote:And/Or introduce more groups around the middle size.

C.

How about this:

18-32 Tiny : 5 Maps
36-40 Small : 9 Maps
41-42 Normal : 16 Maps
43-49 Large : 18 Maps
53-72 Huge : 11 Maps
86+ Gigantic : 5 Maps

WidowMakers wrote:KOTM has one-way borders.

Helipads can attack Kings but Kings cant attack back.

And Conquer Man has dead space as well.

Okay after I correct these all the corrections this post up have been made except adding negative bonus and teleports to gimmicks. (which if I do Conquer Man has both of these as well)

edit: Corrections Done.

So Conquer Man is the most complex, by virtue of it's size?

And I don't really think it teleports, just wraps around like Alaska-Kamchatka.
Here's what I came up with for those two, just doing a cursory check.
Negative Bonuses:
Conquer Man
D-Day
USApocalypse
8 Thoughts

Teleport:
Age of Merchants
Age of Might
D-Day
King of The Mountain
Madness
Solar System
Space (maybe not, there are lines connecting them after all)
Valley of the Kings
WWII Iwo Jima (same as space)

Coleman wrote:

yeti_c wrote:And/Or introduce more groups around the middle size.

C.

How about this:

18-32 Tiny : 5 Maps
36-40 Small : 9 Maps
41-42 Normal : 16 Maps
43-49 Large : 18 Maps
53-72 Huge : 11 Maps
86+ Gigantic : 5 Maps

Sounds good...

But I think we should aim for 4 groups...

So

18-40 = Small = 14
41-42 = Normal = 16
43-49 = Large = 18
49+ = Huge = 16

C.

Instead of Size, has there been any thought as to organize the maps by theme? (AND YES. My category names need work)

Geography
Doodle Earth, Indochina, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Australia, Ancient Greece, Mongol Empire, Canada, BeNeLux, Classic, Germany, Hong Kong, Middle East, USA, Puget Sound, Caribbean Islands, Asia, British Isles, Alexander’s Empire, Rail USA, San Francisco, South America, France, Africa, Brazil, Arctic, Europe, Philippines, Great Lakes, Montreal, North America, Cairns Coral Coast,
Fictional Geography
Discworld, USApocalypse, Extreme Global Warming, Middle Earth, Tamriel, Age of Merchants, Age of Realms: Might,
Historical
Duck and Cover, WWII Iwo Jima, WWII Western Front, Berlin 1961, WWII Eastern Front, Pearl Harbor, Battle For Australia, D-Day: Omaha Beach! , Bamboo Jack, Battle Of Actium
Non-Fiction/Non-Geography
Circus Maximus , Space, Valley Of The Kings, Siege!, Solar System, U.S. Senate,
Abstract/Other
Madness, 8 Thoughts, CCU, King Of The Mountains, Crossword, Chinese Checkers, Conquer Man

Don't complain if I put a map in a bad spot or if my names are poor. Just another idea.

WM

BaldAdonis wrote:So Conquer Man is the most complex, by virtue of it's size?

And I don't really think it teleports, just wraps around like Alaska-Kamchatka.

Actually wrong. All the aliens can attack each other and all the diamonds can attack each other. Which I'm pretty sure is teleporting. It's a deceptively complex map, the simple retro arcade graphics make it a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Thanks for finding the others for me though. I'll see about updating it.

yeti_c wrote:

Coleman wrote:

yeti_c wrote:And/Or introduce more groups around the middle size.

C.

How about this:

18-32 Tiny : 5 Maps
36-40 Small : 9 Maps
41-42 Normal : 16 Maps
43-49 Large : 18 Maps
53-72 Huge : 11 Maps
86+ Gigantic : 5 Maps

Sounds good...

But I think we should aim for 4 groups...

So

18-40 = Small = 14
41-42 = Normal = 16
43-49 = Large = 18
49+ = Huge = 16

C.

I like that a lot. I'm copying this into the post I'm going to present for us to tweak up to submit to lack when all our crazy comments and debate are done.

I'm thinking what is really going to help is giving players sorting options instead of forcing something like that on them. So they can sort how it is now, or they can click sort by size and then your four categories pop up, or category, or complexity, ect.

Coleman wrote:Towards the end we wanted to sort by complexity. I actually believe this would be the best way, except that DiM correctly pointed out that complexity is completely arbitrary. We have absolutely no way to mathematically determine complexity accurately.
I think I've come up with a way, but we'll get to it later.

The formula approach may need to take account the structure of the map - ie, maps where you can hold large sections with a few territories, etc. This would be quite time consuming... But, most of this work gets done when the bonuses are calculated... so maybe you could incorporate some sort of 'typical' bonus for each map, and use this to determine the impact that the territory count has on ease? (ie high bonus + low terrs = easier; low bonus + high terrs = harder)

My other idea is completely different, and involves adding a 'Rate this map' option, and aggregating feedback... but I'm not sure how feasable this is!

yeti_c wrote:PS - no way World 2.0 or Conquer Man is more complex than Pearl Harbour...

C.

I want to bring this back up.

What I'm going for with complexity is not really a least complex to most complex kind of thing, but more of a way to come up with a bunch of categories like you came up with for size so that players can choose to sort by it and get something like:

Simple
Normal
Tough
Insane

yeti_c wrote:

Coleman wrote:

yeti_c wrote:And/Or introduce more groups around the middle size.

C.

How about this:

18-32 Tiny : 5 Maps
36-40 Small : 9 Maps
41-42 Normal : 16 Maps
43-49 Large : 18 Maps
53-72 Huge : 11 Maps
86+ Gigantic : 5 Maps

Sounds good...

But I think we should aim for 4 groups...

So

18-40 = Small = 14
41-42 = Normal = 16
43-49 = Large = 18
49+ = Huge = 16

C.

If we decide to sort by size, I agree we need less categories but I don't think the range should be setup to make the numbers equal. normal maps only have 2 different number (41, 42)? That sort of means most new maps will not be normal sized.

Here is my suggestion:
18-35 = Small (18 territory count range)
36-52 = Normal (17 territory count range)
53-70 = Large (18 territory count range)
71+ = Huge

The number of maps might not divide equally among these different categories but the space between them is better distributed.

WM

I also did this a while back. Actual highlighted buttons instead on teh check boxes we have now. Much easier to see. IMHO



WM

And here is another with less categories than I mentioned above.