[Abandoned] - Maze Craze

[WidowMakers]

I think there will be neutrals on it to begin with, right?

Yes the start and finish start neutral. I just forgot to say that.

[edbeard]

the only thing I have a problem with at the moment is the four territory sections with more than 2 borders to non-grey territories

I can spot three places like that at the moment.

The colours are blue, green and red.

I think that can be easily fixed by switching the spots where they have borders this will make them 5 territory sections with three borders which is probably better.

Blue move that border to the right. Green move it up one spot. Red move it to the right.


Maybe I'm crazy but I think this helps. There are other places with six or seven territories and only two borders. Do we switch these around in a similar manner that I proposed above to even those up a bit? Or is having a few places like that good for the game?

Take a look at the pink and purple areas to see what I mean. Oh. Also one in the blue. Well for the blue I'd move the border from A5 to B6. It keeps the type of sections the same but moves them about.

[WidowMakers]

Thanks ed.

Those are good suggestions and I will move the borders on the 4's as you have indicated. I tried to manage and set the borders as I built the maze but apparently I missed several.

I will move the:
-Top Right PURPLE border to the right (swapping the 4 and 5)
-Top Left BLUE borders (swapping the current 4 and 5 border and then swapping the new 5 and 6.)
-Top Middle GREEN border (move middle horizontal border up 1 (swaps turns 5 into 4 and 4 into 5)
-Right Middle RED border (the group of 4 that touches PURPLE and GREEN, move that border to the right and turn that group into a 5 and the group of 5 to the right of the map is now a 4)

As far as the other places. I don't think it is possible to make everyone "even". I want to have areas where it is easier to hold. But many of the larger sub-bonus group have many neutral borders. So even if a player holds the sub-group, there are many other ways that other players can attack into it.

Thanks again for the input ed. I will make the changes.

WM

P.S. I think I am also going to lower the subgroup bonuses. I was thinking about it and I feel they are just too big.

How is +2 for 4, +3 for 5, +4 for 6 and +5 for 7? I will redo the color bonuses as well. I am going to try and figure out a good way to "calculate" the color bonuses based on # of subgroups and those bonuses, location on the map and borders with other colors.

[WidowMakers]

OK here is version 11 with Ed's suggestions. I also made a chart for calculating the bonuses and updated them on the map as well. Do these look OK?

Plus since the number of territories is HUGE on this map i made the bonuses 1 army per 6 territories instead of the standard 3.
Or we could just cap the bonus per territories at 30. Well??

Bonuses

The map below (v11) shows the starting numbers of all neutrals and 88's everywhere else.

[gimil]

Im really conserned with the colors with 88 numbers on them. There making my eye not want to adjust. There jsut trying around at all the bright bold colors.

Can I see with 3 coordinates instead of the 88's please?

[WidowMakers]

Im really conserned with the colors with 88 numbers on them. There making my eye not want to adjust. There jsut trying around at all the bright bold colors.

Can I see with 3 coordinates instead of the 88's please?

Well there are bound to be issues. There are 14 colors and 9 possible army colors and there are 454 territories on a 600x600 image. LOTS OF stuff.
I can try to soften the colors but I can't do it too much or they start to blend together.

Here are the 888's



WM

[yeti_c]

Talk about bang on image numbers!!

C.

[gimil]

WM I ment "3" not "888"

[oaktown]

The one thing I would still like to see changed is that "J" that looks like the "I" in the column indicators. And what's the latest thinking on the neutral values? I see the mock-up map has them at two, but I thought everybody agreed that while this would be a fine start you want them to re-set considerably higher.

Otherwise I'm ready to stamp this for gameplay, so you all can keep fussing over color choice until gimil gives this map his stamp.

[WidowMakers]

The one thing I would still like to see changed is that "J" that looks like the "I" in the column indicators. And what's the latest thinking on the neutral values? I see the mock-up map has them at two, but I thought everybody agreed that while this would be a fine start you want them to re-set considerably higher.

Otherwise I'm ready to stamp this for gameplay, so you all can keep fussing over color choice until gimil gives this map his stamp.

1) I will adjust the J to look more J-like
2) There was discussion and I decided that starting at 2 would allow the map to flow more loosely at the beginning and then become a more rigid experience th e longer the game goes.. Thus reseting to 8.

Also I will post the map with 3's instead of 888's gimil.

Questions?
-How do the new bonuses look.
-Colors? Are the colors OK?
-Can I put the Gp, in the title?

WM

[oaktown]

I'm cool with the colors... I appreciate that you can tell what is what based on the location of the colors in the legend.

Has it been determined that, in fact, you can start with one neutral and then they reset to a different value?

And since I've posted on fifteen map threads in the last three hours without giving out any stamps, I'm feeling generous.



edit: came up with a new stamp for maps in this situation... thought I'd use it.

[yeti_c]

Has it been determined that, in fact, you can start with one neutral and then they reset to a different value?

No - it's not possible until the XML is updated...

C.

[WidowMakers]

1) I will adjust the J to look more J-like
2) Also I will post the map with 3's instead of 888's gimil.

WM

OK so here it is. Anything lese anybody needs?



WM

[cicero]

Great work WM. I envy you your dexterity with graphics.

A couple of thoughts:

I assume the image posted is the 'small' map. I saw the previous version with 888s.
It's going to be pretty tight for those of us using colour codes as soon as armies go over 9 and impractical over 99.
Just thinking aloud, not necessarily asking that you do something about it. I will use the 'large' map to overcome this if necessary.

A new bonus type to consider : If any player makes a complete route from Start to Finish this could attract an extra bonus.
Again not a make or break, but given that we're awaiting the XML update before this map can go live anyway thought I'd suggest it. Such a bonus would be nicely in keeping with the theme of the map. (And would ensure yeti_c earned his keep as XML coder )

[WidowMakers]

Great work WM. I envy you your dexterity with graphics.

A couple of thoughts:

I assume the image posted is the 'small' map. I saw the previous version with 888s.
It's going to be pretty tight for those of us using colour codes as soon as armies go over 9 and impractical over 99.
Just thinking aloud, not necessarily asking that you do something about it. I will use the 'large' map to overcome this if necessary.

A new bonus type to consider : If any player makes a complete route from Start to Finish this could attract an extra bonus.
Again not a make or break, but given that we're awaiting the XML update before this map can go live anyway thought I'd suggest it. Such a bonus would be nicely in keeping with the theme of the map. (And would ensure yeti_c earned his keep as XML coder )

Thanks for the compliments on the map.

1) As far as the 888's. When the map uses color codes, yes it will be harder to read, especially if anyoen has three digits plus teh color code. But that is the price we pay to get a map with 454 territories.

2) I had already thought about this idea once the Start/Finish suggestion was implemented but here are several reasons why I have not
a) Not enough room in the legend to explain
b) There are many different combinations of routes to and from the Start/Finish. Some are short and some long. Making sure we have all of them and then coding it would be crazy. Coding each combo would be yeti's job but I think he will have plenty to do anyway.

I do like the idea but unfortunately no more room.
Plus with the size of this map. If anyone did have a connection path from Start/Finish, they would probably already be winning the game since the shortest path (i think) has 41 territories and crosses 7 of the 12 colors groups.

WM

[yeti_c]

b) There are many different combinations of routes to and from the Start/Finish. Some are short and some long. Making sure we have all of them and then coding it would be crazy. Coding each combo would be yeti's job but I think he will have plenty to do anyway.

If you want it - it can be done.

C.

[cicero]

Could "Borders reset to 8 neutral armies if conquered" be better worded?

Perhaps "Walls revert to 8 neutral armies if conquered".

Or perhaps, given the proximity of the key graphic; "revert to 8 neutral armies if conquered".
The key graphic definitely needs a distinct army circle. At the moment it just looks like a grey square.
With this done and the graphic moved nicely close to the "revert to 8 neutral armies if conquered" text I think this shorter variation would be best.

[DiM]

Here are the 888's

haven't followed this map too close.foundry time is extremely limited but i have to give my 2 cents.

graphics
1. in the legend you say terits can attack in any direction but actually they can attack only NSEW not diagonal. i suggest removing the "any direction" part.
2. triple digits are almost impossible to read, at least for me. especially on the parts where they meet the white dotted lines (which also become hard to see). i would suggest a combination of extending the map to 630 horizontal (even if this means having rectangles instead of squares) as well as reducing the number of terits (i think 3 columns worth would be enough). with triple 8s is ok since you expect all to be 8 but in a real game situation where you may encounter all kinds of numbers and where the adjacent terits will have the same army colour will be really tough to spot. imagine L4<>S4 having green armies and all of them being weird triple digits like 437, 984 and so on.

gameplay
1. has anybody calculated an average bonus for somebody that starts an 1v1 game?
there are 262 starting terits. this means 87 per player so 14 terits from the #of terits bonus. then the chances of getting some subgroups are pretty decent so my bet is that the guy that starts in a 1v1 might get in excess of 30 troops to deploy. with 30 troops and going first you can make sure the other guy has no bonus when he starts and you can also take at least 10-12 terits of his. thus leaving him with an initial deploy of 12. from 12 to 30 we already have a big difference and if by chance the game has unlimited fortifications then god have mercy on the player that goes second cause by round 2 player 1 will have some big ass armies waiting to wreak havoc.
2. the respawning neutral borders are a great idea but i'm afraid they don't do anything here. not in the current state. why? because they don't act as borders. in fact the map is wide open and a map with no borders means chaos and emphasise lucky rolls rather than strategy. the bonuses are so big that regardless if it is a 2 or an 8 that border will mean nothing and you'll go through it like hot knife through butter. so nobody can rely on them for protection. this means either you split your troops evenly to protect every terit you have or you forget about bonuses and protection and simply make a huge pile and start chasing opponents all over the map. option 1 leads to stalemates where lucky dice bring the win, option 2 leads to chaotic chases with no strategy and just luck.

[cicero]

Further to DiM's post I'd suggest that the text above the NESW graphic be reduced to "all territories attack:".

Regarding dotted lines between subgroups I think those where the end of a subgroup is also the end of a colour are unnecessary ... Would you agree? Removing these would help with clarity generally.

Also, and apologies if I've missed the critical part of the thread, I notice that the respawn level has pretty much settled at 8.

I still feel that 4 or 5 would be plenty. I appreciate that is not a convincing argument itself, but I'm curious to know what the convincing argument is behind 8

[yeti_c]

With regards to bonuses per territory...

Classic has 43 territories (I think)... so 43/3 = 14.3

So with 262 territories... to reach a similar level you would have... 1 army per 18 territories...

262/14.3 = 18.2

So with 87 territories to start - you would get 4 to start with... (Which is the same amount of armies you get to start with on Classic. (42/3/3 = 4.66666666 = 4))

C.

[DiM]

one more thing.

maze craze + clickable maps + speed games = free points

if you use the classic way of attacking moving and forting my bet is you will be a LOT slower than a guy with clickable maps because of the large number of terits and the lack of easy to see names (it's one thing to see siam or venezuela in front of your eyes and another to have to move your fingers vertically and horizontally until they meet to spot a location)

[yeti_c]

one more thing.

maze craze + clickable maps + speed games = free points

if you use the classic way of attacking moving and forting my bet is you will be a LOT slower than a guy with clickable maps because of the large number of terits and the lack of easy to see names (it's one thing to see siam or venezuela in front of your eyes and another to have to move your fingers vertically and horizontally until they meet to spot a location)

This isn't a concern if you ask me.

C.

[DiM]

one more thing.

maze craze + clickable maps + speed games = free points

if you use the classic way of attacking moving and forting my bet is you will be a LOT slower than a guy with clickable maps because of the large number of terits and the lack of easy to see names (it's one thing to see siam or venezuela in front of your eyes and another to have to move your fingers vertically and horizontally until they meet to spot a location)

This isn't a concern if you ask me.

C.

of course it's not. i wasn't pointing that it is a concern i was just making a warning for those interested in this map to be careful who they play against when it gets quenched.

[WidowMakers]

Thanks for the comments everyone I will respond to them all as best as I can.

Could "Borders reset to 8 neutral armies if conquered" be better worded?

Perhaps "Walls revert to 8 neutral armies if conquered".

Or perhaps, given the proximity of the key graphic; "revert to 8 neutral armies if conquered".
The key graphic definitely needs a distinct army circle. At the moment it just looks like a grey square.
With this done and the graphic moved nicely close to the "revert to 8 neutral armies if conquered" text I think this shorter variation would be best.

A) Neutral Revert Wording – I like the new wording. Ic can eliminate a row of text and give more room for other information.
B) The key graphic definitely needs a distinct army circle? - I am not sure what this means. Do you want me to add a white army circle to the gray wall graphic so it looks like what is on the map? If so then, yes that makes sense and I can do that. If not then, please explain J

=========================================================================================================

haven't followed this map too close.foundry time is extremely limited but i have to give my 2 cents.

graphics
1. in the legend you say terits can attack in any direction but actually they can attack only NSEW not diagonal. i suggest removing the "any direction" part.
2. triple digits are almost impossible to read, at least for me. especially on the parts where they meet the white dotted lines (which also become hard to see). i would suggest a combination of extending the map to 630 horizontal (even if this means having rectangles instead of squares) as well as reducing the number of terits (i think 3 columns worth would be enough). with triple 8s is ok since you expect all to be 8 but in a real game situation where you may encounter all kinds of numbers and where the adjacent terits will have the same army colour will be really tough to spot. imagine L4<>S4 having green armies and all of them being weird triple digits like 437, 984 and so on.

gameplay
1. has anybody calculated an average bonus for somebody that starts an 1v1 game?
there are 262 starting terits. this means 87 per player so 14 terits from the #of terits bonus. then the chances of getting some subgroups are pretty decent so my bet is that the guy that starts in a 1v1 might get in excess of 30 troops to deploy. with 30 troops and going first you can make sure the other guy has no bonus when he starts and you can also take at least 10-12 terits of his. thus leaving him with an initial deploy of 12. from 12 to 30 we already have a big difference and if by chance the game has unlimited fortifications then god have mercy on the player that goes second cause by round 2 player 1 will have some big ass armies waiting to wreak havoc.
2. the respawning neutral borders are a great idea but i'm afraid they don't do anything here. not in the current state. why? because they don't act as borders. in fact the map is wide open and a map with no borders means chaos and emphasise lucky rolls rather than strategy. the bonuses are so big that regardless if it is a 2 or an 8 that border will mean nothing and you'll go through it like hot knife through butter. so nobody can rely on them for protection. this means either you split your troops evenly to protect every territory you have or you forget about bonuses and protection and simply make a huge pile and start chasing opponents all over the map. option 1 leads to stalemates where lucky dice bring the win, option 2 leads to chaotic chases with no strategy and just luck.

A) Graphics

1) Good point. Sometimes when you make a map it makes sense to you but once it is explained and read by someone else the possible "misreadings" come out. I will take out the words "any direction"

2) I understand where you are coming from see your point. But the triple digits are there to make sure the color assisted text is still visible on any map. With the 888's touching but not overlapping, any 2 digit number with color code will still be readable.

If I widen the map to 630 I would gain 34 pixels in width. I have 23 columns. SO each column would be able to widen by 1 pixel and then the army numbers would not center. But as you suggested I could remove some of the columns but…

I wanted to make a map that had as many territories as possible within the current rules. With the triple digit requirement, this is about the biggest it can be. In regards to your statement on what happens when two adjacent territories have 437 and 984 of the same color I say this. If there is ever a game where adjacent territories have the same color and there are more that 99 armies in each, the game is obviously a build-up game (why would a player have neighbouring territories with over 100 armies each on this map during a regular game?) and these conditions cannot be accounted for in the map creation process. Just look at some of the early games that are still going. It is impossible to read some of the numbers. Should the maps be redone to fix the issue? No.

So I guess what I am saying is that the 888's do not overlap, there is not enough room to widen the columns (making the map 630 wide) without messing up the army numbers and I am not removing any columns because I am trying to make a HUGE map for those who like HUGE maps.

B) Gameplay

1) I agree with you assessment. I really just added the "1 army per 6 territories" so people would see it and respond. I have found that it is easier to purposely make a rule or alteration to a map so people will comment on it and a solution can be developed than to ask the question "what else needs attention" and not having anyone think of the issue.

I will respond to this in detail while answering yeti's post below.

2) That is the point! Maze Craze!!! At the beginning the map is free for all. People attacking everywhere to get bonuses and build strongholds. But as the game progresses, the map takes shape. Players will need to decide if it is better to attack along the colored route or blast through walls of 8 neutrals to break a bonus (and thus losing many armies attacking and during respawn)

The bonuses are big but think about it. If there were no subgroup bonuses, no one would ever get a bonus. And since there are subgroup bonuses and the lowest is 1 and the highest is 4, they are not two strong. Once a player holds all of one color, that bonus should be larger than the total of the subgroup bonuses and be based off of neutral border numbers, other color borders and location on the map.

Once we address the standard bonuses per territories owned below, I think the issues you have might be gone.

Think about it. Even if you get a bonus of 40 (a couple colored groups and standard bonus), how many 8 neutral walls will you really be able to get through? People might be able to break your overall color bonus but probably not all of the sub bionuses as well.

Plus DiM. This is a new style of gameplay. There has never been a 454 territory neutral respawning pseudo open/maze map ever.

=========================================================================================================

Regarding dotted lines between subgroups I think those where the end of a subgroup is also the end of a colour are unnecessary ... Would you agree? Removing these would help with clarity generally.

Also, and apologies if I've missed the critical part of the thread, I notice that the respawn level has pretty much settled at 8.

I still feel that 4 or 5 would be plenty. I appreciate that is not a convincing argument itself, but I'm curious to know what the convincing argument is behind 8

1) I can remove then if everyone agrees. I actually put them in because I figured that someone would complain if they were not there. lol
2) Here is why I decided to make it larger.
At the beginning players will be more likely to just fly all over the map. If the borders reset to 4, there is not really much of a difference once a bonus is received. However, a 4 fold increase (2 to is much more difficult to overcome. Players might think twice before attacking a border especially if they know that next time it will be 8 and harder to break.

Basically the longer the game, the more attacked borders, the harder it is to attack across the neutrals, the more "maze-like" the map becomes. AND ITS CRAZY!!!

=========================================================================================================

With regards to bonuses per territory...

Classic has 43 territories (I think)... so 43/3 = 14.3
So with 262 territories... to reach a similar level you would have... 1 army per 18 territories...
262/14.3 = 18.2
So with 87 territories to start - you would get 4 to start with... (Which is the same amount of armies you get to start with on Classic. (42/3/3 = 4.66666666 = 4))

C.

Again my original reason for "1 army per 6 territories" was to raise awareness for the discussion we are now having.

I like the idea but then on an 8 player map a player would need to hold 72 territories to gain 4 standard bonus armies and that is almost 1/3 of the map.

Here is a chart showing the different bonuses with different number of required territories

I say we use anywhere from 8 to 10 territories for 1 bonus army.
Regardless of the bonus, on this map, players will already start out with TONS of armies.

Starting armies on map
2/3 => 261
4 => 195
5 => 156
6 => 129
7 => 111
8 => 96

SO the players will have a lot to work with from the start even if no one has a bonus. Just imagine a freestyle / unlimited / 8 player game? Maze Craze Indeed. lol

=========================================================================================================

one more thing.

maze craze + clickable maps + speed games = free points

if you use the classic way of attacking moving and forting my bet is you will be a LOT slower than a guy with clickable maps because of the large number of terits and the lack of easy to see names (it's one thing to see siam or venezuela in front of your eyes and another to have to move your fingers vertically and horizontally until they meet to spot a location)

I agree with yeti here. Every time I have played Conquer Man, I needed to turn off BOB and clickable maps. They just run too slow with all of the XML. Conquer Man has the old way of variable bonuses (something that has been updated since the last XML) so I am not sure if this map will be slow or not. Id does however have over 3 times more territories and many, many more bonus groups so I am not sure how these add ons will work.

I think it should be OK.


So any other thoughts or comments?

WM

[DiM]

2) I understand where you are coming from see your point. But the triple digits are there to make sure the color assisted text is still visible on any map. With the 888's touching but not overlapping, any 2 digit number with color code will still be readable.

If I widen the map to 630 I would gain 34 pixels in width. I have 23 columns. SO each column would be able to widen by 1 pixel and then the army numbers would not center. But as you suggested I could remove some of the columns but…

I wanted to make a map that had as many territories as possible within the current rules. With the triple digit requirement, this is about the biggest it can be. In regards to your statement on what happens when two adjacent territories have 437 and 984 of the same color I say this. If there is ever a game where adjacent territories have the same color and there are more that 99 armies in each, the game is obviously a build-up game (why would a player have neighbouring territories with over 100 armies each on this map during a regular game?) and these conditions cannot be accounted for in the map creation process. Just look at some of the early games that are still going. It is impossible to read some of the numbers. Should the maps be redone to fix the issue? No.

So I guess what I am saying is that the 888's do not overlap, there is not enough room to widen the columns (making the map 630 wide) without messing up the army numbers and I am not removing any columns because I am trying to make a HUGE map for those who like HUGE maps.

if you wanted to squeeze as many terits as possible then you could have added another 2 columns. you have the space until 630px
but trust me if you remove 3 columns and extend the map to 630px width you still have by far the highest number of terits 454-60=394!!! and at the same time make sure army numbers fit in their boxes perfectly without causing any confusion.

also considering the nature of this map (so many terits) the game is bound to lead to huge armies if it's flat rate or escalating. especially in 6-8 players. so it's not a build up game. and if you ask why have 437 and 984 near eachother then it's simple, because an 8 army neutral barrier won't offer any kind of protection when the opponent has hundreds of troops on the other side of that neutral border.

2) That is the point! Maze Craze!!! At the beginning the map is free for all. People attacking everywhere to get bonuses and build strongholds. But as the game progresses, the map takes shape. Players will need to decide if it is better to attack along the colored route or blast through walls of 8 neutrals to break a bonus (and thus losing many armies attacking and during respawn)

The bonuses are big but think about it. If there were no subgroup bonuses, no one would ever get a bonus. And since there are subgroup bonuses and the lowest is 1 and the highest is 4, they are not two strong. Once a player holds all of one color, that bonus should be larger than the total of the subgroup bonuses and be based off of neutral border numbers, other color borders and location on the map.

Once we address the standard bonuses per territories owned below, I think the issues you have might be gone.

Think about it. Even if you get a bonus of 40 (a couple colored groups and standard bonus), how many 8 neutral walls will you really be able to get through? People might be able to break your overall color bonus but probably not all of the sub bionuses as well.

when i analyse a map i make up various scenarios in my head.

here are a few.

1v1 - with 30 troops to start player 1 will weaken player 2 enough to ensure player 2 begins the game with 10-12 troops instead of 30. game over. if the terit bonus is reduced and +1 is given for 10 terits instead of 6 there's still trouble as player 1 will have 20-25 troops instead of 30 (8 from terits and the rest from bonuses) still enough to kill lots of terits and break through barriers of 2 neutrals.

6p escalating game - the initial bonuses will be low and of no importance as the huge number of terits will not allow early eliminations. so the game will slowly go ahead until the cash value rises and rises, this will inherently lead to big cash-ins and possible stalemates. the map will be wide open as the 8 neutral barrier will mean nothing when attacked by 2-300 troops

8p flat rate. - basically the same idea as the 6p escalating. despite not having huge bonuses on the map, the army numbers will surely lead into hundreds and the 8 army barrier will mean nothing, thus making the map completely open. total chaos.

Plus DiM. This is a new style of gameplay. There has never been a 454 territory neutral respawning pseudo open/maze map ever.

yes it is a new gameplay and the use of respawning neutrals is great. but my main fear is that the vast number of terits is exactly what makes the gameplay bad. put those terits on a real map with plenty of impassables and it might work. leave them in this type of map and i'm afraid it won't.