CC City Mogul [Quenched]

[hulmey]

It seems if someone crtizices your work you go on the defensive!! I liked your first map AOM and was an avivd poster. I also liked your 1st Age of Might map!!

Yes they have been successful to a degree but they still arent in the Top 5 of Maps are they!??!?

[InkL0sed]

It seems if someone crtizices your work you go on the defensive!! I liked your first map AOM and was an avivd poster. I also liked your 1st Age of Might map!!

Yes they have been successful to a degree but they still arent in the Top 5 of Maps are they!??!?

You weren't criticizing, it was just pessimism. And how in the world can you expect to measure a map's success by whether it's in the top 5 or not? Do you not know how many maps there are in play right now? Do you suggest we take down all but the 5 most popular maps?

[hulmey]

I never said we should take down any map. However the Map foundry is spewing out the same kind of Maps time after time!! i used to spend alot of time in the Map foundry but nowadays nothing worth mentioning is coming out of it. Is that just my opinon!! Hmmm, dont think so!!

Of course the artisit is going to be blinded by his own product, as would I.

Coming to your 2nd ponit of course being in the Top 5 is a very good indicator of how successful a map is to the masses. that isnt to say that a map isnt playable. The Ireland map has around 17 pages of games every 2 weeks so someone likes it!!

trouble is the Map foundry is spewing out garbage at the moment and yes i can live with ebing hated for the my words. But im only trying to help!!

[InkL0sed]

You may be trying to help, but simply saying the foundry is spewing out garbage (which is a ridiculous claim to begin with) is getting none of us anywhere.

I'm not even going to bother to refute your other points, since really what I just argued is all that is relevant.

[edbeard]

I don't know where you got that 17 number. I'm not saying anything bad about Ireland, but I think you're a bit off on that.

DiM happens to have 2 maps in the top 6 so apparently some people like it.


The best way to get maps that YOU want is to make them. It's not to try to get other people to change the maps that they make and like.

[InkL0sed]

[/end thread jack]

[hulmey]

THats a map movement chart ED!!!!! I was meant to help Cairns with it myself sometime ago, but i didnt want to base statistics on movement. It is very flawed and hardly reflects the best map.

I was helping Mibi compile reports sometime ago and his way was indeed the best way. None of DIM's map would even figure in the Top 8 on that one!!

Plus we went way of the subject and i think this boarding thread jacking. So sorry...

[edbeard]

You said, "The Ireland map has around 17 pages of games every 2 weeks." This counts how many more pages of games happen between the times cairnswk runs it. Assuming it is a difference of two weeks, then this is the exact same thing.


So saying 'movement' hardly reflects the best map is laughable because you were talking about how Ireland is so great from getting 17 pages.


Basically, when the facts work for your argument, you will use them and praise them. However, when they go against your argument you make excuses and say they aren't relevant.

[hulmey]

Sorry ED but i wasnt refeering to the movement in Maps at all...Im saying that the Ireland map produces roughly 17 pages of maps every 2 weeks. IE it produces 34 pages of maps a month. This is not movement of maps but the total amount of maps it produces a month.

Movement would be week 1 - week 2. I'm not saying that so please do not twist what i say, to suit your purposes!!

[edbeard]

Im saying that the Ireland map produces roughly 17 pages of maps every 2 weeks.

that's exactly what movement means.

[oaktown]

thanks, everybody, for that thought provoking discussion.

Now, Hulmey, you started all of this by saying that this map is in danger of being unpopular... perhaps you could let us in on specific concerns that the mapmaker might be able to address?

And I'd love to see some discussion about the 'armies x 20' idea that DiM has proposed. It's not without merit, and it would take some of the (dare I say) "risk" out of the game, but I think the foundry needs to give it some attention.

[LSU Tiger Josh]

The gameplay seems interesting, but a problem that I could see happening with the huge armies to start is some people like to do the single attack each time to keep from possibly getting down to 3 armies. For someone on dialup, if they get in a big battle that could take about half an hour if both sides are taking significant damage.

What about doubling the starting size of each territory such as 6 men on the each territory that was getting 3 men x the multiplier as it would eliminate some of the "risk", but at the same time doesn't pose a problem for anyone still playing on dialup as I know that when I play on dialup when I go visit my grandparents that it takes about 45 seconds for each single attack to go through.

PS I personally preferred the white map that you had.

[DiM]

holy thread jacking.

ok 1st issue.
popularity of my maps.
my first map was Age of Merchants. people were very reluctant to change and it took a while to get it quenched as it was the first map with such a weird bonus system. but when id did come out i can say it performed way above the expectations of my contesters. they said people won't get it, they said it won't be played cause it's too hard and yet people played it and they still do.

second map was Age of Realms: Might. remember the huge fight i had with ---? he said it's a stupid map, he didn't want it moved to main foundry and all that crap? if you don't then go read the thread, well as it turns out the map was a huge success.

and the third was the AoR: Magic map that also has it's share of success.

cairnswk's thread is not a measure of overall success for the simple fact that it measures how popular a map is at a certain time period not overall. number of games created in the last 2 weeks shows what maps are great in the last 2 weeks not overall.
mibi's thread was even more flawed because it measured the number of active games a map has. that's wrong. let's say a map has an average game duration of 5 rounds. and another map has an average of 100 rounds. well over a week the 100 round map may have just 200 games that last all week and thus produces 2 pages of active games. while the 5 round map may have 5000 games but because they are so short they only last a day. so basically if you look each sunday the 100 rounds map might get 2 pages of active games and the 5 round map just 1 page of active games. when in fact the 5 rounder has been played 25 more times.

the best way to calculate how successful a map is to calculate the number of total games per day of existence. simply take the total games and divide that by number of days.

let's see.
Age of Realms: Might has an average of 377 games per day.
let's do other maps:
Classic: 746 games per day
Middle Earth: 155 games per day
Siege: 67 games per day.
Doodle: 510 games per day.
World 2.1: 93 games per day.

now if you do the math for all maps you'll surely see that AoR: Might is ranked 3rd on the chart.

so you see, while my intention wasn't to create successful maps but rather maps i'd like to play, somehow some of them actually became successful and people play them a lot.

so you saying that my maps aren't successful is wrong. get your fact straight.

oh and as for ireland creating 17 pages of games every 2 weeks, that's nonsense. let's do the math for it.
115 pages divided by 570 days = 20 games per day.
hmm. 20 games per day means 2.8 pages per 2 weeks. where did you get your 17 pages per 2 weeks??

anyway, map popularity can't be gauged during the map's creation and even if it could be calculated it would be stupid to take that into account. that would mean most of the maps we have now would never get quenched because god forbid they won't be popular. well i always said if at least 1 other person besides the creator will play that map and have fun then it means it's a success.

[DiM]

And I'd love to see some discussion about the 'armies x 20' idea that DiM has proposed. It's not without merit, and it would take some of the (dare I say) "risk" out of the game, but I think the foundry needs to give it some attention.

i'd love to see this discussed also.

as for taking the risk out, hmm. perhaps you're right. it does almost eliminate all the luck factors and leaves just the strategy. some may like it some may not.
as i said before the 3 luck factors in a game are:
1. initial deployment - solved by having fixed starting locations
2. cards - solved by playing no cards
3. dice - influence reduced by increasing army numbers.

and in the future (if lack approves my suggestion for converting terits) dice will be totally eliminated and we'll get a perfectly strategical map with no luck involved.

[DiM]

The gameplay seems interesting, but a problem that I could see happening with the huge armies to start is some people like to do the single attack each time to keep from possibly getting down to 3 armies. For someone on dialup, if they get in a big battle that could take about half an hour if both sides are taking significant damage.

What about doubling the starting size of each territory such as 6 men on the each territory that was getting 3 men x the multiplier as it would eliminate some of the "risk", but at the same time doesn't pose a problem for anyone still playing on dialup as I know that when I play on dialup when I go visit my grandparents that it takes about 45 seconds for each single attack to go through.

PS I personally preferred the white map that you had.

doubling the size will indeed reduce the dice luck factor by a bit but it will be nowhere near the current reduction with the 20 multiply.

imagine a normal 5v3 attack. lose the first roll and the attack is over
then double that and you have 10v6.
i used this battle calculator: http://www.recreationalmath.com/risk/riskprob.htm

a 10v6 has 16% chances to get to 4v2
a 100v60 has 0.3% chance to get to 40v20

so you see, a bad outcome is much more possible with lower numbers than with high numbers because over a certain number of rolls, they are supposed to balance out any streaks. so yes in a 10v6 you can get 4 straight bad rolls and end 2v6. it has happened many times but the chances of an 100v60 ending 20v60 are almost non-existent as it means you'd have to get a streak of 40 double loss rolls.
well that's exactly what i want to achieve, a game where dice streakyness is insignificant.

as for the dial-up problem i understand your concern and the only solution i see is to auto attack. i suspect autoattack will be used by most people even if they aren't on dial-up because honestly if you try to take 20-30 terits and don't auto attack you'll probably time out your turn.

[yeti_c]

holy thread jacking.

...

let's see.
Age of Realms: Might has an average of 377 games per day.
let's do other maps:
Classic: 746 games per day
Middle Earth: 155 games per day
Siege: 67 games per day.
Doodle: 510 games per day.
World 2.1: 93 games per day.

...

oh and as for ireland creating 17 pages of games every 2 weeks, that's nonsense. let's do the math for it.
115 pages divided by 570 days = 20 games per day.
hmm. 20 games per day means 2.8 pages per 2 weeks. where did you get your 17 pages per 2 weeks??

...

Hulmey = Owned.

C.

[DiM]

holy thread jacking.

...

let's see.
Age of Realms: Might has an average of 377 games per day.
let's do other maps:
Classic: 746 games per day
Middle Earth: 155 games per day
Siege: 67 games per day.
Doodle: 510 games per day.
World 2.1: 93 games per day.

...

oh and as for ireland creating 17 pages of games every 2 weeks, that's nonsense. let's do the math for it.
115 pages divided by 570 days = 20 games per day.
hmm. 20 games per day means 2.8 pages per 2 weeks. where did you get your 17 pages per 2 weeks??

...

Hulmey = Owned.

C.

lol you forgot to quote the ireland part. i added it for you

[gimil]

Lets not forget that feudal is humping magic in the movment states

lol

Anyway ill give my comment on the bonus structure, I say we swing with it, it it proves unsuccessful im sure DiM will change it I think its going to be hard to discuss since such a thing hasnt been attempted before

[DiM]

Lets not forget that feudal is humping magic in the movment states

lol

Anyway ill give my comment on the bonus structure, I say we swing with it, it it proves unsuccessful im sure DiM will change it I think its going to be hard to discuss since such a thing hasnt been attempted before

well basically if the gameplay proves unsuccessful is just a matter of dividing everything by 20 in the xml and turning the map into a normal bonus type thing. but i feel pretty confident it will work out fine.

unfortunatelly i have no means of testing this at home because frankly real dice have no auto attack and i can't waste 20 hours to play a game and roll thousands of times

[gimil]

Lets not forget that feudal is humping magic in the movment states

lol

Anyway ill give my comment on the bonus structure, I say we swing with it, it it proves unsuccessful im sure DiM will change it I think its going to be hard to discuss since such a thing hasnt been attempted before

well basically if the gameplay proves unsuccessful is just a matter of dividing everything by 20 in the xml and turning the map into a normal bonus type thing. but i feel pretty confident it will work out fine.

unfortunatelly i have no means of testing this at home because frankly real dice have no auto attack and i can't waste 20 hours to play a game and roll thousands of times

unless lack lets test palying on the test game

[DiM]

Lets not forget that feudal is humping magic in the movment states

lol

Anyway ill give my comment on the bonus structure, I say we swing with it, it it proves unsuccessful im sure DiM will change it I think its going to be hard to discuss since such a thing hasnt been attempted before

well basically if the gameplay proves unsuccessful is just a matter of dividing everything by 20 in the xml and turning the map into a normal bonus type thing. but i feel pretty confident it will work out fine.

unfortunatelly i have no means of testing this at home because frankly real dice have no auto attack and i can't waste 20 hours to play a game and roll thousands of times

unless lack lets test palying on the test game

well the test playing area has been suggested many times and so far i haven't seen it implemented even though i know it's possible and it has been done before.

[LSU Tiger Josh]

The test playing area would be nice to have. I just know that personally I don't like the auto dice usually. Since I went to manually clicking for each role I've found that my win % has increased about 20% more then what it was doign by autoattacking each time and wasting armies in a bad situation. If someone does the auto attack with that big stack then yes they "should" win the battle, but it may not win the war as it may have caused them to lose about 75% of their army.

Also the game probably won't be that playable on a speed game although i'm not sure how popular speed games are since i don't play them.

[DiM]

The test playing area would be nice to have. I just know that personally I don't like the auto dice usually. Since I went to manually clicking for each role I've found that my win % has increased about 20% more then what it was doign by autoattacking each time and wasting armies in a bad situation. If someone does the auto attack with that big stack then yes they "should" win the battle, but it may not win the war as it may have caused them to lose about 75% of their army.

Also the game probably won't be that playable on a speed game although i'm not sure how popular speed games are since i don't play them.

single attacking or auto attacking are the same. there isn't a better chance of wining or losing.

i've seen people win 7v25 autoattacks and i've seen me lose 153vs72 autoattack. the same dice are used. as for speedgames well autoattack is very important and very used especially if they are freestyle.

[hulmey]

Owned LMAO to you Yeti!!!

Dim created a correct representation of how to prove how popular a map is........

However the test of time is the Key

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

[mrkipling]

the large number of armies is a genius idea