England Map [Quenched]

[saaimen]

To me, it's odd that the poem is split into 7 lines instead of the logical 4 or 8 verses.
It's written in a very solid beat, which is now broken, I feel...

[Merciless Wong]

Also on bonuses - I'm not sure whether starts are hard coded or not or how many neutrals are out there but the starting bonuses do seem probable.
I think you'd have to simulate in a spreadshhet to test though.

[Teflon Kris]

Seems like it's not "build yer own" anymore - just bonus for collection territories.

i.e. NorthWest = 6/9, Midlands = 9/18 (2 bonuses available - if you hold both of that then you've won), South = 7/16 (2 bonuses available - again if you hold all of that then you've either won or about to.)

C.

I see you're point (although not sure why its 'nasty') - 6/9 is radically different from MrBenn's original system, although I would still say it is 'build your own' - I'm sure you can see the logic though in the Midlands region. The number of territories needs to be enough to be unlikely to be dropped too often so that players have to build.

[yeti_c]

To me, it's odd that the poem is split into 7 lines instead of the logical 4 or 8 verses.
It's written in a very solid beat, which is now broken, I feel...

Valid point right here.

C.

[Merciless Wong]

Hey aren't the small continents up in the north easy to start with?

[AndyDufresne]

They are surely places I'd like to grab early on, looks fine to me!


--Andy

[Merciless Wong]

I mean if you have several small continents, the odds of someone starting with a bonus increases. Add that to the regional level bonuses and I'm sure this is definitely a start with bonus map.

Look, stop wasting time - this is a foregone process. A map by a moderator will reach beta over any objections once moderators and stamp holders weigh in with support. Once they comment, no one who still wants to build a map here will do anything other than agree.

Whack it up on beta and let people notice the start with bonus issue for themselves. If they don't like it, it won't see repeat play and no one will tell the forum so you all can still feel so great about your wonderful maps

You can always change it after beta.

[the.killing.44]

I mean if you have several small continents, the odds of someone starting with a bonus increases. Add that to the regional level bonuses and I'm sure this is definitely a start with bonus map.

Look, stop wasting time - this is a foregone process. A map by a moderator will reach beta over any objections once moderators and stamp holders weigh in with support. Once they comment, no one who still wants to build a map here will do anything other than agree.

Whack it up on beta and let people notice the start with bonus issue for themselves. If they don't like it, it won't see repeat play and no one will tell the forum so you all can still feel so great about your wonderful maps

You can always change it after beta.

Get it through your head. Not every single bonus will have a 0% chance of starting. So what. Don't play the map. Shut up about the process just because you're jealous and bitter of and at Benn. Please. It's getting ridiculous.

.44

[sailorseal]

I mean if you have several small continents, the odds of someone starting with a bonus increases. Add that to the regional level bonuses and I'm sure this is definitely a start with bonus map.

Look, stop wasting time - this is a foregone process. A map by a moderator will reach beta over any objections once moderators and stamp holders weigh in with support. Once they comment, no one who still wants to build a map here will do anything other than agree.

Whack it up on beta and let people notice the start with bonus issue for themselves. If they don't like it, it won't see repeat play and no one will tell the forum so you all can still feel so great about your wonderful maps

You can always change it after beta.

Get it through your head. Not every single bonus will have a 0% chance of starting. So what. Don't play the map. Shut up about the process just because you're jealous and bitter of and at Benn. Please. It's getting ridiculous.

.44

Just going to point it out, it would take Andy three seconds and you (Wong) will never see the Foundry again,
it will take him five and you will never see this thread again, just saying, its possible

Great map, MrBenn

[Merciless Wong]

-collated into 1 post---

[Merciless Wong]

I mean if you have several small continents, the odds of someone starting with a bonus increases. Add that to the regional level bonuses and I'm sure this is definitely a start with bonus map.

Look, stop wasting time - this is a foregone process. A map by a moderator will reach beta over any objections once moderators and stamp holders weigh in with support. Once they comment, no one who still wants to build a map here will do anything other than agree.

Whack it up on beta and let people notice the start with bonus issue for themselves. If they don't like it, it won't see repeat play and no one will tell the forum so you all can still feel so great about your wonderful maps

You can always change it after beta.

Get it through your head. Not every single bonus will have a 0% chance of starting. So what. Don't play the map. Shut up about the process just because you're jealous and bitter of and at Benn. Please. It's getting ridiculous.

.44

Just going to point it out, it would take Andy three seconds and you (Wong) will never see the Foundry again,
it will take him five and you will never see this thread again, just saying, its possible

Great map, MrBenn

I reported the above two as flames. One as a personal attack discouraging open feedback and the other as a threat (possibly on behalf of another party) again suppressing feedback. I will wait and see if they can be dealt with fairly.

[AndyDufresne]

Lets keep the responses to this topic, and others, on the map at hand---MrBenn's England Map. If you'd like to discuss users, take it to PM, or process, take it to Not Maps.


--Andy

[yeti_c]

You know - adding...

Merciless Wong = Knobface

to my Foe list makes this topic so much more readable... now if people would stop quoting him - then I'd be happy.

C.

[Merciless Wong]

You know - adding...

Merciless Wong = Knobface

to my Foe list makes this topic so much more readable... now if people would stop quoting him - then I'd be happy.

C.

Wooh, Yeti u the man. Love the snark.

--------------------------

I actually reported the knobface comment as a flame and got a no action taken before I responded.
But when I did, someone finally weighed in. Is it me or do some people get considerable discretion.

[AndyDufresne]

Please, both of you on topic. If you'd like to respond to each other, you can do so via PM or Live Chat. Lets focus on the map at hand. Next time no more friendly warnings and nudges.


--Andy

[Merciless Wong]

Now lets use the new sheet on the map. I have taken so many personal attacks on this issue, I'd love to see how the bonuses look on the new sheet. Is the starting thing >10% or not?

[Teflon Kris]

After serious consideration:

One of the main points of discussion currently is around MrBenn's idea of reverting to +1 for 4 in the Midlands, as opposed to the +3 for 9 on the current version. I can see the attraction to making the 'build your own' system more interesting in the Midlands although +1 for 4 seems too likely on the drop.

Yeti seemed concerned that the 'build your own' bonus system is being undermimed although it looks to me that it is still nicely intact in the current version.

Wong has objections on many fronts it seems. Unfortunately I've struggled to fully understand the maths stated earlier. The problem we have in determining a fair drop is that there are 2 bonus systems - therefore, we may be able to use tools or our own maths to calculate the probability of certain bonuses being dropped, but calculating combinations, such as the probability of any region or 'build your own bonus' is even more complicated. The best we can do is to analyse each bonus individually. MrBenn's own calculator does this for us, and confers with results from pi's spreadsheet, as well as giving us probabilities for 'build your own' systems.

The option of waiting for further development of calculation tools to determine the probability of any drop could cause unnecessary delay and it would not be fair to subject this map to any such conditions.

.44's point above is that, on any map, unfair drops sometimes happen, we cannot reduce the probability to 0. To clarify what a fair drop is, we can look at existing maps that the community generally accepts and plays regularly. For example, Luxembourg. Both drop probability calculators show a probability of landing one of the 3 terr regions on Luxembourg as 2.45%. Bear in mind there are 3 such regions on Luxembourg.

OK, so let's have a look at the results for the England map as it currently stands:
Both calculators show the following probabilities for the first player dropping a bonus in 1 v 1 (where probabilities are highest - the probability of either player is almost double):

Code: Select all

North West  - 0.89%
Yorkshire   - 3.17%
West Mids   - 0.24%
East Mids   - 0.06%
East Anglia - 0.01%
South West  - 0.06%
South East  - 0.06%
(Thames Valley currently incorporates a neutral)
(North East is coded for 1 v1 but in 2 v2 games, there is a 20.91% probabilty of any player dropping the bonus)

According to pi's spreadsheet:
North 'Build-Your-Own' - 2.21%
MIdlands and South do not work on this calculator.

According to MrBenn's spreadsheet:
North 'Build-Your-Own'    - 2.52%
MIdlands 'Build-Your-Own' - 4.92%
South 'Build-Your-Own'    - 15.29% 

If we accept these figures then we probably have the following areas of concern:

1. The North East in 2 v 2 games
2. Yorkshire
3. 'Build Your Own' bonus for the South
4. 'Build Your Own' bonus for the Midlands

Possible solutions:

1. A starting neutral in the North East (+ maybe coded starts in Thames Valley instead of a neutral there)?
2. Yorkshire - coded starts
3. 'Build Your Own' bonus for the South - amended to +3 for any 9 terrs (yields a probability of 1.74% in 1 v 1)
4. 'Build Your Own' bonus for the Midlands - amended to +3 for any 10 terrs (yields a probability of 1.01% in 1 v 1)

show: Message for Sceptics Concerning The Equality of All Mapmakers

[Merciless Wong]

MIdlands 'Build-Your-Own' - 4.92%
South 'Build-Your-Own' - 15.29%

Without combining probs... you can still see the problem here.

[MrBenn]

After some time away from this map, I've had a bit of a think about the bonus structure, and have another update...

The neutral on Durham makes sense, and I'll have to decide whether to start it with 2 or 3 neutrals in due course.

The Northern Bonuses and Thames Valley can be split up with the use of starting positions, which ensure that nobody will get those areas on the drop. I've represented these on the map by using coloured 88s, each representing a start-position group, for 4 players. I added in the NorthWest to the start positions too. For 5+ player games, I'm happy that the chance of dropping a Northern bonus are small enough (below .5%)

After a lot of thought, I have decided that I'd like to go with something along the lines of +1 for every 4 in the Midlands and the South. Yes, the chance of dropping 4 Midlands terrs is high, but the fact that it is a single army bonus in some way mitigates against that. Furthermore, if somebody has a good Midlands drop, then the chances of their opponent having a good Southern drop is higher. In either case, we're talking about single army bonuses, and not the +7s (or more) that can decide Pearl Harbour. By bringing the two bonuses in line with each other, I think I can get back to something like the original vision I had for the gameplay.

With this in mind, I have slightly updated some of the bonus values, and added the line about 'No territory' bonus.

On the graphical side of things, I have added line breaks in the Blake quote so it reads more easily and got rid of a pale blob from the background (that was behind the text).

I've adjusted the gradient and texture of the roadsign, and am more happy with it now.

Right now, I want to focus on the gameplay side of things and get it sorted before I lose the will to live

[nagerous]

I do like the look of this map, the poem definitely adds a nice touch and gives the map more flavour.

I am not overly convinced by the requirement to have a starting neutral in Durham, for starters there is no context for it and secondly I don't think not having a neutral there will affect gameplay to a great extent, only to further hinder those that start strongly in the North who already will be prevented from gaining any quick bonuses by the fact that they have to hold 6 territories to get a early bonus. If someone does by chance begin with both of those territories in the North East, the extra +1 won't give them much of an advantage (in a 1vs1 it will just give a +5 starting bonus instead of a +4 and there are many maps with similar bonus structures such as American Civil War). However, I am willing to be convinced possibly, as you know I haven't read through the whole thread and therefore don't know if there has been a discussion on this already.

[nagerous]

Hmmm, I thought more and maybe you're right Perhaps the North West bonus should be reduced from 3 to 2 instead?

[Merciless Wong]

The problem with lots and lots of little +1's around is you don'tknow how likely a +2 difference between the first and second player is. I am presuming you get +1 per 4 territories?

I think you have to address this first before tweaking other bonuses and tarritory balance. If not you'll just get sent back to drawing board.

[Teflon Kris]

With the new changes, including the whole of the north coded, it would seem more than likely that he main battlefield would be in the midlands and south - particularly in singles games.

My issue with the +1 for 4 scenario is that the player going first is pretty certain (I'll work-out and edit in the percentage later) of getting +1 in the midlands and +1 in the south (quite possibly +2 in both). Most players will immediately use this advantage to make sure their opponents don't get as many, or any, +1s on their first go. Big advantage to the first player (or team). (Rolling 7 or 8 against 3 is much more likely to win that 6 v 3). Player, or team 2 may lose the will to live.

However, this doesn't mean 'back to the drawing board', as the graphics seem close to finalisation.

I'll see if I can come up with a suggestion that may help retain the original idea but avoid the above issue (e.g. one coded region in each of the North, Midlands and South - with amended 'build your own' scheme).

[MrBenn]

The coded starts will only affect games with up to four players, although I'm contemplating reducing this to three, and not coding the North West.

The Midlands and South build-your-own bonuses could be changed to +1 per 5, which reduces the chance of getting them on the drop; I'm not keen on making them much bigger as I want there to be a chance of getting them at a point that matters to the game.

[ManBungalow]

I like this and I'm sure that I'd play it, but I still think this should have more classic gameplay to complete the British Isles set.

Otherwise I think you should get rid of the +X troops for Y regions in the Z bonus to make it easier to play.