Select Amount of Starting Positions

[yeti_c]

Select Amount of Starting Positions
Select Amount of Starting Positions
Every Map has a a fixed Number of starting positions already but what if based on the Map you could change the amount of starting points replacing with Neutrals spots that by default would have a player occupying.





A large amount of maps utilize a dynamic of limited starting points while some could defintely benefit from doing so. This would help create yet another facet of gameplay and strategy providing for a more diverse CC experience. The option would require little change while @ the same time giving the potential for future features to be implemented.

MOD EDIT: See Also: New Initial Deployment - Conquest For the related suggestion to start with 1 territory per player.

MOD EDIT: Copied OP

show

[spiesr]

Games would take forever!!!

[Anarkistsdream]

Then don't use it...

I am all about diversity... The more additions that don't require much coding, the better.

[Fazeem]

Select Amount of Starting Positions
Select Amount of Starting Positions
Every Map has a a fixed Number of starting positions already but what if based on the Map you could change the amount of starting points replacing with Neutrals spots that by default would have a player occupying.





A large amount of maps utilize a dynamic of limited starting points while some could defintely benefit from doing so. This would help create yet another facet of gameplay and strategy providing for a more diverse CC experience. The option would require little change while @ the same time giving the potential for future features to be implemented.

MOD EDIT: See Also: New Initial Deployment - Conquest For the related suggestion to start with 1 territory per player.

[Fazeem]

noone has said anything about this idea maybe an example will help.

On classic map in a 2 player game each player has 14 starting points and the difference in territs on the map is filled with Neutrals. If implemented this option would change that 14 to any Number between 1 and 14 for each player and the difference would still be made up of neutrals. Each Map would have a preset maximum starting points which in this scenerio is 14 while the minimum would be 1. THis creates a new dynamic of having more neutrals to battle through and consider when going forward. On a Fog map this makes one have to think even more carefully about where they are preceding.

So any feedback from anyone?

[DoomYoshi]

Actually, I like the idea.

[spiesr]

How would such an option be displayed on the Join A Game and Game Finder Pages?

[JCR]

I am for this. It could dramatically change strategies and gameplay on a wide variety of maps.

it would also solve the age old problem of 1v1 losses before they even start due to dropping a bonus. less luck more skill.

[Fazeem]

How would such an option be displayed on the Join A Game and Game Finder Pages?

I am sure one of the site geniuses would find a spot much like they did with Trench and Fog

[Qwert]

manual? but these all ready exist

[chapcrap]

manual? but these all ready exist

Manual lets you deploy your troops where you would like.

This suggestion is to pick the number of starting positions. So, if you want to play 1v1 on Classis, you can each start with just 11 territories and 20 neutrals. That is the nature of the suggestion.

[Metsfanmax]

This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

[Fazeem]

This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

[Metsfanmax]

This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

[chapcrap]

This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

True.

A solution, which I think was already mentioned, is that each map have certain constraints. For example, in Classic, the count needs to be 3-17. If this is done, then there would be no issue of 1 territory games.

[rishaed]

This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

True.

A solution, which I think was already mentioned, is that each map have certain constraints. For example, in Classic, the count needs to be 3-17. If this is done, then there would be no issue of 1 territory games.

QFT.
Also it allows for actual growth and planning of strategy instead of being forced to go for Asia/Europe because your only territory is there and you have an army of Neutral territories around you.

[Fazeem]

This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

the drop is random though so the odds of being right next to someone and having only chosen 1 starting point on most maps is quite a large spread. Not saying it is impossible but unlikely this will ever be more of a factor. The odds are almost as likely for a manual drop and incredible dice to win in one turn to happen as this worst case scenario. Also on a map like doodle earth where this is a likely issue it could be made to not work like manual does not work on some maps.

[Metsfanmax]

This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

True.

A solution, which I think was already mentioned, is that each map have certain constraints. For example, in Classic, the count needs to be 3-17. If this is done, then there would be no issue of 1 territory games.

This is true, but the constraint would have to be hard-coded for every map, which would require a bit of manual effort. That is, unless we adjusted the constraint depending on how many territories are on the map or something.

[greenoaks]

i like the idea.

who's up for a 1 terit foggy game of Hive with trench

[darth emperor]

i like the idea.

who's up for a 1 terit foggy game of Hive with trench

I'm in for that. This is kinda like the BR, so this apart of solving the problems of 1v1 also solves the problem of BR you can make a game where everyone starts, with 2 or 3 regions. And also I like the idea of having just one region even if in some games if I just lose because my opponent played first and was adjacent.

[chapcrap]

This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

True.

A solution, which I think was already mentioned, is that each map have certain constraints. For example, in Classic, the count needs to be 3-17. If this is done, then there would be no issue of 1 territory games.

This is true, but the constraint would have to be hard-coded for every map, which would require a bit of manual effort. That is, unless we adjusted the constraint depending on how many territories are on the map or something.

Yes, I think a certain percentage of terts on each map would be fine. The issue I see with it is playing maps like Feudal War. It would need to be coded to be based on territories that don't automatically start neutral.

[rishaed]

^oooooh! strategy would change on that map, thats for sure! The first turn its Sir! There's an enemy in the gates!!

[greenoaks]

This is quite an interesting idea. The gameplay would be different enough to perhaps really warrant a new game option. You know some people would have all the players start with one territory though. Imagine what happens if, by chance, two of them are connected? Someone's going to be rather unhappy.

LOL nature of the beast no different then when someone starts off with a bonus or both drop a manual next to other.

It is different though. In manual, if you drop your stack right next to someone else, 1) that is at least partially your fault because you should be guessing where your opponents will drop when you make your deployment and 2) you're not immediately dead if someone autos your stack, and wins. Starting off with a bonus is also not necessarily game-breaking, even in 1v1, even though it's usually a big advantage. In this case, you simply lose straight out if someone goes 6v3 and wins without even getting to take a turn.

True.

A solution, which I think was already mentioned, is that each map have certain constraints. For example, in Classic, the count needs to be 3-17. If this is done, then there would be no issue of 1 territory games.

This is true, but the constraint would have to be hard-coded for every map, which would require a bit of manual effort. That is, unless we adjusted the constraint depending on how many territories are on the map or something.

Yes, I think a certain percentage of terts on each map would be fine. The issue I see with it is playing maps like Feudal War. It would need to be coded to be based on territories that don't automatically start neutral.

i don't see why.

in 1v1 you get 2 terits now so you could choose to start the game normally or with just 1. in team games there would be no difference as you only start with one terit.

[chapcrap]

Yes, I think a certain percentage of terts on each map would be fine. The issue I see with it is playing maps like Feudal War. It would need to be coded to be based on territories that don't automatically start neutral.

i don't see why.

in 1v1 you get 2 terits now so you could choose to start the game normally or with just 1. in team games there would be no difference as you only start with one terit.

So that you can't choose to start with 12.

[greenoaks]

Yes, I think a certain percentage of terts on each map would be fine. The issue I see with it is playing maps like Feudal War. It would need to be coded to be based on territories that don't automatically start neutral.

i don't see why.

in 1v1 you get 2 terits now so you could choose to start the game normally or with just 1. in team games there would be no difference as you only start with one terit.

So that you can't choose to start with 12.

no

replacing with Neutrals spots that by default would have a player occupying.

if a map allowed 12 starting positions then you could choose between 1 & 12 but if it had 3 then you could only choose 1, 2 or 3.