Conquer Club

Hello everybody, I would like to discuss the following enhancement with you.
Playing with my fellas I noticed that initial deployments sometimes turn to be really weird and unfair for games with option “Initial troops: automatic”.
In games where players’ scores are more or less equivalent, giving ¾ or more of a bonus zone to a specific player or to a specific team (in doubles, triples and quadruples) negatively affects the game, it is an handicap which may not be regained by the opponents.
I suggest implementing a fair deployment algorithm that assigns the same number of territories of a zone amongst the players.
For those maps where the total number of regions cannot be divided by the number of players, it would be worth either generating neutral regions or assigning an extra region for a player/team only over the biggest area(s) of the map, in order to prevent the smallest ones (that are conquered faster) from being unfairly divided.

What do you think about that?

Best regards.

Good idea!

It is called random. Get use to it

From the statistical point of view if you start with a random deployment you may also play against an opponent already having a whole zone (or even more), since his/her first turn.
It is not a matter of getting used to it, here I am discussing about fairness.
Moreover I bet everyone could get more used to "fair random" deployments than "random" ones.
Would you play a game where the opponent has already a bonus knowing that he/she is as good as you?

if you want even starts, play checkers.

I agree with the initial proposal. This should have been a post to discuss suggestions. The goal is to discuss, don't give ironic answers that don't enrich the discussion.

The best way for players to get better deployments in games is to head into the foundry and look at the maps as they are being made. We use a variety of tools to help in this but the more eyes looking over a map and suggesting changes the better.

I think that the best way to start a game without advantages is an automatic distribution in wich if a bonus area consists in x territories, a player or a team, cannot have more than x/2 territories (in case of odd territories, the extra one can be neutral). I have not informatic knowhow, but I don't think that should be difficult to add such an algorithm.

Thanks koontz1973 and sc87, these are the very first smart answers received up to now.
For koontz1973, what do you think about sc87's suggestion?

Today, from a mapmaking point of view, a map is ok when at the start there's no more than 10% of probabilities, at least, that A player (or ANY player) starts with a bonus.
10% is a good percentage imo because it makes a compromise for those who want a fair drop (90% of cases) and those who want a random game.
Obviously in some cases it must be less than that value, the valuse must fit the map structure and size.

Well, if you think these percentages should be reduced more, please come in this thread (viewtopic.php?f=649&t=84998) and post your thoughts, we're happy to hear your suggestions!

Remember we do maps for you....tell us what maps these should be.

Nobodies

tozzo wrote:Thanks koontz1973 and sc87, these are the very first smart answers received up to now.
For koontz1973, what do you think about sc87's suggestion?

you wanted a discussion yet you ignore or dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you.

tozzo wrote:Thanks koontz1973 and sc87, these are the very first smart answers received up to now.
For koontz1973, what do you think about sc87's suggestion?

This is not a problem but it should be discussed in a maps thread whilst it is being made. As nobodies said, if anyone wants to go to the threads set up for this then do so.

greenoaks wrote:you wanted a discussion yet you ignore or dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Funny how we all do this sometimes.

greenoaks wrote:you wanted a discussion yet you ignore or dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you.

If you write a serious and coherent explanation, both positive or negative, it's ok.
I just wrote a proposal and I would like to discuss about it,
apart from that fact it will be implemented or not.

If you write something like:

greenoaks wrote:if you want even starts, play checkers.

1) You are diverting attention of readers with nonsenses.
2) You are making fun of me .
3) You know you are making fun of me and you are trying to mystify this fact saying:

greenoaks wrote:you wanted a discussion yet you ignore or dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you

i.e. you are also trying to pass me off as idiot.