[Abandoned] - Maze Craze

[rocky mountain]

obviously the C.A.s find it ok. this map has gameplay passed....
i like it as well...

[WidowMakers]

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.

1) Well I am not removing or adding any columns
2) Believe me DiM. If a game has two territories with 437 and 984 bordering each other, the game IS a buildup game.

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.

1) OK. First off I said the bonuses should be more like 1 per 8 or 10 terts. So the initial bonus will be more like 8-10. So a player would need to kill 8 territories to lower the bonus 1. Probable not going to happen. Even if we stay with the +1 per 6, players start with 14 still not alot.
2) You say the 8 player neutral will not mean anything. You can lose a lot of armies when attacking 8. Remember the goal of the neutrals is not to completely make the walls impossible to breach but to slowly form a more stable maze. Or are you sayign they shoudl reset to a larger number? If that is the case please explain what and why. Thanks.

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.

Bad or good gameplay is really an opinion. Doodle Earth vs. Conquer Man vs Age of Merchants. These are TOTALLY different maps. They all play different and different people play them.

As long as the map does not give any player an advantage from the beginning it is ok. Here are the requirements for gameplay from oaktown

Balanced play. - It should be unlikely that one or more players can start the game with a major advantage as a result of the initial drop or getting the first turn.
Reasonable bonus structure. - Bonuses should make sense given the size/style of the map, and be based on a consistent formula.
Game type flexibility. - The map should support various game types and not be designed specific/limited game settings in mind (standard, assassin, fog of war, 2 players, etc.).
Player-friendliness. - Any information you need to know to play a map should be easy to learn by looking at the map itself. The legend should be clear and concise, and the map should be free of unnecessary or cumbersome rules.
Open-play. - There should be many ways a game might progress on your map, and many roads to victorty. Such features as unpassable borders should enhance, not limit, gameplay, and every effort should be made to limit the number of dead ends and bottlenecks in a map, unless they are justified by the desired play of the map. This is all about making a map fun to play, not frustrating.
Function trumps form. - The style of the graphics should not detract from ease of play: borders should be clear, titles and numbers easy to read, colors easy to distinguish, etc.

While you may not like this map DiM, it does meet all of the criteria for gameplay.

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

I will make the legend changes and post the next update later.
I believe current discussions involve:

1) Bonuses
2) Standard army bonuses. How many territories does a player need to hold to get +1 army? (+1 for 6,7-10 ???)
3) Should there be a bonus for holding a connected path to and from the start/Finish? If so how should it be described in the legend?

Thanks
WM

[DiM]

if you don't want to make the armies more visible it's up to you. i always use large maps so it won't bother me.
anyway as i said this map is huge and it will take a long time to finish. i doubt we'll see games ending before round 15 even in 1v1. and we could be talking about at least 50 rounds in an 8p game. in 50 rounds each player gets 50 cards that means 16 sets. 16*8players=128sets.
that means in a flat rate with an average set value of 8 we'll have 128*8=1024 just from cards to this we add a 15 bonus per player per round = 6000 so a total of 7000 armies plus the starting ones we'll get close to 8000 total armies.
if half are lost in battles we still have 4000 armies on the board. for sure we'll se a few triple digits next to eachother.

and that's for flat rate. if it is escalating then the map will be totally unplayable, or at least not in the current sense of escalating and it will inevitably lead to huge piles. in escalating it is worth killing an opponent for cards only when the cash value of the set you get is enough to cover your losses. here no cash value will do that because people start with lots of armies. so basically to take out a player in round 1 you need a cash value of 100 but by the time you reach that value all others will have tons of troops. for example take a look at Game 1432626. started as a normal game, eliminations were made but by round 20 nobody would dare make an elimination as everybody had tons of troops. now we're in round 127 with no end in sight.
so for a game on such a big map to be playable it needs big bonuses, huge bonuses in fact, to make people have something to fight for and to give people enough troops to kill eachother. for example make each bonus 10 times bigger. at the moment if i get 30 troops per turn i will not attack you cause you'll have at least 100 troops and i'll probably manage to get just another +2 from the terits i take. losing 30 troops for a +2 bonus means i'll recuperate my loses in 15 turns but in this time the guy that waited and watched me attack you will come and weaken us both. so i'll just sit back and deploy and that's how we get a build-up. so make the bonuses bigger and at the same time make sure nobody gets them from the start by simply making 1-2 terits in each bonus start as neutral. also the barrier needs to be bigger. let it start at 2 but make it revert to 50. otherwise the 8 troops will not form a barrier and still leave the map wide open. this will also make the barrier into what it should be, a defensive strategy. i attack the 2 and get the 50 in return and now ensure my protection. combined with fog it will truly act as a maze.

oh and in 50 turns in escalating we get to 38153 armies just from the cash-ins. add the other bonuses and you'll have in excess of 40k troops. tell me you won't see 437 and 984 next to eachother

[WidowMakers]

oh and in 50 turns in escalating we get to 38153 armies just from the cash-ins. add the other bonuses and you'll have in excess of 40k troops. tell me you won't see 437 and 984 next to eachother

Not if people actually attack each other. You are counting the total armies deployed. How do people get cards if they don't attack? And sure they can attack the neutral border and no one else, but that is a build up game.

So as I asked before DiM, with this map how would you setup teh borders to keep the same layout?

Would you increase them to 16 or 24 respawn?
Raise teh bonus per terts held to 15?

What?

Thanks for the comments. Even though we do disagree in some places, I do appreciate the criticism.

WM

[DiM]

oh and in 50 turns in escalating we get to 38153 armies just from the cash-ins. add the other bonuses and you'll have in excess of 40k troops. tell me you won't see 437 and 984 next to eachother

Not if people actually attack each other. You are counting the total armies deployed. How do people get cards if they don't attack? And sure they can attack the neutral border and no one else, but that is a build up game.

So as I asked before DiM, with this map how would you setup teh borders to keep the same layout?

Would you increase them to 16 or 24 respawn?
Raise teh bonus per terts held to 15?

What?

Thanks for the comments. Even though we do disagree in some places, I do appreciate the criticism.

WM

yeah sorry i cut the armies in half and forgot about the escalating. split 40k in half and you still have 20k armies. heck split them again and still 10k armies remain on the board thus creating lots of chances for stacking 437 next to a 984.

as for the neutral and bonuses i already said my opinion.
increase the respawn from 8 to 50 to create a real maze and add the tactic that this respawn was made for (creating your own neutral defence)
increase all bonuses 10 tmes but make sure non is holdable from start by adding a neutral terit to each bonus. this way people will not start with huge armies so 1v1 will be balanced and at the same time through the increased bonuses people will have something to fight for and avoid stalemates.
reduce the terit count bonus to +1 for 8-10 terits

[WidowMakers]

Thanks DiM.

So what does everyone else think about DiM's suggestions

1) Raising the respawn amount from 8 to 50?
2) Increasing the bonuses by 10?

I am sure these will not be the final values but they are completely different than what we currently have.


WM

[DiM]

Thanks DiM.

So what does everyone else think about DiM's suggestions

1) Raising the respawn amount from 8 to 50?
2) Increasing the bonuses by 10?

I am sure these will not be the final values but they are completely different than what we currently have.


WM

actually i suggested increasing the bonuses 10 times not by 10

and the answer is yes to both

[InkL0sed]

Just noticed -- there's an army circle without armies around the lower left.

OK, I just checked it's name -- it's G-20

[cicero]

The key graphic definitely needs a distinct army circle ... <etc>

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.

Yes, that's what I mean/want. Yes please.

oh and in 50 turns in escalating we get to 38153 armies just from the cash-ins. add the other bonuses and you'll have in excess of 40k troops. tell me you won't see 437 and 984 next to eachother

Not if people actually attack each other ... <etc>

yeah sorry i cut the armies in half and forgot about the escalating. split 40k in half and you still have 20k armies. heck split them again and still 10k armies remain on the board thus creating lots of chances for stacking 437 next to a 984.

[FWIW] ... let's go with 20k armies ...
20000 armies over 361 territories (454-93 neutrals) (forgive me if my neutral count is wrong) equates to an average of 55 on each of the non-neutral territories. It would appear that, particularly accepting your assertion ...

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

... there aren't so many chances to stack 437 next to 984 ... [/FWIW]

[DiM]

[FWIW] ... let's go with 20k armies ...
20000 armies over 361 territories (454-93 neutrals) (forgive me if my neutral count is wrong) equates to an average of 55 on each of the non-neutral territories. It would appear that, particularly accepting your assertion that "TBC", there aren't so many chances to stack 437 next to 984 ... [/FWIW]

what does FWIW mean?

anyway there are 192 neutral terits. this means 454-192=262 normal terits. that means 76 armies per terit. BUT let's say i own the rectangle from Q16 to w20, do you think i'll keep 76 armies on finish or on U19? of course not, i'll stack the armies only where i can be attacked. this means i will have only part of my terits stacked and part with 1 army. thus allowing for bigger armies. so yes 437 and 984 are possible.

[cicero]

what does FWIW mean?

For What It's Worth ...

And certainly me forgetting my 100's tally is worth mentioning ... I counted 193, not 93!

And now I see what you're saying re having a large rectangle ... Q16 to W20 would give you 12 border territories and 20000 armies over just those would be 1667 per territory ... though quite how you're going to get to 20000 armies - or even just the 10000 required to get 3 fat digits on each of those 12 - whilst holding such a small area I'm not sure ... there are very few bonuses in that rectangle ...

Not sure how relevant all this is though (not saying that to dismiss your argument, simply that I am not sure ...).
Is it really typical/likely that 20000 armies will accumulate ? As WM says many maps have the opportunity to accumulate huge numbers of armies, but in most games they don't because the players choose otherwise. Is there any reason to think that players would choose to do so more frequently on this map?

[rocky mountain]

how would someone get 20000 armies?

[WidowMakers]

I appreciate the discussion everyone and am glad to see that there is some. I would, however, like to have it about what we should actually do for the map.

Saying the map is bad or good is of no benefit. We need to look at options and discuss them.

I don't want to do a poll so I would like people to just post their own ideas behind these several variables.
If you agree or like one scenario just quote it (even if your idea is slightly different it will still be in the ball park)
If you have a different idea please post with the same format as below.

Scenario 1
Starting neutrals = 2
Respawning neutrals = 8
Subgroup bonuses = +1(4) / +2(5) / +3(6) / +4(7)
Color bonuses same as current map
no other territories starts neutral except borders

Scenario 2
Starting neutrals = 2
Respawning neutrals = 50
Subgroup bonuses = +3(4) / +5(5) / +7(6) / +9(7)
Color bonuses same as current map * 10
one of every subgroup starts neutral plus borders


Scenario 3
Starting neutrals = 3
Respawning neutrals = 30
Subgroup bonuses = +3(4) / +4(5) / +5(6) / +6(7)
Color bonuses same as current map * 2
one of every subgroup starts neutral plus borders

Please discuss these issues now

Thanks
WM

[ZeakCytho]

I like scenario 1 the best.

[DiM]

Scenario 1
Starting neutrals = 2
Respawning neutrals = 8
Subgroup bonuses = +1(4) / +2(5) / +3(6) / +4(7)
Color bonuses same as current map
no other territories starts neutral except borders

this is the current state of the map and i believe it can lead to mindlas chaotic battles and possible build-ups/stalemates especially in flat rate or escalating with many players. i already said why but i'll say it again.
first the neutral barrier doesn't act like a barrier at all. since this is a huge map it WILL last a lot of turns even with the most aggressive players. a lot of turns means a lot of troops and honestly an army of 8 neutrals will do nothing for gameplay when people have hundreds of troops.
not having neutrals in the bonuses means each player has a chance to start with a bonus. most likely in 1v1 where a player could potentially start with 30 armies to deploy. those 30 armies will make a huge difference as he can break any bonuses player 2 has and thus force him to start the game with just 10-12 deployable armies. this gives a big advantage to whoever goes first in 1v1.

Scenario 2
Starting neutrals = 2
Respawning neutrals = 50
Subgroup bonuses = +3(4) / +5(5) / +7(6) / +9(7)
Color bonuses same as current map * 10
one of every subgroup starts neutral plus borders

bigger neutrals means that the barrier will be used at it's full potential and really act as a strategic feature of this map and at the same time remove the chaotic attacks that scenario 1 offers by not making the map so wide open. bigger bonuses means more incentive for people to attack and more troops for them to do it thus hopefully removing or at least decreasing the chance of games becoming stalemates.
and the bonuses all having 1 neutral in each helps balance the map by not allowing a player to start with a bonus and gain an advantage.

Scenario 3
Starting neutrals = 3
Respawning neutrals = 30
Subgroup bonuses = +3(4) / +4(5) / +5(6) / +6(7)
Color bonuses same as current map * 2
one of every subgroup starts neutral plus borders

same as scenario 2 but at a lower scale. less neutrals, less bonuses, this could also work. or perhaps something between scenario 2 and 3. perhaps a bonus multiplier of 3 or perhaps 5. i don't know and i wish we'd have that damn testing facility to find out.

[laci_mae]

Of all the maps that have come forth in my short time here, this one yearns most for the testing site.

My 2 cents is that starting neutrals of 5 would help the border be a border from the beginning. This would lessen the possible tipped hand of Player 1 in a 2 player game. A respawn to 30 would be significant enough to truly serve as a border for the remainder of the game. Typically if one player has 200 armies, one or more opponents is of similar strength. I wouldn't often risk conquering 30 armies even if I had many more than that for 2 reasons: 1) my armies won't be connected on my next turn for forting and 2) it would decrease my strength to significantly below my opponents'.

My vote would be for 5 and 30. Since that's not currently an option, I vote for Scenario 3.

Best,
Laci

[WidowMakers]

DiM. You do realize that you are saying you want the subgroup bonuses to be 10, 20, 30 and 40. And you want the group bonuses to be from 70 to 140 bonus armies. That does seen a little much don't you think?

The purpose of the walls is to give some protection but not so much that no one can ever break them.

Take the yellow at the bottom.
Once a player gets the 6 group on the left, they only have one other colored border.
But they have 6 neutral borders that connect to an adjacent colored border.
Those neutrals do need to respawn bigger but not to 50 (25 or 30 would be OK).
And the bonus of 30 for holding those 6 yellows is way too much.
And don't get me started on +140 for all of yellow.

So how about scenario 4?

Scenario 4

-Starting neutrals = 3
-Respawning neutrals = 30
-Subgroup bonuses = +3(4) / +5(5) / +7(6) / +9(7)
-Color bonuses same as current map * ~3
-one of every subgroup starts neutral plus borders

[TaCktiX]

Killer high reset neutrals, but DiM has a point with the number of territories getting out of hand. Your solution seems like a good mix between DiM's worst case scenario, and the original idea.

[DiM]

i like scenario 4 the best.

[bryguy]

im iffy about scenario 4, cause it can be bad if your going for conquest, but great if u want to protect yourself

keep up the good work!

and maybe instead of 30 for them to reset to, them resetting to 15 or 20?

sorry if im misunderstanding this..

[WidowMakers]

Ok here we go Version 12

Changes:

-Increase the color bonuses by about 3 times
-Changes the sub group bonuses
-neutrals respawn at 30 now
-edited the Neutral box graphic (added the circle)
-changed the text for the neutrals in legend
-edited direction wording
-removed the dotted lines between colored borders
-Added gray stars to show where each subgroup would have a starting neutral to eliminate th chance that anyone can start with a bonus
-changed the territory bonus +1 for every 10 territories held

Question / Concerns / Comments



WM

[cicero]

-Added gray stars to show where each subgroup would have a starting neutral to eliminate the chance that anyone can start with a bonus

How many neutral armies would be placed on these territories at game start ?
3 ?

[WidowMakers]

-Added gray stars to show where each subgroup would have a starting neutral to eliminate the chance that anyone can start with a bonus

How many neutral armies would be placed on these territories at game start ?
3 ?

Yes 3. That is what I figured.

So what are everyones feelings about the new numbers and stuff?

WM

[RjBeals]

-neutrals respawn at 30 now

Sorry if it's been mentioned, but If I break through a neutral and enter a different color maze section, and leave just 1 of my men on that neutral, will it disappear and be replaced with 30 neutrals at the start of the next turn? If so, what's the point of that - to build yourself a barrier? Or to block your exits?

At first I was not interested in this map, but It's starting to look a little appealing to me now. I like the sub bonus structure. I didn't understand what the stars were, since there is nothing on the acutal map to explain them. I looked at the map first, then read your update post, which explains the stars. Not sure if it will confuse others as well. And the star graphic has a squished bottom? Maybe instead of a star, a gray outline on the circle? Or a deeper shade of the maze section color?

[Kaplowitz]

At first I was not interested in this map, but It's starting to look a little appealing to me now. I like the sub bonus structure. I didn't understand what the stars were, since there is nothing on the acutal map to explain them. I looked at the map first, then read your update post, which explains the stars. Not sure if it will confuse others as well. And the star graphic has a squished bottom? Maybe instead of a star, a gray outline on the circle? Or a deeper shade of the maze section color?

I dont think the stars are going to be there, they are just to show us where the neutral 3's will be at the start of the game.

Also just wondering, does the neutral killer restart at the beginning of your turn, or just the next turn in general?