Re: Thyseneal: V 3.6 ::REVAMP::

by **djak.** on Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:05 pm

Where is the 4th island? I can only find Caspiar, Tyross, and Cratica.

by **The Bison King** on Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:06 pm

natty_dread wrote:Maybe your browsers is zoomed in.

...uh.... yeah, well.... yeah....

by **The Bison King** on Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:07 pm

djak. wrote:Where is the 4th island? I can only find Caspiar, Tyross, and Cratica.

It's Dalmus, it mentions that in the Legend.

by **djak.** on Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:20 pm

The Bison King wrote:
djak. wrote:Where is the 4th island? I can only find Caspiar, Tyross, and Cratica.

It's Dalmus, it mentions that in the Legend.

Where is Dalmus, 'cos it's not in the sea.

by **djak.** on Sun Aug 29, 2010 1:22 pm

djak. wrote:
The Bison King wrote:
djak. wrote:Where is the 4th island? I can only find Caspiar, Tyross, and Cratica.

It's Dalmus, it mentions that in the Legend.

Where is Dalmus, 'cos it's not in the sea.

Oh I found it in the south east. Why is it called an island?

by **The Bison King** on Sun Aug 29, 2010 2:07 pm

Island in a sea of sand.... It's a concept.

by **mattattam** on Tue Aug 31, 2010 7:36 pm

The Bison King wrote:Island in a sea of sand.... It's a concept.

Perhaps you could change it to say "+3 for any 3" instead of, "+3 for any 3 islands" so it doesn't confuse anyone.

by **pamoa** on Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:47 am

the 3 arelus territories should be coded as starting position to avoid one getting this bonus in 1vs1 games

by **ender516** on Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:56 am

If something like this is necessary, it is usually done by coding just one of the territories as a neutral. Deciding if this is necessary is usually done by checking MrBenn's Bonus Probability Calculator. A small probability of dropping a bonus is usually tolerated, but I suppose the decision would also depend on the value of the bonus. Sadly, my work ISP blocks fileden.com, so I can't get there from here. I will try to remember to check this out at home tonight, if no one else does it sooner.

by **the.killing.44** on Wed Sep 01, 2010 11:55 pm

Woah, wait, Discworld?

by **pamoa** on Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:18 am

ender516 wrote:If something like this is necessary, it is usually done by coding just one of the territories as a neutral. Deciding if this is necessary is usually done by checking MrBenn's Bonus Probability Calculator. A small probability of dropping a bonus is usually tolerated, but I suppose the decision would also depend on the value of the bonus. Sadly, my work ISP blocks fileden.com, so I can't get there from here. I will try to remember to check this out at home tonight, if no one else does it sooner.

not necessarily
in austerlitz I coded the two "3 territories bonus zone" as starting position
so I do not loose any of them in the initial drop

Code: Select all: - <positions> - <position> <territory>Suchet</territory> <territory>Pratzen</territory> </position> - <position> <territory>Kellerman</territory> <territory>Skolnitz</territory> </position> - <position> <territory>Caffarelli</territory> <territory>Telnitz</territory> </position> </positions>

by **ender516** on Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:02 am

Come to think of it, I think Vancouver uses a similar trick. I wish I had remembered to look at the odds last night. Still, I will consider it and discuss it with The Bison King, either here or by PM.

by **The Bison King** on Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:17 am

I've no problem with this, though I haven't seen any one start with the bonus yet either. But if you're going to do it to Arleus you might as well also do it Itheria since it's the exact same bonus structure 3 for +2.

by **ender516** on Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:39 am

Good point. Now, the way this was done on the Vancouver map was to choose one region (territory) from each zone (continent) that we are trying break up, and gather them into one starting position. Then, at the drop, each player in 1v1 or 1v1v1 gets one of these starting positions and it is guaranteed that no one gets any one of the bonuses that we are managing. Once you have more players than starting positions, they are ignored and the regions are distributed randomly as usual.
The question is which regions get paired as a starting position? Sarle has only one border, so that makes it easier to defend and hence more valuable and a better place to start than Itheria with six borders. To keep things balanced, I would pair the best region of one zone with the worst of the other, and then vice versa, and finally the two middling ones. Does anyone want to chime in with their analysis here?

We can still consider the idea of simply making one region in each zone start as a neutral, but again, we would need to decide which one, and its starting value, and also consider the effect on the overall region count (magic numbers for initial distribution).

EDIT: In fact, there is no reason we cannot use starting positions for one zone and a neutral for another zone. It's all about the gameplay.

by **the.killing.44** on Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:55 pm

island |ˈīlənd|
noun
a piece of land surrounded by water.

by **mattattam** on Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:03 am

I'm playing a 1v1 game on Thyseneal and we started with 16 territories and +5 for whoever starts:

I suggest encoding it to start with 17 territories each. It is pretty easy, although I don't know the exact odds, to take two territories knocking the 2nd players starting troops to 4. Especially if you are an experienced player this gives even more of an advantage to the player going first.

I play 1v1 almost exclusively and I highly recommend you bump the starting territories from 16 to 17 in 1v1 games.

by **Neato Missile** on Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:38 am

the.killing.44 wrote:island |ˈīlənd|
noun
a piece of land surrounded by water.

is·land noun, often attributive \ˈī-lənd\
1: a tract of land surrounded by water and smaller than a continent
2: something resembling an island especially in its isolated or surrounded position

ped·ant noun \ˈpe-dənt
1: obsolete a male schoolteacher
2: one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge, e.g., the.killing.44

Some words have more than one meaning.

by **pamoa** on Fri Sep 03, 2010 4:37 am

The Bison King wrote:I've no problem with this, though I haven't seen any one start with the bonus yet either. But if you're going to do it to Arleus you might as well also do it Itheria since it's the exact same bonus structure 3 for +2.

it happen me twice in 10 1vs1 games

ender516 wrote:...The question is which regions get paired as a starting position? ...

every 3 territories bonus zone so Arleus and Itherania
I suggest as following

Sarle (1 border)
Arleus (end of a road)

Azuran (extremity of Arkleus territ)
Thierland (end of two roads)

Itheria (centre of bonus zone)
Cancella (centre of bonus zone)

the alternative would have been putting
Arleus and Thierland as neutral
but that's bad for the total amount of initial starting territories

mattattam wrote:I'm playing a 1v1 game on Thyseneal and we started with 16 territories and +5 for whoever starts:
I suggest encoding it to start with 17 territories each. It is pretty easy, although I don't know the exact odds, to take two territories knocking the 2nd players starting troops to 4. Especially if you are an experienced player this gives even more of an advantage to the player going first.
I play 1v1 almost exclusively and I highly recommend you bump the starting territories from 16 to 17 in 1v1 games.

by **ender516** on Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:31 am

I was a little surprised to learn that we had a problem with starting territory counts. It arises from the fact that there are 51 territories (a golden number), but 2 of them, Rolloland and Dalmus, start neutral, so we actually have 49 starting territories (a somewhat tarnished number). I suspect it is a lot more disruptive to existing games to add territories in Beta, so we should consider carefully all options. Adding a territory to each of Arleus and Itherania would solve all the problems at once, but might mean that there would no longer be any +2 bonuses. I am going to look closely at pamoa's suggestions, which at first glance make sense, and will try to come up with my own suggestions for where we might put two new territories.

by **The Bison King** on Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:42 am

Adding territories is a drastic change to gameplay that could potentially create bigger worse problem than the minor problem that we are trying to fix. I'm sure that there is a better solution.

I'm playing a 1v1 game on Thyseneal and we started with 16 territories and +5 for whoever starts:

I suggest encoding it to start with 17 territories each. It is pretty easy, although I don't know the exact odds, to take two territories knocking the 2nd players starting troops to 4. Especially if you are an experienced player this gives even more of an advantage to the player going first.

I play 1v1 almost exclusively and I highly recommend you bump the starting territories from 16 to 17 in 1v1 games.

If we can change the start drop to 17 we can, but I'm not going to add territories to accommodate this.

every 3 territories bonus zone so Arleus and Itherania
I suggest as following

Sarle (1 border)
Arleus (end of a road)

Azuran (extremity of Arkleus territ)
Thierland (end of two roads)

Itheria (centre of bonus zone)
Cancella (centre of bonus zone)

This seems pretty well thought out, what do you think Ender?

by **grifftron** on Fri Sep 03, 2010 8:44 am

mattattam wrote:I'm playing a 1v1 game on Thyseneal and we started with 16 territories and +5 for whoever starts:

I suggest encoding it to start with 17 territories each. It is pretty easy, although I don't know the exact odds, to take two territories knocking the 2nd players starting troops to 4. Especially if you are an experienced player this gives even more of an advantage to the player going first.

I play 1v1 almost exclusively and I highly recommend you bump the starting territories from 16 to 17 in 1v1 games.

matt was just mad cuz i beat his ass! :twisted:

just messin mattttt

but seriously! one of my fav maps as of NOW

-griff

by **The Bison King** on Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:20 am

matt was just mad cuz i beat his ass! just messin mattttt

but seriously! one of my fav maps as of NOW

-griff

Thanks glad to hear it.

by **The Bison King** on Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:49 am

Ok, if we do another upload see if these files work. These are already JPG's but they are of a much higher quality

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

by **The Bison King** on Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:33 pm

It arises from the fact that there are 51 territories (a golden number), but 2 of them, Rolloland and Dalmus, start neutral, so we actually have 49 starting territories (a somewhat tarnished number). I suspect it is a lot more disruptive to existing games to add territories in Beta, so we should consider carefully all options.

I'm strongly opposed to adding territories, if reaching a golden number is that important I would much rather drop the neutral presence on those 2 territories which was fairly arbitrary any way.

by **natty dread** on Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:34 pm

Closest golden numbers are 44 and 52.

So either 5 more neutrals or 3 less.

51 is not a golden number: in 4 player games each gets 12. (12*4 = 48 +3 = 51)

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.6 ::REVAMP::

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Re: Re: Thyseneal: V 3.5 with XML v1.3 [Gp][Gr][Xml] [Beta]

Who is online