Page 1 of 1

"a question of start positions"...

Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:15 am
by Dave W
Gruff said in another thread:

"Ranking will be more or less meaningless until we get balanced maps. As it is it's mostly a question of start positions."

In large part true, and for some maps more than others definitely so. The problem is to think up a better system for assigning the initial hexes of each player. I know you're in favour of an enhanced map editor with which we could do this by hand. Excellent idea!

More generally, what is a right way to measure the fairness of maps? Obviously, if #1 has a huge group of hexes in one area and no-one else does, then that won't be fair. What's the fair trade-off between first move and best start position? How do you even quantify "best start position"?

I just wanted to mention these things because I think that trying to figure out an answer to these questions is surprisingly complicated.

Cheers!

Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:44 pm
by gruff
I think it's so complicated as to be an exercise in futility. I don't think there's much point in ranking maps until there's a new map editor.

We all know what makes a fun multiplayer map: large open areas, so that most people get a chance to develop, a few lakes, very few bottlenecks.

Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:42 pm
by Dave W
gruff wrote: We all know what makes a fun multiplayer map: large open areas, so that most people get a chance to develop, a few lakes, very few bottlenecks.
Difference of opinion -- I happen to like bottlenecks, if they are distributed in a way that adds to the strategic complexity of the situation.

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:20 am
by gruff
De gustibus I guess. Maybe it's because I am poor at defending bottlenecks.