England Map [Quenched]

[Teflon Kris]

Back Up Plan

After fiddling, I think this is the best way of getting the figures below 10%:

Very similar to my previous suggestions however.

In the North - no coded neutrals (prob of dropping Durham in 1 v 1 8.30%, Yorkshire prob 1.98%).

In the Midlands - 5 coded neutrals & 3 coded starts (for 3 players) - prob of dropping +2 byo bonus 9.07%

In the South - 4 coded neutrals & 2 coded starts (for 2 players) - prob of dropping +2 byo bonus 2.57%

Alternatively, having 2 coded neutrals in the South would work - however it would mean having another coded neutral in the Midlands or the NE (otherwise the Midlands probability goes over 10%).

Unfortunately I haven't had any other new flashes of inspiration.

If this is an accepted back-up plan, I'd suggest some 1s and 2s to encourage self-build.

[MrBenn]

Hmmm

The problem with this scenario is that there's no way of over-riding the coded neutrals, and that you can't set different starting positions for different games; neither can you code different starts for different games...

I don't want to set loads of starting neutrals, as this will adversely impact on larger-than-1v1-player games.

If there are real issues with the build-your-own bonuses, then I'll have another think about them; A +2 bonus can still be canceled out by bad dice - and I've seen plenty of games where the initial drop counted for nothing compared to a run of bad dice...

[iancanton]

the numbers are looking a whole heap better than before!

I intend to scrap the coded starts completely. I'm actually not at all bothered about a 10% chance to drop a +1 bonus (which drops to 5% in four-player games); particularly as in a bizarre twist of statistics, this marginally increases the chances of dropping one of the build-your-own bonuses.

if there are no coded starts, then can we have the neutral - whether 1, 2 or 3 - back on durham, please, for the 4-player games (i'm looking particularly at 2v2)? using the [player]mrbenn[/player] bonus calculator, there is indeed a 5% chance of player 1 gaining the north-east bonus from the start, but also up to an additional 9% probability of starting with either a +2 or +3 bonus (i suspect this is actually closer to an extra 7%, not 9%, because it's not likely that player 1 has both the 7 midland and 7 southern bonus, but 12% is still on the high side).

I don't want to set loads of starting neutrals, as this will adversely impact on larger-than-1v1-player games.

Although,if they were 1s and 2s then it would certainly encourage 'self-build' strategies.

two good points. if we do happen to need more neutrals eventually, then having them as single neutrals will make the board more palatable for multi-player games, since this will bring the build-ur-own into play more quickly.

One idea I had was for different zones - The North, The East (E Midlands & East Anglia), The West (West Mid & SW) and South-East (South & Thames)? But then,you would only be able to self-build so far.

this is well worthy of consideration if the large midland and southern zones don't work well.

it looks as if we're close to reasonable percentages for everything except 1v1. we have a radical new bonus system here with substantial research behind it. i think one or two of the additional adjustments discussed already will let us fix a gameplay that can allow the graphics to move forward at last.

ian.

[Teflon Kris]

I agree with ian's point re. Durham. With there being a good chance of dropping +2 for the Midlands or South then it would be best to make sure the NE cant be dropped as well.

This is perhaps a topic for elsewhere, but wouldn't life be so much easier if start positions and neutrals could be coded for different types of game? I wonder if we could get a quick answer from lack on that one? If it were possible I imagine the xml for all existing maps would have to have an extra number entered somewhere to indicate all coding the same but this could be a quick job. It would certainly open-up huge possibilities for gameplay design of future maps (& review of current maps if desired) ... but now I digress.

In the meantime let's keep thinking about this back-up plan.

[MrBenn]

the numbers are looking a whole heap better than before!

I intend to scrap the coded starts completely. I'm actually not at all bothered about a 10% chance to drop a +1 bonus (which drops to 5% in four-player games); particularly as in a bizarre twist of statistics, this marginally increases the chances of dropping one of the build-your-own bonuses.

if there are no coded starts, then can we have the neutral - whether 1, 2 or 3 - back on durham...

it looks as if we're close to reasonable percentages for everything except 1v1. we have a radical new bonus system here with substantial research behind it. i think one or two of the additional adjustments discussed already will let us fix a gameplay that can allow the graphics to move forward at last.

ian.

If the map needs Durham to be neutral to get a stamp, then a neutral it shall have

Is there anything else I need to do?

[Teflon Kris]

As well as the Durham neutral resurrection, this map could really do with a Beta Back-Up plan in case the players dropping b-y-o +2s proves problematic (in 1 v 1 & 3P). If there are problems in Beta then we need to be able act quickly to resolve them - i.e. a back-up plan ready to implement.

The back-up plan would therefore need to ensure players have a low probability of dropping the +2s.

Here's another suggestion:

Back-Up Plans Not Involving Coded Starts, just a few Neutrals

Plan A
With one neutral on Durham, 3 neutrals in the Midlands and 1 neutral in the South, player 1 has a 10.46% chance of dropping +2 in the Midlands, and the same for the South (in 1 v 1).

There would be 38 territories to share-out: In 4p games - 9 terits each, 5p - 7 terits, 6p - 6 terits, 7p - 5 terits & 8 players would each get 4 terits to start.


Plan B
Alternatively, with one neutral on Durham, 4 neutrals in the Midlands and 2 neutrals in the South, player 1 has a 9.24% chance of dropping +2 in the Midlands, and the same for the South (in 1 v 1).

There would be 36 territories to share-out, which works out the same as above,

In both cases, low value neutrals in Midlands & South would encourage self-build (& would give players more of a chance in 7/8p games where there are fewer terits each).


Given that this is the back-up plan I strongly suggest we go for Plan B or something which similarly gives < 10% +2 drop probabilities. If the original set-up is problematic, we dont want to be implementing a back-up and still have players in tears.


(This seems so simple - cant believe I didn't see it before).

[MrBenn]

If I've got this right, then we're talking about a back-up-plan in case the most recent update receives enough complaints about the bias towards whoever goes first in 1v1 games....

What I propose is this:

1) Avoid coded starts and starting neutrals (except for Durham).

2) See if the issue of unfair drops arises as an issue while the map is in Beta.

3a) If not, then full quench and live-play.

3b) If the issue arises, then address as follows: alter the BYOB from +7 to +8, and add coded starting positions as per update 19. This will reduce the chance of starting with the Midlands BYOB to 8.81% - but will also reduce the usefulness of the BYOB for other gametypes.

[Teflon Kris]

Yes, that's it in a Nutshell.

Are you sure you would prefer Update 19 as a back-up to Plan B above (coded starts & more terits required for BYO as opposed to 7 neutrals)?

[MrBenn]

Yes, that's it in a Nutshell.

Are you sure you would prefer Update 19 as a back-up to Plan B above (coded starts & more terits required for BYO as opposed to 7 neutrals)?

I'm not really too sure to be perfectly honest.... but as this is a contingency plan for the event that it's raised t a later stage, can we agree to discuss it in more detail should the problem arise?

[Teflon Kris]

Sounds good to me - we have two back-up plans which I am sure we can quickly compare and contrast if needed.

Hopefully, 1 v 1 will generally balance out as you imagine though.

Finally, I am glad to announce that this map can be stamped:



OK, I'm off down to the DIY shop now, better get prepared for some build-your-own action.

Maybe that graphics stamper is about? The maps looking good to me!

[MrBenn]

Thanks for the graphics stamp - it's been a bit of an effort to say the least!

It's been a while since there were any graphics nitpicks.... bring them on!

[the.killing.44]

Wow I thought that would never come … nitpick:

SIGN

Are you bent on keeping it?

.44

[MrBenn]

I've got to the stage where I only want to refine things now - I don;t have any plans to redo the sign, unless somebody can give me a visual example of something that looks better

The nitpicks that I've gleaned from the last couple of pages are as follows:

1. Slight pixellation on the lines in the sea.
2. Wording on the legend

The other thing on my to-do list is the small map.

[MrBenn]

I've smoothened out the pixellated border in the sea, and have made some other minor tweaks... Including a subtle change to the build-your-own-bonuses (for 10/11/13/15 terrs etc) which shouldn't have any effect on the gameplay issues discussed ad nauseum over recent weeks

Thew most noticeable thing I've done is to get a working copy of the small map together - so without further ado, please meet the new baby map:

[Danyael]

did you brighten the roads ?
they look great nice and sutble and not distracting almost resembles vains pumping life thru out england
i cannot wait to 1v1 this
small map is great can read everything nicely far back from the screen
the poem is the only thing that is tough to make out
maybe a slight notch darker but only a % or 5 but only on small map
large map is 100% perfect in my eyes

[saaimen]

the poem is the only thing that is tough to make out
maybe a slight notch darker but only a % or 5 but only on small map
large map is 100% perfect in my eyes

Agreed!
Nice job rearranging for the small map

And a late congratulations for the GP stamp!

[pamoa]

for me this map is one of the best graphic we have here around
who is your lazy graphic stamper...
tiny remark I found your territory texts a bit blurry

excellent job

[MrBenn]

Thanks pamoa

I'll have a look and see if I can do anything about the text for you.

[yeti_c]

Personally I don't like the poem...

Let me rephrase that - I like the poem - but not on your map... the "Green and Pleasant Land" subtitle says all that is necessary... the poem is overkill and feels clunky.

C.

[MrBenn]

Personally I don't like the poem...

Let me rephrase that - I like the poem - but not on your map... the "Green and Pleasant Land" subtitle says all that is necessary... the poem is overkill and feels clunky.

C.

I nearly left it off the small map completely - I had to move it to get the three lions to fit properly... I have no qualms about taking it off the small map, and agree it looks clunky on there. As for the large map, I think it fits a bit better there...

[MrBenn]

Bumped images for the latest page...

[WidowMakers]

This is a sweet looking map.

I love the water and colors of the map.

A couple suggestions:

1) The legend in the small map could use a bit bigger font. The text looks a bit pixelated
2) On maps maybe Westmorland could be move to the top of the tert and eliminate the hyphen
3) Same with Northumberland

WM

[gimil]

Hi Benn,

I have just noticed that the 'S' in Scotland seems almost invisable and looks like 'cotland'.

Apart from that, good work.

[Phobia]

Really looking forward to this map, looks like it's gonna be another one of my favourites! Gutted you chucked South Yorkshire off, but never mind

[brian fletcher]

shouldnt Derby be derbyshire? it doesnt bother me in the slightest and if you say its an abbreviation then fine. but as far as im aware derby is a city and derbyshire is a county.
the graphics are tremendous on this map. well done