Clandemonium [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

[Dako]

Yes, I don't like mirror maps as well. But 2,2,2 neutrals are much stronger than 3,3. Remember that you are leaving 1 troop behind for each terr you conquer.

[natty dread]

Yes, I don't like mirror maps as well. But 2,2,2 neutrals are much stronger than 3,3. Remember that you are leaving 1 troop behind for each terr you conquer.

Yes, but that can also be considered. Make it 2,2,2 and 3,4 for example - that will offset the 1 more troop you have to leave behind.

Still, I would like the idea of putting the portals closer on those areas that have harder access to clan grounds. This would give the areas different strengths.

[ManBungalow]

I'm bumping this in the hope that we can get some more debate going regarding the inital neutral deployment. Then I'll be able to e-pencil them into the XML.

[Blitzaholic]

He means that some Landing Points have 2 terrs between Clans grounds, and some have 3. He wants all of them be an equal number (2 for example).

I'd rather see those areas balanced another way, like making them have easier access to portals.

Or, if you don't want to change territory connections... all this would be easy to solve with some creative neutral values. For example, those that have 3 territories could have 2 neutrals and those who have 2 territories could have 3 neutrals on the territories. This way each starting point will have to slay the same amount of neutrals to get to the clans ground, no matter if there's 3 or 2 territories in between.

I like some variation to starting points. Makes you have to adapt your strategy according to the drop.

If the blue guys give us permission and Kab does not mind making that slight change, I would be ok with this, then Bunga could wrap up the xml, let us know cartographers. Are you ok with this Kab if blue men agree?

[Kabanellas]

Totally

[Blitzaholic]

He means that some Landing Points have 2 terrs between Clans grounds, and some have 3. He wants all of them be an equal number (2 for example).

I'd rather see those areas balanced another way, like making them have easier access to portals.

Or, if you don't want to change territory connections... all this would be easy to solve with some creative neutral values. For example, those that have 3 territories could have 2 neutrals and those who have 2 territories could have 3 neutrals on the territories. This way each starting point will have to slay the same amount of neutrals to get to the clans ground, no matter if there's 3 or 2 territories in between.

I like some variation to starting points. Makes you have to adapt your strategy according to the drop.

If the blue guys give us permission and Kab does not mind making that slight change, I would be ok with this, then Bunga could wrap up the xml, let us know cartographers. Are you ok with this Kab if blue men agree?

Totally

ok, waiting on the blue men.

[Blitzaholic]

any input on this cartographers?

[natty dread]

any input on this cartographers?

Just do it man. It's not a huge change, just switching some neutrals... if they complain you can always change them back.

[thenobodies80]

Sorry my fault. I was busy with other things and i forgot to warn the gameplay guys about this.

Btw, kab no way to see an improvement in the title? i'm happy with the whole map (the new portals are good) but the title let me perplexed.....

[natty dread]

I agree, the title seems a bit bland... Spice it up a bit. I think it could look better rising up from the image instead of sinking in...

[danfrank]

I feel like a broken record. I will try to take make it as simple as possible. The obvious first target is going to be the clans grounds for the auto deploy of 3. All landing ground areas need to conquer 2 terts to reach the portal. I feel the portal will have no significant value until troops are built up in the later rounds. Thus the first meaningful position will be the landing ground ( LG )

So heres the breakdown and the sly remarks to go with it.. The board clearly favors THOTA , which i am not surprised since they are the maker , EMPIRE and TSM ( did these clans have input on this map ) They need only conquer 2 spaces to reach each of their LG`s .


LOW 3 and 4
Legion 3 and 4
AOD 2 and 5
Imperial Dragoons 2 and 3
Immortal Assasins 2 and 3
Tofu 2 and 3
Bss 2 and 3

Clearly this is unbalanced and would be a disappointment for the site to promote a map which doesnt allow for fair play . The scenario i laid out is the most logical. I could even take it a step further if you like . BSS needs to conquer 4 spaces to reach LG DD and the Empire need only conquer 2 to reach the same LG . Thota needs to conquer 2 spaces to reach LG AOC and Low needs to conquer 3 to reach the same LG. What say you

[natty dread]

This is being addressed already...

[Evil DIMwit]

He means that some Landing Points have 2 terrs between Clans grounds, and some have 3. He wants all of them be an equal number (2 for example).

I'd rather see those areas balanced another way, like making them have easier access to portals.

Or, if you don't want to change territory connections... all this would be easy to solve with some creative neutral values. For example, those that have 3 territories could have 2 neutrals and those who have 2 territories could have 3 neutrals on the territories. This way each starting point will have to slay the same amount of neutrals to get to the clans ground, no matter if there's 3 or 2 territories in between.

I like some variation to starting points. Makes you have to adapt your strategy according to the drop.

If the blue guys give us permission and Kab does not mind making that slight change, I would be ok with this, then Bunga could wrap up the xml, let us know cartographers. Are you ok with this Kab if blue men agree?

Seems fair, but I'd recommend each landing point have the same number of each neutral values within the realm, so that they have the same overall expansion potential.

[Blitzaholic]

I feel like a broken record. I will try to take make it as simple as possible. The obvious first target is going to be the clans grounds for the auto deploy of 3. All landing ground areas need to conquer 2 terts to reach the portal. I feel the portal will have no significant value until troops are built up in the later rounds. Thus the first meaningful position will be the landing ground ( LG )

So heres the breakdown and the sly remarks to go with it.. The board clearly favors THOTA , which i am not surprised since they are the maker , EMPIRE and TSM ( did these clans have input on this map ) They need only conquer 2 spaces to reach each of their LG`s .


LOW 3 and 4
Legion 3 and 4
AOD 2 and 5
Imperial Dragoons 2 and 3
Immortal Assasins 2 and 3
Tofu 2 and 3
Bss 2 and 3

Clearly this is unbalanced and would be a disappointment for the site to promote a map which doesnt allow for fair play . The scenario i laid out is the most logical. I could even take it a step further if you like . BSS needs to conquer 4 spaces to reach LG DD and the Empire need only conquer 2 to reach the same LG . Thota needs to conquer 2 spaces to reach LG AOC and Low needs to conquer 3 to reach the same LG. What say you

thx dan, was just waiting on the blue men was all, whenever Kab gets around to do it, i am sure he will make the change, thank you very much for your input, it is appreciated.

[Kabanellas]

Ok ..but we still have 2 options here:

-we change the terrs to make all distances between Landing Points (LP) and Clan Grounds (CG) the same - which will mean a sort of a symmetric map.

-or, we add different values of starting neutrals in the terrs that link Landing Points to Clan Grounds (like someone said before - I believe Natty). Also, clans that have large neutral troops to overrun in the terrs that link LP to CG (will happen in the smaller distances) should have less neutral troops in the other terrs inside their Zone, to compensate.

The second option seems more rich in terms of gameplay, and could create different approaches to the map, depending on which point a player starts.
Distance to the portals could also be changed (for ex. a clan with a Landing Point closer to Clan Grounds could have his portal appearing further away*...


*one could, of course, argue that having a portal near a Landing Point would be worst for defensive purposes, than having it placed far away...

[natty dread]

Yeah, I'd suggest going for the neutral values route.

So according to danfrank there are routes from LP:s to CG:s ranging from 2 territories to 5.

When we consider that a player has to leave 1 troop to every territory he passes, the number of territories should also affect the calculation. Thus the total number of troops to be put on the territories should be reduced in steps of 1 so that we'd have, for example:

2 territories - total 8
3 territories - total 7
4 territories - total 6
5 territories - total 5

So this way, when there's 5 territories in between, each territory would have 1 neutral.
4 territories would be 2,2,1,1.
3 territories would be 3,2,2.
2 territories would be 4,4.

Then, we would have to add together the total neutral counts on both routes from the LP.
Then you substract this figure from the total amount of neutrals you want for each clan area, and then you sprinkle the remainder on the remaining territories.

This plan should cover all aspects of the problem. Hope you like it

[natty dread]

Edit. on second thought, it would be better to do in such a way that all territories on the routes would have at least 2. 1:s are much easier to attack, giving advantage to those with 1:s on their way.

So the route with 5 territories should have a total of 10, so let's go up from there...

5 territories = 10 troops total
4 territories = 11 troops total
3 territories = 12 troops total
2 territories = 13 troops total

So then we arrive at neutral values such as these:

5 territories: 2,2,2,2,2
4 territories: 3,3,3,2
3 territories: 4,4,4
2 territories: 6,7

These may seem a bit high, but at least they are fair...

(on third thought, I probably should just have edited my first post, but, meh...)

[Blitzaholic]

Edit. on second thought, it would be better to do in such a way that all territories on the routes would have at least 2. 1:s are much easier to attack, giving advantage to those with 1:s on their way.

So the route with 5 territories should have a total of 10, so let's go up from there...

5 territories = 10 troops total
4 territories = 11 troops total
3 territories = 12 troops total
2 territories = 13 troops total

So then we arrive at neutral values such as these:

5 territories: 2,2,2,2,2
4 territories: 3,3,3,2
3 territories: 4,4,4
2 territories: 6,7

These may seem a bit high, but at least they are fair...

(on third thought, I probably should just have edited my first post, but, meh...)

those are a bit too high.

[Blitzaholic]

He means that some Landing Points have 2 terrs between Clans grounds, and some have 3. He wants all of them be an equal number (2 for example).

I think we just add an extra neutral on the territories that have 2 terr. between clan grounds to help balance it some, so some neutral lands have 2 per territory and some have 3 per territory. Is this a little better? What you think Kab?

The landing points is where all start from, the clans grounds will each have 7 neutrals on each one of them as well as the portals having 7 neutrals on each one of them, the Pinnacle also has 7 neutrals but can one way attack any landing points, but on the start of your next turn the pinnacle resets to 7 neutrals again. All other lands have 2 neutrals, but, perhaps we should have some lands having 3 neutrals to have a little more balance. So, I suggest we keep it all the same and have a few territories have 3 neutrals and leave the rest at 2.

[Kabanellas]

Sounds good to me.... I'd just like to find a couple of spare 'seconds' to analyse everything properly...

other values that we could also adjust, depending on the terrain characteristics, could be the starting troops in every Landing Point. Making an initially less appealing LP start with more troops than a more advantageous one.

[Kabanellas]

I've been analysing all distances between Clan Grounds and Landing Points while checking all odds on a first move/round.

I'm proposing some adjustments on starting troops for each starting position (Landing Points) rather than increase all neutral values on map.

This table (posted below) helped me to balance all numbers and odds:

-you can see the number of regions between Landing Points and Clan Grounds for each Clan
-the proposed starting neutral troops appearing on them
-the proposed starting troops for each starting position
-the odds of reaching each Clan Ground from its respective LP - counted the starting troops + 3 (LP auto deploy) + 3 region bonus
-the relation between the odds of getting a CG by a clan and the odds of that same CG being get by its neighbour - you can see that Angels of Death have a 25,8% chance of getting the nearest CG while the neighbouring Clan (Imperial Dragoons) have a 21,4%


had to rearrange portals positions in THOTA and Legends of War regions to balance things a bit.

Click image to enlarge.

Neutral troop positions
All neutral starters are 2, unless stated otherwise

Click image to enlarge.

EDIT: Deep Portals will start with 7 neutral troops as well

[Blitzaholic]

I've been analysing all distances between Clan Grounds and Landing Points while checking all odds on a first move/round.

I'm proposing some adjustments on starting troops for each starting position (Landing Points) rather than increase all neutral values on map.

This table (posted below) helped me to balance all numbers and odds:

-you can see the number of regions between Landing Points and Clan Grounds for each Clan
-the proposed starting neutral troops appearing on them
-the proposed starting troops for each starting position
-the odds of reaching each Clan Ground from its respective LP - counted the starting troops + 3 (LP auto deploy) + 3 region bonus
-the relation between the odds of getting a CG by a clan and the odds of that same CG being get by its neighbour - you can see that Angels of Death has 25,8% chance of getting the nearest CG while the neighbouring Clan (Imperial Dragoons) has a 21,4%


had to rearrange portals positions in THOTA and Legends of War regions to balance things a bit.

Click image to enlarge.

Neutral troop positions
All neutral starters are 2, unless stated otherwise

Click image to enlarge.

EDIT: Deep Portals will start with 7 neutral troops as well

have you also considered that the starting or landing points all are auto +3 troops every round?

[Kabanellas]

yes.... the Odds will escalate for both sides.

take Angels of Death for instance:

in the second round they will have 19 (7+3+3+3+3)

wich will represent a 70,1% chance of taking Kort - The Imperial Dragoons (this side neighbour) will have 18 troops, meaning a 70,2 chance of getting it

on the other front, in Myth - Angels will have a 38,9% chance of taking it, while The Legion will have 34,6%

all sides have equivalent odds of taking the respective Clan Ground 'buffer'

[Blitzaholic]

yes.... the Odds will escalate for both sides.

take Angels of Death for instance:

in the second round they will have 19 (7+3+3+3+3)

wich will represent a 70,1% chance of taking Kort - The Imperial Dragoons (this side neighbour) will have 18 troops, meaning a 70,2 chance of getting it

on the other front, in Myth - Angels will have a 38,9% chance of taking it, while The Legion will have 34,6%

all sides have equivalent odds of taking the respective Clan Ground 'buffer'

ok, well this last update looks a little more balanced and validates some of the masses, if this looks good to you as well Kab, I think we should wrap this up rather soon and finalize the graphics and so bunga can complete the xml.

[Kabanellas]

I think that with this values the starting positions (landing points) are quite balanced now. We'll still have all Beta phase to adjust anything we need.

Bunga has all the info he needs atm to adjust the XML now