Page 6 of 34
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 5:13 am
by Skittles!
Will this map have like, traps in it to kill your men like in the
Cube movies?
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:00 am
by Tieryn
^^ While I like the idea, it's impractical unless they're randomised. Maybe I should create some sort of ridiculous algorithm that determines which are the "safe" rooms
but eventually, everyone will learn where they are and it will be a stupid advantage to those who had never played the map before, and hence impractical.
notes on wording: Call the spheres (or speres in the first text) vertices?
Also it would be a 1x1 square, since you usually talk edge length rather than corners.
I'd almost just call them 1x1 squares, rather than miniSquares. that word is just a bit long to fit in nicely.
Also, if you make the - a : it should move my name away from the C1E text. I wonder if you shouldn't use W,X,Y,Z for the vertical plane, to move the letters away from ABCD.
Maybe even PQRS for the flat faces, and remove numbers entirely?
Can I see it with the following wording:
Code: Select all
There are
64 vertices.
4 adjacent
vertices
connected
to form a
1x1 square
give +1
(108 possible) <-smaller font
6 adjacent
squares
connected
to form a
1x1x1 cube
give +3
(27 possible) <-smaller font
A square
or cube
containing
one of 8 yellow
centre vertices
receives an extra
+1 bonus, counted
once only.
The comment on the yellow vertices logically needs to come at the end. I prefer the progression from Vertex to Square to Cube. throw out the word "mini" since it's irrelevant. They aren't minicubes... they are cubes
and they aren't minisquares, they are squares... size is irrelevant to their basic mathematical structure and name
Defining them as 1x1 and 1x1x1 will get the point across.
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:12 am
by Tieryn
Also, I've just updated my excel file to do bonus simulation... Whee that was fun
Anyway.. I've run 100 simulations with randomly selected territories for each player, for 2 through to 8 player games: Here's the results
Code: Select all
Games >1 bonus
8 player 6/100
7 player 16/100
6 player 23/100 >5 bonus >10 bonus >20 bonus
5 player 31/100 2/100 1/100
4 player 55/100 5/100 1/100
3 player 60/100 24/100 8/100 2/100
2 player 55/100 21/100 11/100
Mostly the bonuses were well spread. There were about 4 occasions (in 2 player or 3 player games) where one player had a distinct advantage, but usually most players had a fair spread. If some were clumped in one place, others would be clumped in another. Makes sense really...
I'm fairly sure these figures would be below the prospective bonuses for a map such as pearl harbour, and given the ease of attack directions, and ease of breaking bonuses and difficulty to hold them, I suspect that the initial drop would not be as game deciding as people are discussing...
Comments?
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:42 pm
by paulk
Tieryn wrote:Also, I've just updated my excel file to do bonus simulation ... I'm fairly sure these figures would be below the prospective bonuses for a map such as pearl harbour, and given the ease of attack directions, and ease of breaking bonuses and difficulty to hold them, I suspect that the initial drop would not be as game deciding as people are discussing.
Just as I thought. Great that you did the simulation.
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:29 pm
by paulk
1) balls, spheres or vertices? I think spheres are more commonly understood than vertices, and more fitting to the futuristic feeling of the map than balls.
2) miniSquares fits with miniCubes, and are easy understood.
3) 1x1 cube or 2x2 cube? 1x1=1 and 2x2=4. there are 4 spheres in a miniSquare, therefore I belive 2x2 is the best choice.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:53 am
by Tieryn
paulk wrote:1) balls, spheres or vertices? I think spheres are more commonly understood than vertices, and more fitting to the futuristic feeling of the map than balls.
2) miniSquares fits with miniCubes, and are easy understood.
3) 1x1 cube or 2x2 cube? 1x1=1 and 2x2=4. there are 4 spheres in a miniSquare, therefore I belive 2x2 is the best choice.
1) More commonly understood doesn't mean more accurate. The word "vertices" is easily definable, although I am willing to bend on this point if you prefer spheres. I suppose that adequately describes the territories.
2) "squares" and "cubes" are easily understood. mini is really irrelevant to the whole situation. My suggestion is the word 'mini' is entirely removed, I think it sounds corny anyway
A cube is a cube, regardless of size. see point 3) for ease of identification and defintion
3) when you describe the length of a square, you describe it by length of side, rather than number of corners... a 1x1 square has an area of 1 unit^2. 2x2 implies an area of 4 units^2 which these do not have. A 2x2 square would look like this to my mind
Code: Select all
1 2 x
.___.___.
| | | 1
.___.___.
| | | 2
.___.___.
And from a purely maths perspective (which is where I come from, remember) the term "2x2 square" and "2x2x2 cube" is factually inaccurate to describe what you are describing.
Also the fact of using 1x1 lets everyone know, without a shadow of a doubt, that we are talking only about the SMALLEST possible squares and the SMALLEST possible cubes (hence removing the need for "mini" by using the smallest possible integer - 1)
A cube does not exist with only one ball. That's just a ball.. and hence the first length (1) needs to be 1x1.
I'm not saying this just to be talking, but this is something that really does need to be changed. 2x2 is simply wrong.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:58 am
by Tieryn
So using the word spheres isn't going to be my sticking point. My main concern is the definition of the bonuses.
Could I please see an update with the following words (or could others comment on the wording please)
Code: Select all
There are
64 spheres.
4 adjacent
spheres
connected
to form a
1x1 square
give +1
(108 possible) <-smaller font
6 adjacent
squares
connected
to form a
1x1x1 cube
give +3
(27 possible) <-smaller font
A square
or cube
containing
one of 8 yellow
centre spheres
receives an extra
+1 bonus, counted
once only.
On a 4th note: in running my simulation, a majority of the "ridiculous" bonuses that happened (once one player had 16, and the others none, in a 3 player game) only occured due to the centre 8 yellow spheres.
If these 8 spheres were to start neutral in every game, firstly, it would mean it is not possible to hold a cube from the outset (a good result), and secondly, it would drastically reduce the number of available starting squares that could be held from 108 to 54 (only the outer faces being held would give a bonus, anything inside needs one of the yellows). This would significantly reduce the numbers in my above simulation, as well as removing the "+20" ones towards 2/3 player games... i think it would be a very good idea. Even if they only started with 3 neutrals each. Not huge, but enough to stop the initial drop being game deciding (in some but not heaps of cases)
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:40 pm
by Poisonflood
I have been fantasing a lot about this map. I want to play the cube-thingy. Really really really. I really do. Also I'm wasted. Doesn't change the fact that I'm willing to play the frigging cube. Getting all wet and horny.
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:36 pm
by oaktown
a month ago I expressed concern about the transparency of the bars between the spheres, vertices, whatever. Makes it a bit confusing to see what goes behind what.
As for the legend, well, I thought I understood the map until I read it. Seems like you are, indeed, talking about a 1x1 square (of which there are 108), in which case I wouldn't put the 1x1 in there at all.
And will the +1 yellow sphere bonus be an auto-placement?
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:38 am
by Tieryn
My suggestion is that the yellow spheres (with their added influence to bonuses, as well as being key components to over 50% of bonuses) started as neutrals, to avoid chance drops being ridiculous. This would give 7 territ's each in an 8 player game, 8 in a 7 player, 9 in a 6 player, 11 & 1 neut in a 5 player, 16 in a 4 player and 18 in 3 or 2 player... Even numbers for all. 56 is a nice number, map wise... for all but 5 player games.
I'll re-do my simulations this weekend using the centre spheres as neutral to begin with, and I'll see how they come up.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:18 am
by paulk
Tieryn wrote:My suggestion is that the yellow spheres (with their added influence to bonuses, as well as being key components to over 50% of bonuses) started as neutrals, to avoid chance drops being ridiculous.
Personally I don't like neutrals. I think they make a boring game where you work around them rather than attacking them.
There is always a risk of that the first player get a lot of bonuses, but since the bonuses on this map are more quantitive than qualitive I think most games could live with it. In a few cases someone is going to get an extreamly lucky drop, as on many other maps. There are ways to prevent it, like neutrals, but they make the game more boring.
An other version of the map could then be that all spheres start as neutral exept the corner stones, like the age of realms map, but .... naaah.
Lets just keep it simple shall we? No death traps, safe rooms, neutrals, or too many bonus combinations, just pure and simple kill or be killed.
The reason that I dont just say auto deploy +1 on a yellow is that I think you should work for it, and to keep a miniSquare a turn with one or more yellow spheres, I don't think that is going to be easy.
In fact, I don't think it is going to be easy to keep any bonuses on this map, and that is what makes it a worthy challenge.
And if anyone should be extreamly lucky in the drop, the chance that that players bonuses will be destroyed next players turn is pretty good, especially if it is a 3 or more player game.
In short, dont worry too much about the initial bonuses, it will be fine, you will see.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:22 am
by paulk
Poisonflood wrote:I have been fantasing a lot about this map. I want to play the cube-thingy. Really really really. I really do. Also I'm wasted. Doesn't change the fact that I'm willing to play the frigging cube. Getting all wet and horny.
That must be the most hilarious comment so far. Send me pictures if you are a girl, lol. Show me the snail trail.
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:30 am
by Tieryn
oaktown wrote:a month ago I expressed concern about the transparency of the bars between the spheres, vertices, whatever. Makes it a bit confusing to see what goes behind what.
As for the legend, well, I thought I understood the map until I read it. Seems like you are, indeed, talking about a 1x1 square (of which there are 108), in which case I wouldn't put the 1x1 in there at all.
And will the +1 yellow sphere bonus be an auto-placement?
Also, sorry oak, I misread this before... upon re-reading, I agree...
'4 adjacent spheres to form a square' '6 adjacent squares to form a cube' is more than easily understandable, it's flat out simple!
In terms of the graphics, I thought the way that lines were coloured and the basic mathematical structure (and territory naming structure, if the ABCD on the ends get changed to a WXYZ, we could have an A-D axis, a 1-4 axis and a W-Z axis... This structure makes the attack routes easier to see, and the coloured lines make it easy for me to see at least what attacks what. It just requires you to put your head into 3d mode.
Also - what do you mean by "auto-placement"? as in, everyone starts with a yellow sphere??? that's a pretty good idea, although I was toying the other direction, in that, no-body starts with a yellow sphere... either option (with the others being neutral in <8 player games) would preclude anyone starting with a yellow-sphere square (which is about 56/108 of them). I like this as an option to reduce the chance of bonus drops... what do you think paulk? and others?
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:47 am
by paulk
Tieryn wrote:what do you think paulk?
as I said in previous post (p. 11) - I don't like neutrals. I don't want any starting neutrals.
'4 adjacent spheres to form a square' '6 adjacent squares to form a cube' is fine with me if it is ok with everybody else.
The only thing I am concerned about is if it should, or should not, be called a miniCube instead of a cube.
And if '6 adjacent squares' is called a miniCube, then should '4 adjacent spheres' be called a square or a miniSquare?
I want everybody to butt in on this with their think caps on so we can settle this long drawn discussion about the text. (In my eyes simple game options that shouldn't be to hard to understand for any regular person.)
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:29 am
by paulk
Good?
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:50 am
by Tieryn
Okay, so no starting neutrals... the other suggested option was that each of the yellow territories was assigned to a player (each player starts with one yellow) so in less than 8 player games, the others would be neutral to start (but this is unavoidable in some #player games), and much better for gameplay if they yellows are neutral rather than other random territories.
The benefits of this are that they hugely reduce the chance of getting a starting bonus of any kind, and then it would only be a +2 square at the most. (can't make +3 or all yellow squares) and this is done without neutraling most territories. In a 4 player game, a player might start with two (opposite) yellow spheres? I'm not 100% sure how position works yet, can someone who knows it better chime in here?
As far as wording goes, I like it. Much easier to understand. I don't mind "minicube" but "minisquare" wasn't doing anything for me at all. The squares weren't mini, they were squares... I like it the way it is now. Just on quick glance, some of the lines, such as A3E-B3E, doesn't follow perfectly into B3E-C3E... This is something that I think will need to be tweaked to get graphics passed... but since there is a bit of extra space now on the wording side, perhaps we can shift things over there and straighten up those skews?
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:05 am
by paulk
sounds like a good idea to start with divided yellow spheres.
about the tweaking of the design, I thought I gave you a psd file?
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:25 am
by Tieryn
yeah, but I've not had much time to fiddle with graphics, and I didn't realise I was taking them over
. I hope not. Plus any graphics updates I did would need to go back to you anyway. better to keep them in one location methinks.
Also, I don't have the fonts you've used.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:33 pm
by FreeMan10
I'm very confused now.
4 spheres makes a square - I get that.
6 spheres makes a... rectangle if it's in one plane, or an "L" if it's in two planes.
8 spheres makes a cube. And, there's no way on this map to have a cube without having a central yellow sphere...
Wow. Bells just went off as I was typing this. You switch from spheres to squares in the legend and in the comments above. I kept on reading spheres when you meant squares. The cube bonus may be better worded to indicate 8 spheres to make a cube, instead of 6 squares.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:14 pm
by paulk
FreeMan10 wrote:I'm very confused now.
4 spheres makes a square - I get that.
6 spheres makes a... rectangle if it's in one plane, or an "L" if it's in two planes.
8 spheres makes a cube. And, there's no way on this map to have a cube without having a central yellow sphere...
Wow. Bells just went off as I was typing this. You switch from spheres to squares in the legend and in the comments above. I kept on reading spheres when you meant squares. The cube bonus may be better worded to indicate 8 spheres to make a cube, instead of 6 squares.
You are absolutely right. I was thinking about that too.
Anyone else agree on that it is better descibed as 8 adjacent spheres instead of 6 adjacent squares?
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:36 pm
by Mr Tumbler
8 adjacent spheres (2x2x2)
To specify how they are adjacent.
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:10 pm
by Tieryn
Mr Tumbler wrote:8 adjacent spheres (2x2x2)
To specify how they are adjacent.
2x2x2 is unnecessary... There is only one possible way that 8 adjacent spheres can join to make a cube.
I agree with the 8 adjacent spheres compared with 6 adjacent squares... that was one of the reasons I was angling for "vertices" before. Because squares/spheres is very much alike.
I'd be happy with 4 adjacent spheres to make a square. 8 adjacent spheres to make a cube. (or minicube!)
I still don't like "minisquare"
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:45 pm
by paulk
If there is only one possible way that 8 adjacent spheres can join to make a cube that is what the text will say.
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:16 pm
by oaktown
I see that the legend continues to be a sticking point on this map. How about
showing what you mean, rather than just
telling what you mean? You have the space to illustrate everything.
Start with an image of a sphere, and say:
O
There are 64 vertices.
[]
Connect four vertices to make a square:
+1
[]
Connect eight vertices to make a cube:
+3
Hold a yellow vertex within a square or cube for an additional +1
Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:49 am
by Tieryn
oaktown wrote:I see that the legend continues to be a sticking point on this map. How about
showing what you mean, rather than just
telling what you mean? You have the space to illustrate everything.
Start with an image of a sphere, and say:
O
There are 64 vertices.
[]
Connect four vertices to make a square:
+1
[]
Connect eight vertices to make a cube:
+3
Hold a yellow vertex within a square or cube for an additional +1
You mean
. //|
.[]/
I like this idea. perhaps...
Each yellow vertex within a square or cube gives an additional +1
(addition of the word each)
I still really prefer the use of the word "vertex" or "vertices" to sphere... what has a sphere got to do with a cube? It throws the whole maths of the map out to me, which I find the most beautiful part.