Age of Strategy Forums

I noticed a few things. It is much better for fairer maps. But it only calculates space not pathways. Here's is what I mean: All the tc's are x spaces away from the starting points, but, because of mountains, some take way longer to get to some.

My suggestion: Maybe it could be dependent on pathways. I'll upload a photo of how I mean. Maybe you can understand it, if not, please comment. It is numbering from the edges of the player placement the amount of turn pathways to every other space. Forest=2 water=3 I got bored halfway through so there's only catalogued for two players. Please comment on the idea.

Another thing to consider is that there are only 2 symmetrical maps. Guadalcanal random map, for example, is very UNsymmetrical, but also very balanced. IMO

So that's the way it places maps now or that's how you are suggesting it should be?

This is my suggestion. idk if it is feasible codewise; I'm just looking at theoretics and if anyone else thinks it's a good idea.

The way it is now is pretty much empty tc's are randomly placed equal distance from the start points. But some maps do not work this way necessarily (ie Guadalcanal), and on large maps with 2 players, sometimes only have the map is used anyway.

Like this: tc's are placed with 13 "points" (movement spaces) away from red and blue. So they are put at the 7-1,5-3;4-4;3-5,1-7 (red-blue) for an equal of 13 "points".

Sounds logical and reasonable...it also sounds a lot like the way it's setting up the maps since the last update...but we'd have to ask Daniel, since he writes the code...i haven't actually seen the code for the game except what samples Daniel has put up for map triggering and such...sounds good, though!!

I will read tru ( first glance was not enough).
I am happy if we could figure out a good generation logic!
BUT dont forget the 5 and 6 player games! ( however we can have different logic to them)

Daniel, couldn't the same logic algorithm be used for any given number of players and just be adjusted for that and for map size?

5-6 players will complicate a bit, but I think the logic is the same. I think there should be room for +- "points" because it will be hard for it to be exactly even. And I don't think some maps we have now can be "even" (they are "balanced").

i think i understand the sample, but found that there is only slight difference to the current version, only that the current version calculates distance on "areal" logic (air distance).
so this seems that the current logic is totally the same if we have a homogeneous grass map, is it?

It seems to be, judging by the sample shown...

Yes that is the difference. Throw in some mountains and water and that is where this suggestion is different.

But it's the same basic logic, just explained differently...it ends up being pretty much the same in a practical application...

But mine counts path instead of airspace.

Coo, as long as it works!!

Yes, this would make a subtle, but important change towards balancing the game out.

Once again, it's up to Daniel...he'd have to write the code...

(it is easy changing the airspace to path.)
my problem with the current is this, i try to draw you.
if you have only 2 players than almost half of the map will not be used with the current algorithm... so i am thinking about changing it somehow.
same problem on 3 players (a corner will be deserted).
(you can check this if you create a large map eg. 40x40 and see how TCs are aligned)

I thin it should always generate like there are
4 player or always.like six.

Patroid

Ah, yes I see.

patroid wrote:I thin it should always generate like there are
4 player or always.like six.

Patroid

I have to disagree on this point...if it always generates TC's as though there are 4 or 6 players, even if you're only playing a 2-player match, players could start out close together with huge expanses of unoccupied land/TC's, especially on very large maps...

I thin it should always generate like there are
4 player or always.like six.

it is ready, up on server.

this way: if fewer playres than 4 than he generates imaginary player position on the empty corners (so imagines up to 4 players)

Cool...thanks, Daniel...I'll check out our as soon as i get a chance...(very busy today...)