Big maps, few players: Balance?

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I think it's more a single extremely vocal player, than a collection of other players.

Well Gandalf has told us the most popular downloads are the largest size maps(400+). No opinions... just FACTS.

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by NTJedi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
I think it's more a single extremely vocal player, than a collection of other players.

Well Gandalf has told us the most popular downloads are the largest size maps(400+). No opinions... just FACTS.

---

Well thats the most popular on my site. I was just surprised that anyone other than me was willing to play on such monsters. I wouldnt expect alot of interest in my small maps since they are ugly and we now have such excellent ones manually made. I think if we compared the huge and epic downloads from my site, with the map downloads from Illwinters site (most of the small-medium maps are there) we would discover that Dom2 players cover the whole range rather nicely.

I would point out though that there is apparently a need for someone to take one of my Epic sized maps, make it pretty (I can explain how some paint program commands can help alot there), make it interesting (the biggest request is for uncrossable mountains to create zones and chokepoints). The new Faerun map is I think the only Epic sized map we have other than the random ones.

[ May 26, 2004, 17:11: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

[PvK]

Responding to original question, without full quoting:

* Size and players affect balance a lot, but large maps don't "break" balance. They just change it. I'd say that small maps with many players are the most unbalanced, because there are fewer options and super-combattants and first-strikes are favored. When there is plenty of room, then there are many more options, god choice is less important, and everyone has time and opportunity to come up with something effective to do. Initial strength may be relatively less important than on crowded maps, but it's still useful for kick-starting initial growth, which tends to be a self-reinforcing effect.

"Are non-recuperating combating pretenders like wyrm or cyclops more useless in bigger maps, as they have to fight more in a longer game, hence getting more afflictions?"

Nothing is entirely useless, and "more useless" is a contradiction in terms.

Players who think non-recuperating combat pretenders are ineffective, want to have their cake and eat it too, without having to take any risks or learn how to fight effectively or manage risks.

Focusing on affliction risk doesn't make sense to me, although on a simple level, if you want to kamikaze your pretender recklessly as much as possible, then yes this will be an effect.

Large maps do reduce the importance of pretenders, and especially combat pretenders, for the basic reason that there is only one of them, so they are a smaller part of a larger world. In a large world, even if you have nothing that can beat an enemy pretender, you can easily win if you can consistently beat his other armies. If the map is so small that there are few armies, few battles, it becomes hard to avoid a single ultra-powerful unit.

"Are researching/rainbow pretenders less useful in smaller maps?"

I'd say so. Especially if a combat pretender can show up at your doorstep in the first few turns, before you can develop a counter.

PvK

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by PvK:
Are non-recuperating combating pretenders like wyrm or cyclops more useless in bigger maps, as they have to fight more in a longer game, hence getting more afflictions

As you yourself mentioned, the advantage granted by, and utility of, an SC declines late game: Non-recuperating, "budget" combat pretenders like a Wyrm or Cyclops, which generally provides a secondary function in addition to his role as an SC, such as primarily scales or a blessing, and what gains you were able to reap with him early game.

Players who think non-recuperating combat pretenders are ineffective, want to have their cake and eat it too, without having to take any risks or learn how to fight effectively or manage risks.

Focusing on affliction risk doesn't make sense to me, although on a simple level, if you want to kamikaze your pretender recklessly as much as possible, then yes this will be an effect.

Even if you fight fairly conservatively, afflictions happen. Of course, afflictions can be cured with modest effort, and if you're fielding a high-affliction risk SC, you should be planning either medical leave or a better HMO plan. This is hardly an arduous chore that renders your SC useless.

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by PvK:

If the map is so small that there are few armies, few battles, it becomes hard to avoid a single ultra-powerful unit.

That's one of the many reasons I like super large maps. Another reason is huge maps mean there will be huge armies ! Another reason is its very unlikely another human opponent can rush attack you.

[ May 26, 2004, 21:16: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

[PvK]

Norfleet: Yep, and yep. I agree.

[Chazar]

Very nice so far thanks! Hmm, but the polls seem to say that people are not playing with too few nations on too big maps. So I guess its not that much of a general problem. Nevertheless I am interested in this topic, as I want to use a big map with few friends playing PBEM and we decided against the AI, and as the game takes some time to play I want to make sure it will be interesting and that no one gets a disadvantage by not following the game's advice on the number of players...

What about magic resources and research? Some nations depend more on gems and/or magic research than others. I expect a large map game to Last longer, so should one alter the settings as proposed by Cohen?

This would also mean something about pretenders: An immobile pretender offers better blessings/scales/research, hence they would be much more useful on a larger map. As additionally the dominion spread of the pretender is less important on large maps as well...(which keeps me from using immobile pretenders on small maps)

@PvK: forgive me my bad english. I guess I wanted to say "less useful" rather than "more useless" (I guess I slipped into german-language thinking of "nutzloser")

@Gandalf: Actually I knew your page, but I had forgotten about it at the time I posted this poll. Sorry for not using your size-terminology...

[ May 27, 2004, 09:56: Message edited by: Chazar ]