Neo Ladder Map Discussion

[LadderAdmin]

Instead of using the Neo Ladder thread itself for discussion about the maps, I think it will be easier to use a separate thread. This way there will be less chance of important information like challenges and game results getting lost in pages of map discussion.

If you have any comments or complaints about the current maps allowed for Neo Ladder or any suggestions for maps that should be added to the Neo Ladder Maps, then please use this thread (or you can pm the LadderAdmin account for map suggestions as well).

[psycho guy]

Considerable STA
SWAMP, Antrich Swamp, Microcosm, First to Fall, Anubis

Considerable FTA
Moats and Black Boats, Upping The Ante

If anyone needs a demonstration of why these maps have problems, challenge me on one of these maps. I only chose the maps where it was obvious at first glance.

Oh an Anubis actually looks ok now that I've skimmed over the openings for both sides.
nvm I was colorblind when I mentioned the statement above (I didn't see that the island bases were opposite color of the mainland bases)

Final edit: After skimming over the optimal openings on every map, I have determined that SWAMP, Antrich Swamp, and First to Fall are playable.

[Ratatoskr]

Btw psycho I challenged you right before this whole map discussion took over the main thread. /reverse derail

In the Valley of Death has an STA problem as well, since 2p comes over the mountains and gets that city while 1p can't do the same. It's a shame Taz is gone, it'd be a pretty easy fix.

I'd like to nominate Scorpion Operation http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=48596 and the edited version that replaced Dizziness while I was gone http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=39648.

[psycho guy]

Btw psycho I challenged you right before this whole map discussion took over the main thread. /reverse derail

I don't see bold text anywhere, I must be blind.
What page is it on?

edit: Oh you cleverly hid it behind a wall of text.

[blanci1]

well really all this discussion of map fairness should not even be in the "tourney forum"... shouldnt it be under "map design" ?

If there is finally some agreement on these issues, we should probly copy the important parts over to "maps".

First, i want to check out any old forum debate, and also do some analysis, and some tests on the Ds (can be done quickly).... but i imagine playing againt oneself may be suspect ... it could be psychologicaly difficult to really play hard/best in such circumstances.

AWBW Map tests sound good ... hope i get time over xmas to help. But we need to remember to test the map, rather than beating up on the opponent !.. though in the end this may be the only way to settle it... or at least swing the argument one way.... as a few test games may not totally convince everyone anyway.

[Walker]

Psycho I wanted to discuss Microcosm with you. Because I see why you think there's large STA, but I think that you're looking at it the wrong way. You pointed out that on the front on the left where 2nd player (2P) has the turn advantage, there are a lot more properties that they get than 1st player (1P) does. And because of this property count disparity, there's significant STA on the map (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what you were saying).

However, if you look at the other front on the right, that's the front where 1P has the turn advantage. And they will get to all of the exact same properties first on that side that 2P will on the other side. So on each front, one player has a 1/2 turn advantage over the other player, and the property count advantage is the same on both sides. In my mind, that means that the map is even and perfectly countered for FTA. The fact that on each front one player has a property advantage over the other has nothing to do with FTA or STA, but rather helps to prevent stalemates due to the uneven fronts.

[psycho guy]

It doesn't work that way.

2p gets economic advantage from getting first access to property clusters

In other words, 2p has more units at equilibrium.

[Walker]

Oh okay, that makes perfect sense. And so in pretty much every map with uneven fronts that's going to be a problem then. Do you have any suggestions of ways to fix the FTA counter so that it becomes even for maps like that? It would get kind of confusing to judge the FTA/STA in maps with multiple fronts and a variety of possible openings I imagine...

[psycho guy]

You just have to move some properties around so that both sides are even in terms of economics.

It should be pretty hard for a positional advantage to occur if the economics are even, so you don't have to worry about that if you've fixed the economics.

[Walker]

Well yes, I'm aware that fixing the map is the easiest solution. However, I meant do you think there's a way to change the FTA counter itself on maps with uneven fronts in order to make them less one-sided. I was thinking that if you add a preowned property for 1P somewhere that 2P can capture within 3-4 days that would help balance it out a little bit.

[airob]

in maps with various fronts and ways of advancing it is often better to have the FTA in either of these:

on the last army´s weak front, and placing property clusters (a big amount of the overral props) in this front so the second army´s weak front is "balanced" as for the second army´s strong front, even if it´s ...well...stronger, it is still second-moving, so it kind of evens out.

placing by the other way, the fta counter on the LA´s strong front, then you should distribute the properties even through the fronts, the logic is: the LA has the counter (an advantage) on the already advatanged front, while it has a great disadvanatage of going second and nothing to counter no the weak side, though this method should be done with a lot of insight and testing.

aka: # 1- both fronts, weak and strong are actually even.
#2- both armies have a really significant advatange over each others weak fronts.

this is when threating two main fronts, secondary fronts such as small chokes and 1 on 1 base fronts are of lesser significance...you should be able to spot these primary fronts, which are the ones that matter most. as for the secondary fronts, an even distribution of props should be ok.

NOTE: i haven´t checked the map you both were talking about, i just pointed out stuff basing on what you posted, i´ll check it out later.

[Walker]

Yeah designing the maps isn't so much a problem. Most map designers aren't going to be educated about the intricacies of making maps so that they are perfectly balanced.

I'm more interested in figuring out if there's a simple way to balance maps that have FTA or STA built in that can't be fixed with the standard counters. For example, Microcosm is a pretty good map besides the funds advantage that 2P gets due to the current FTA counter. If there's an easy way to balance the map using a different counter, then that would be great, and I think that would be the most useful thing to develop.

[psycho guy]

uh no

no player should have a funding advantage

at equilibrium the marginal advantage a player has during his own turn should be 40-60% daily income

a player should be half a day's income ahead in total resources on his turn, and half a day's income behind in resources on his opponent's turn

[Walker]

I have no idea what you're responding to psycho. I'm pretty sure everyone already agrees on what you said.

[psycho guy]

i misread your post lol