Caster(s) Map-Skroo Game Rehosting

[zoom]

For the record I don't expect perfectly symmetric maps by any means. I just expect them to be more or less fair.

[zoom]

Just a reminder then. That map spawn that way as well so take it into consideration with your civ/strategy pick.
The consideration extends to the other games you mention. h2o had 3 relatively safe mines. One was denied because of Prince strategy and h2o building everything close to TC.

You've said before that map is supposed to always spawn with a mine in the top pocket for both players.

The point is that those spawns are totally fine. You're given basically perfect hunts and nearly perfect 2 mines. You can't complain because of that. What are you gonna say, "my 3rd mine is 10 tiles farther than his one"?

The mine didn't exist!

[Garja]

I dont know to which game you refer but in all these games each player had 2 safe mines every game and a relatively easy accessible 3rd mine.
Honestly I think this discussion is being too long already. None of those games were worth restarting based on starting position in the minimap, nor the outcome was actually decided by the resource position.

[Dolan]

One of the mines which are supposed to be part of those resources which are close to a player's base and, so, supposed to be balanced, was missing here. Definitely a reason to rehost.

[Garja]

Both players have 2 starting mines., 3rd mine of blue is on the explorer icon. Gotta admit this is as bad as that map can be, still totally playable, and in fact there were no problems at all in the actul game.

[_H2O]

yea when back mine gets pushed it is kinda shit since middle mines also get psuhed a bit.

[Kaiserklein]

Shouldn't there be 7 mines + 2 starting mines per player on hudson ?

[lordraphael]

Shouldn't there be 7 mines + 2 starting mines per player on hudson ?

i just spawned the map 10 times and it appears to have either 10 mines or 11 mines. Each spawn with 11 mines was imba becasue one player had 5 and the other 6 mines on their respective sides

[Kaiserklein]

Shouldn't there be 7 mines + 2 starting mines per player on hudson ?

i just spawned the map 10 times and it appears to have either 10 mines or 11 mines. Each spawn with 11 mines was imba becasue one player had 5 and the other 6 mines on their respective sides

Yeah so I think there's supposed to be 11 mines, but on Dolan's screen there are only 9

[91]

Shouldn't there be 7 mines + 2 starting mines per player on hudson ?

i just spawned the map 10 times and it appears to have either 10 mines or 11 mines. Each spawn with 11 mines was imba becasue one player had 5 and the other 6 mines on their respective sides

In the version I have (ESOC Hudson Bay UI(2,062)) there is supposed to be 2 starting mines and then 3 + 2*numberOfPlayers. So 11 in total. I can't find any randomness in the code. So I think in the cases you only got 10, one mine failed to be placed.

The problem with aoe3's map scripting is that you usually code resources by setting a distance to a certain point where the resoucre should be placed, but not a direction. Because if you are too specific with the coordinates you can end up with having too many objects trying to spawn ontop of each other, and one object will fail, making it even worse. Only solution is to make the whole map much less random, which people have different opinions about.

But I agree in this scenario it looks quite bad because only one player gets the mine at the top where it's pretty easy to defend/catch raids, but I don't think as it is now that the mine placement will take into account placing mines there for either both players or none. It will simply add 7 random mines, and maybe one of them will be at left top, maybe one will be at right top. Maybe there will be one at each, or maybe none of them at all. It's just 2 possible areas to be filled with mines. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Garja]

Hudson is supposed to have 7 extra mines, yes. It is aknowledged however that often only 6 spawns, sometimes 5. That's totally fine as long the placement is fair. Placement of extra mines is random. Starting 2 mines must be within a certain range from the TC.

[Dolan]

Shouldn't there be 7 mines + 2 starting mines per player on hudson ?

i just spawned the map 10 times and it appears to have either 10 mines or 11 mines. Each spawn with 11 mines was imba becasue one player had 5 and the other 6 mines on their respective sides

Yeah so I think there's supposed to be 11 mines, but on Dolan's screen there are only 9

The screenshot was taken from umeu's stream, so it's exactly how it was ingame. 9 mines only. One is hidden behind the blue explo.
So if the map is supposed to have 11 mines, 2 failed to spawn.

Must be because of constraints relative to that ice on the lake fringes. I'm sure that's why the mine on top left failed to spawn. It's constrained vs ice, TC, other mines, maybe even trees and nat TPs.

[Garja]

No Neuron, simply the constraint among mines is very stretched to avoid that they place mostly on one side or in one particular spot. Depending on how the pond is shaped, the position of the 2nd mine and the version of trade route then some mine fails to place, which btw is intended because it makes it random between 11 and 10 mines. When it has less mines can be problematic, yes.

[Dolan]

Yeah, so 9 mines spawn is pretty bad. You probably didn't use blobs for the lake, so the lake shores are very irregular, which is enough to kick that mine off the map.

[Garja]

I think I used blobs. Actually the lake was pretty much the same of Sag but with different segment influence, different coherence and smoothdistance. The shape of the pond is intended that way.
Simply in order to have the TC there, the nat post there, the 2nd mine available to spawn on top and the pond shaped that way it makes the spawn of a mine there not 100% consistent. And again, that is not a problem if other mines spawn because the player gets one more in the bottom.

Ah, blobs don''t have anything to do with the mines anyway.