Re: map fairness test

Very interesting. I'd like to say that random maps (which are the worst case 
scenario) are fair as well, and that's because when a game is started, all 
players are subject to the possibility of ending up in a crappy island or 
whatever. So, if you end in such a situation on one game, well, stop crying 
and try to do your best, and wish for better startups for the next game.

Besides, I think knowing the map on advance removes most of the fun out of 
the game. People already have very precise steps regarding technology 
advancement, government switching and city building, because the rules 
governing these aspects are fixed. Now you want the map to be fixed as well? 
Where did all the excitement about discovery go?

Greetings,
Arturo

>From: "Per I. Mathisen" <[email protected]>
>To: freeciv-0/[email protected]
>Subject: [Freeciv] Re: map fairness test
>Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:40:52 +0000 (GMT)
>
>On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Horn G=E1bor wrote:
> > Good idea. I think it doesn't depend on the pubserver admins, but the
> > players. We'd need hundreds of exisiting good quality maps to use them
> > w/o they became boring. If we'll have them (who wanna work on it?:),
>
>I've noted that in all the RTS games I've played where pubserver-like
>gameplay was offered, competitive games nearly always happened on a narrow
>selection 2-3 different maps, even though hundreds of different maps may
>exist. Knowing the map well in advance is a huge tactical advantage, and
>nobody wants to risk their enemy knowing the map substantially better than
>themselves. There is a lot of "safe bet" involved - everybody knows the
>big 3 - so more people are likely to join such a map, while less common
>maps draw less people.
>
>   - Per
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963