Requesting a 36 territories map

Sorry, but not all players play fairly and a great deal of exploitation WILL occur. The site also cannot refuse all territory counts and inevitably, there will be multiples of 12, 15 etc no matter what, but in games with many players, there is less chance of secret teaming, singling out and coincidental focus on one player. You usually find that the reason that players who really want "something" that has been refused is because they can see the exploitation factor of the "something". D12 can also see it and therefore, no matter how much statistics are used to prove a one sided agenda, we see all agendas and fairness is paramount!

[quote=aeronautic][...] None of the blacklisted territory counts have anything to do with 2P Games [...][/quote] Ok... [quote=AlexCheckMate]60-64 territory map with 5 players => all start with 12 => so +4 72-77 territory map with 6 players => all start with 12 => same problem 84-90 territory map with 7 players => all start with 12 => same problem[/quote] And this^? I mean... I'm in favour of not blocking any particular number/s, but I don't see why 36-38 and 45-51 are blocked, when the ones I just pulled up aren't (and there are more; just took some obvious ones)? All I'm trying to do, is figure out why stuff is the way it is. If it 'just is' - then that's fine too. But the logic which I'm currently being presented with, doesn't hold for me :<

[quote=aeronautic]Sorry, but not all players play fairly and a great deal of exploitation WILL occur. The site also cannot refuse all territory counts and inevitably, there will be multiples of 12, 15 etc no matter what, but in games with many players, there is less chance of secret teaming, singling out and coincidental focus on one player. You usually find that the reason that players who really want "something" that has been refused is because they can see the exploitation factor of the "something". D12 can also see it and therefore, no matter how much statistics are used to prove a one sided agenda, we see all agendas and fairness is paramount![/quote] Ok... so the 36-38 & 45-51 are in place. With 51 being the upper cut-off value; when numbers go higher, it's assumed to just be less influential - per admin/crew decision. I'm fine with that :) Sometimes logical rules alone aren't enough and certain thresholds/boundaries just need to be placed. PS - my previous reply, I was writing before you had your initial edit; hence nothing further from me there - I was just a bit baffled why you replied on just a mere fraction of what was presented (only the first 2 lines; 2P games). PPS - not sure whether I should read anything between the lines of your last reply: [quote=aeronautic]You usually find that the reason that players who really want "something" that has been refused is because they can see the exploitation factor of the "something". D12 can also see it and therefore, no matter how much statistics are used to prove a one sided agenda, we see all agendas and fairness is paramount![/quote] As a general statistic, I believe it is true, but in this context it does come across somewhat hostile. Personally, I would refrain from it and come from a positive place; expect the best in people, as opposed to the opposite. In contrary to real life (tax evasion or smth), there's no real 'gain' in 'cheating/exploiting' a game ;d wouldn't assume it's a goal of many people.

I'm sorry but I fail to see the logic here, aeronautic. I don't know Alexcheckmate, but I cannot in all honesty think that he is asking for a 36 map so he can exploit the game! To be fair, there are so many other combinations that haven't been excluded it just looks arbitrary.

You asked for it straight up, well here it is: I gave a few reasons why [i]the previous staff, who I would consider Risk experts[/i], came to a final conclusion after considering numerous parameters, statistics and probabilities. I also stated that although there, of course, are multiples of 12, 15, 18 etc in all map territory counts, the [b]disallowed counts[/b] have the most impact to multiplayer games and are open to the most exploitation. This is not going to change, as it's been discussed, re-evaluated and discussed again many times in the Map Creation threads when creators have made maps with the disallowed counts and when players have requested maps with them. Why do I take the cynical view of people wanting something that has been deemed "disallowed"? Because some players have gone to great lengths to find ways to exploit a map or game type to gain the advantage. I'm sorry if it comes across as aggressive or confrontational, but it's just cynicism.

[quote=aeronautic]Why do I take the cynical view of people wanting something that has been deemed "disallowed"? Because some players have gone to great lengths to find ways to exploit a map or game type to gain the advantage. I'm sorry if it comes across as aggressive or confrontational, but it's just cynicism.[/quote] Ah aeronautic, thanks for the response. I can live with cynical.

I'm against making a 36 territory map. The reason is that Vexer, who is a very smart guy and has a very good track record of being right about such things, told me that it's a bad idea to have a 36 territory map. I'm also against it because I like the number 36, it has some very nice mathematical properties. And it's very easy to imagine how these properties make for a very bad map to play on. Intuitively it makes sense. So my reason isn't cynicism, it's trust and intuitive-realism. You seem to not trust Vexer or his/my intuition, so let's do some actual math here, and then some thinking about it. [hr] We'll split the numbers in their prime factors (I picked a few of the ones you suggested), so 24 = 2*2*2*3 -> divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 30 = 2*3*5 -> divisible by 2, 3 36 = 2*2*3*3 42 = 2*3*7 45 = 3*3*5 60 = 2*2*3*5 72 = 2*2*2*3*3 With that we can see the player numbers they are divisible by (they're also divisible by other numbers, but these are irrelevant) 24 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 30 is divisible by 2, 3 [b]36 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6[/b] 42 is divisible by 2, 3, 7 [b]45 is divisible by 3, 5, 9[/b] 60 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5 72 is divible by 2, 3, 4, 6 The bolded ones are disallowed by [s]Vexer[/s] the [url=https://dominating12.com/forums/3/map-creation/589/dxii-guide-to-map-making]map guide[/url] Now, some reasoning. Very important: the goal is to not allow map sizes that are really problematic, but not to disallow too much, because otherwise you can disallow everything. We don't want perfection, we want a good compromise! 24: is not a problem, because only in the case of 2 players it causes problems. With 3 players already you start with 8 territories, lose one and you'll still have a +3 - no reason at all to disallow this one. 30: only 2 and 3 players are possibly problematic (think and and only 2 is, 3 isn't), so no real problem here. 36: a problem for 2, 3 and 4 players - sounds a bit more problematic to me. 42: a problem for 2 players only, not problematic (and the numbers are getting soo big that you can't really expect a 2p game to be fair anyway) 45: a problem for 3 and 5 players. Not huge, but in practice been a problem 60: a problem for 2 (but not really, because the numbers are getting too big anyways), 4 and 5. Not huge, in practice apparently not been a real problem. 72: by now the numbers are getting really big - you want a 3 player game on this map??? Or even a 4 player game? Not really. Would be a problem for 6 players, so I'd say 72 is not ideal, but not bad enough to disallow. [hr] So yeah, you could make a case that 45 would be ok-ish, or that maybe 60 is not that bad, but to me the things Vexer proposed seem very reasonable. So let's just stick with them ok? I know you are very curious and would like to change everything, but please try to pick your battles. There are some things that are prefectly fine and don't really need to change. So let's just keep them. Most of these things really have some thought into them and don't come from some imaginary fancy, but are there because they address real things that really happened.

A second point: [quote=AlexCheckMate]As a general statistic, I believe it is true, but in this context it does come across somewhat hostile. Personally, I would refrain from it and come from a positive place; expect the best in people, as opposed to the opposite. In contrary to real life (tax evasion or smth), there's no real 'gain' in 'cheating/exploiting' a game ;d wouldn't assume it's a goal of many people. [/quote] I really felt a bit hostile to you here. Not because I think you're not a nice guy (you are a nice guy), nor because I'm evil (I'm a nice guy too), but because you don't seem to see the person on the other side. You ask loads of questions and never take enough with 'this is how it is and just trust us about it, ok?' That's a good thing, being curious and questioning things are a good thing! However, good explanations demand a lot of time and energy. And you are not the only one demanding lots of time from us. We only have so much time and energy willing to put in d12. It feels a bit like a waste to put all that time in answering every person that comes around and asks long winding questions without doing the math themselves. You could have written out the same math I wrote out for you up there for example. I hope you don't take this as a reason to stop asking questions - that's a good thing. But please do have some consideration for the persons answering and do your own research also!

I'll try to respond in 1 last post here. Starting with some general remarks. I think the first thing that comes to mind is the following. To exploit something, as is suggested in this thread, you'd need to have some control over the randomness. Why? Because you might just as easily be the unlucky one to go last/late in such a game and experience the +4 changing to a +3 on your own game, instead of opponents... so with that in mind - no clue how to exploit it. Regardless of that, I already said (2nd post, after first input on my confusion) I'd be all fine with whatever: [quote=AlexCheckMate]That said.... if for whatever reason (I dont see why) it's still frowned upon to create such a map... so be it... but I think the current reasoning against it is flawed.[/quote] This wasn't cynical or anything negative - it was just acceptance of the situation. The reasoning for it however, was wobbly. After the reasoning was adjusted with "this is just how we do it" - I was all good with the reasoning too, instead of the mathematical rules which were presented to me, yet were not being upheld. - post #4 by aeronautic - the 2 rules listed; then 60 etc should be blacklisted too. I think I've clearly shown what/why it was indequate to me. I believe there's no sense in regurgitating all what I've said, it was all clear cut in there (e.g. I do believe Iberia is being used quite a bit for 5p games, I'm however saying this without any stats to back that up - it's just a hunch, without anyone noticing any negative thingies/complaints). Replying to [b]aeronautic[/b]'s last post: [quote=aeronautic, 25 Oct 2019, 22:53, Post #20]You asked for it straight up, well here it is: I gave a few reasons why [i]the previous staff, who I would consider Risk experts[/i], came to a final conclusion after considering numerous parameters, statistics and probabilities. I also stated that although there, of course, are multiples of 12, 15, 18 etc in all map territory counts, the [b]disallowed counts[/b] have the most impact to multiplayer games and are open to the most exploitation. This is not going to change, as it's been discussed, re-evaluated and discussed again many times in the Map Creation threads when creators have made maps with the disallowed counts and when players have requested maps with them. Why do I take the cynical view of people wanting something that has been deemed "disallowed"? Because some players have gone to great lengths to find ways to exploit a map or game type to gain the advantage. I'm sorry if it comes across as aggressive or confrontational, but it's just cynicism.[/quote] Yep, I asked for it straight up - so that's all good :) No issues with whatever gets decided here, whether by own judgment or relying on pro's from the past (nope - no cynicism/something here either - I too trust them (simply because I have no reason not to)). But no, at that point, you had [u]not[/u] addressed me on my addressing on e.g. a map of 60 territories (for 5 players), as it would cause the exact same problem as a 36-38 map with 3 player, or a 48-51 map with 4 (the 4 dropping to 3). I was not mad about this, but I did remain confused; therefore continued talking - which apparently aggrevated quite some people here... I'm sorry about that... So when more info came in post #16, I responded on it (in post #18; #17 was still on earlier stuff, had not seen #16 by then). I didn't push my concern with e.g. 60 territories anymore but just said it's fine. However, I did decide to address a new issue that popped up - the last 2 lines that were written in #16. This seemed to be a personal attack. Your reply on this in #20 was however all good to me. Made it appear as less of something against me personally, but just your view on things, due to your experiences in life - all fair there. It's not how I would prefer things, but I have no issue with people having different views on things (seems it was also fine by GriffinUcos #21). :) Then for [b]Matty[/b] (haha, this sounds more menacingly then I mean/want it to be :p all good!) To start of, I'm very happy you joined in too - that said, I do not want you to feel pressured (by me) to actually do so... I do not wish to demand something like that from you (or anyone else, generally). However, there are quite a few flaws in your writing here... =/ (Which sort of makes me think... why did you join in? When you joined in, I was already 'done' with the topic. Got the 'this is just the way it is' answer. Your added info (as I'll address later on) is however appreciated, so therefore I'm glad you joined in. But it feels to me as if you joined in to 'temper me' ? as per request of others? I could be wrong. If so, sorry for my interpretation.) [quote=Matty]You seem to not trust Vexer or his/my intuition.[/quote] You seem to take it personal (at least - that's my [i]interpretation[/i] of it - I won't say that you are). As if I'm doubting his/your intelligence/integrity. I won't go into Vexer - I don't know him(/her?). But for as far as I've observed you and had interactions with you, I have no reason to have any doubts. You're a great addition to this website (and probably anything else you're involved with), both from a technical/intelligence point of view, as well as social ability/integrity. I can sort of see why it would seem to be like this to you/anyone; so I'm sorry for coming across like this - it's however not the case. Can't proof that, so I'd just need you/others to trust me on that. There had not been any mention of Vexer/other reasons for why stuff is the way it is. Sure, I could've assumed there would be some logical reasons for it... (and I sort of did, in the back of my mind - but would also like to know about these, if allowed) but [i]"Assumptions are the mother of all f***-ups"[/i] (hope it's ok to write it like this? self-censored?), so I assumed (oh oops! see, it went wrong straight away :D) I could simply question it and then get answers which would take away my confusions. No heated discussions/whatever. "Insert your math" [quote=Matty]Now, some reasoning. Very important: the goal is to not allow map sizes that are really problematic, but [b]not to disallow too much, because otherwise you can disallow everything. We don't want perfection, we want a good compromise![/b][/quote] ^The bolded would've been new info when the discussion came of the ground. Yes, the statement makes sense - but it wasn't said, so I didn't know. I could only assume it. I believe I even 'pressed there where it hurt" by too mentioning that I didn't get the reasoning, as with the reasoning that was thus far presented, much more could be disallowed. Discussion could've been cut short by mentioning that after (careful/extensive/whatever) consideration (by several smart/admin/whatever), it was decided to use the 4 -> 3 rule as a basic, yet only apply it for numbers up till 51 due to it making more sense for those. You could argue that you do not believe I would've accepted that answer, but I can tell you that I would've. Now a part of your response that sort of bothers me: [quote=Matty]24: is not a problem, because only in the case of 2 players it causes problems. With 3 players already you start with 8 territories, lose one and you'll still have a +3 - no reason at all to disallow this one.[/quote] You made the same mistake here, as I initially made. When a 2p game is played, there are still 3 'players' (1 being a neutral). So everyone gets 8. The mistake doesn't bother me (heck... I made it too). What bothers me is that this proves that you didn't read my posts (properly). Which in itself is also fine... but the real bother comes forth from then still judging my posts/behaviour here. I sympathise with you trying to be efficient and struggling for time, but I'd appreciate if I wouldn't get 'handled' for stuff without all facts. We are all our own masters of our time and decide for ourselves how much we wish to invest - one should not claim/assume one's time is more valuable than that of another, it's condescending. Continuing with the stuff after the maths: [quote=Matty]- So yeah, you could make a case that 45 would be ok-ish, or that maybe 60 is not that bad, but to me the things Vexer proposed seem very reasonable. [u]So let's just stick with them ok?[/u] - I know you are very curious and would like to change everything, but please try to pick your battles. There are some things that are prefectly fine and don't really need to change. So let's just keep them. - Most of these things really have some thought into them and don't come from some imaginary fancy, but are there because they address real things that really happened. [/quote] - Sure, I'm fine with sticking with them. I just 'wished' to see why, which I now do (in fairness, I'm still in favour of not blacklisting any numbers (for reasons stated), but I am perfectly fine with keeping things the way they are - I'm not a revolutionalist, I merely suggest things. Have no desire (at all!) to take over this place or anything like that - just happy to be allowed to play here). That said, I do not think the last bit of that line (underlined) needs to be put like that - it's a bit mom to kid. I could see it as being appropriate if I was misbehaving here or anything along those lines, whereas I was merely felt misunderstood and was vocal about that - while remaining very civil (Now I could add something along the lines of: "Or do you wish to question this? I think not" - which I won't 'in reality' but just put up here as an example, as I would think that such an addition of mine would be out of place too; it's just disrespectful. Such added lines have no added (positive) value, they're just an expression of frustration, and albeit human, remain unwanted - in my opinion). - Yes I'm very curious. No I do not want to change everything (but can surely understand it coming across as that). Comment on picking my battles... no... I'm sorry, that also offends me[b][color=red]***[/color][/b] (not my intention to come across as someone who gets easily offended, although I guess that's not really succeeding like this... - I also don't think I'm easily offended). There is no need to see this as a battle. I surely do not see it as one. Nor do I think there's a victor in this thread... (or, you could argue we are all victors, as - in the end - we're all satisfied with each other understanding each other a tad more again and transparancy of knowledge/ideas/insights/feelings). - Yes, I do not think this website is being ran by a bunch of ignorant hobo's or something, I don't (so please don't take offense by my choice of words here). However, that does not imply that I should simply accept every reply straight of the bat. What's wrong with someone inquiring? If that isn't appreciated... might as well close the forum... and no, that's not meant in a harsh way and no I also know you do not want this - you made it quite clear that you too think it's fine to question/investigate stuff. Perhaps just with a lil' less intensity... I'll [s]try and[/s] work on that :< Won't claim that I'm perfect. [quote=Matty]A second point: [quote=AlexCheckMate]As a general statistic, I believe it is true, but in this context it does come across somewhat hostile. Personally, I would refrain from it and come from a positive place; expect the best in people, as opposed to the opposite. In contrary to real life (tax evasion or smth), there's no real 'gain' in 'cheating/exploiting' a game ;d wouldn't assume it's a goal of many people.[/quote] I really felt a bit hostile to you here. Not because I think you're not a nice guy (you are a nice guy), nor because I'm evil (I'm a nice guy too), but because you don't seem to see the person on the other side.[/quote] I indeed truly do not see the person on the other side in this part.. I believe I was rather mild in that part of mine, especially considering what I was replying to. With that said, I'm struggling to see what other side I could see here... I too think you/I AND aeronautic are nice people. I think he merely overlooked [i]the issue I had with his [u]explanation[/u][/i]. Me not understanding [i]why[/i] those particular numbers were blacklisted (and others not). [quote=Matty]You ask loads of questions and never take enough with 'this is how it is and just trust us about it, ok?' That's a good thing, being curious and questioning things are a good thing! However, good explanations demand a lot of time and energy. And you are not the only one demanding lots of time from us. We only have so much time and energy willing to put in d12. It feels a bit like a waste to put all that time in answering every person that comes around and asks long winding questions without doing the math themselves. You could have written out the same math I wrote out for you up there for example. I hope you don't take this as a reason to stop asking questions - that's a good thing. But please do have some consideration for the persons answering and do your own research also! [/quote] Guilty as charged. I do ask a lot of questions (had a 'brief' 'no-questions-period' when I was ~14-20 y/o. During uni however got back into doing it again, as it was necessary/beneficial/appreciated). The latter part is incorrect though (I've said enough about i already). Yes, I realise. However, I do not believe I put any restraints/requirements on time or whatever... nor that I believe I am in a 'power-position' in which I can actually demand stuff... I merely request it... you guys can 'easily shut me up' in instances such as this one - I'm not being treated unfairly here, I'm merely rather persistent in trying to obtain information and apparently this causes an uprising... I did not expect this (in this extent), maybe I should've ( history like this: https://dominating12.com/forums/6/suggestions-feedback/3157/multiple-accounts-allowed/post/56593#post-56593 ). Furthermore, no need to go through the math with me and claim I didn't do the math and that I could've (and should've) done so. Because I did (which refers back to replying a whole bunch, but apparently not reading properly what you're replying on :< - as said, I'm fine with not reading everything (time-constraint etc.), but then you shouldn't (in my opinion) replying on stuff you aren't (/can't be) sure about..). The math you wrote up (some is however indeed 'new' ) doesn't show me why 48 is bad whereas 60 or 72 aren't - this last part comes from interpretation. Rest assured, I won't take this as a raeson to stop asking questions :P And I hope 'you guys' won't take my statement here as a threat either :roll: Yes, I'll try to be more considerate and try to research more (I guess I kinda did here, for example, though 'a step too late': https://dominating12.com/forums/6/suggestions-feedback/3224/bonus-on-mediterranean-states-map/post/56854#post-56854 ) - however, I also expect this from 'you guys' - I do believe a certain responsibility is attached to being in the crew. Ok... that turned in a rather lengthy post :, Let me end by saying I do not wish to single anyone out, so if you feel like you are (in an unjust way), it's not meant like this. Just makes more sense to reply on certain stuff directly. Some people ask stuff because they do not trust whatever they're dealing with at that point in time, I'm not one of those. My main reason for questions is to receive answers, to increase my own knowledge/comprehension of the issue, I believe this is also visible from 1 of my first topics on this website: https://dominating12.com/forums/2/general-discussion/3078/inner-workings-of-the-game-engine - 'hunting' for knowledge (which I then do not intend to 'exploit' ). Thanks all for your input, I'm sure you/we all have the best intentions at heart. :) -Alex [b][color=red]***[/color][/b]sidenote/info on the picking your battles. Could read it if you wish to form some report on me. A professor at university once said this to me "You should know when to pick your battles, this is one you can't win" when I disagreed when he gave me a 1 on an assignment. I handed in a matlab script, within the deadline, per email. He claimed he couldn't open it and therefore had to grade me with a 1. Which is proper bollocks as there was no specified format in which it should've been handed in... and it was a matlab assignment... (so surely he could open it..) but apparently he suggested in class (which I missed... can't remember why? sick?) that he'd prefer assignments to be handed in on pdf. Anyway... in the end, after several lengthy conversations, he came to the conclusion that I wasn't just some brat who was just there to annoy him, but that I had actually invested quite a lot of time/effort into the assignment (I showed him my pen scribbles in my notes, several A4s filled - and we talked about the assignment itself, so he understood that I understood) and then did grade it, which resulted in that 1 being changed to a 8.5 (some more added info: in this particular course, all grades had to be at least >5 and endgrade >6, so if I hadn't fought the unfairness in his grading, I would've to redo the entire course in the next quarter (which I couldn't, as I'd be abroad)). [b]TL;DR[/b] - [u]You could easily say that I have 'issues' with unjust treatment[/u] (there are more examples). + People almost always include some judgment (based on ??) in whatever action they do; misinterpretations are never nice. [i]Disclaimer: I've tried to be rather 'correct' in my writing here.. but it became too big xD (& me too tired/other stuff more pressing) so I'm sorry for anything I wrote here which might still be wrong - feel free to address anything you wish (in private message?).[/i]

Oh yeah, absolutely right, I didn't read all your posts. Didn't read the last one (completely) either, because it's waaay to much text :) True on the 2's is 3's part as well, I actually did read it, and then promptly forgot B) [quote]I think he merely overlooked the issue I had with his explanation.[/quote] As was I, apparently. To remedy this, try making your point short and to the point. If you can formulate the point in 1 clear sentence, it's very hard not to understand what you are asking. If you formulate it as 5000 words, it's kinda hard to see exactly what you ask. You tend to make long posts :)

My last post on these fora, Full Stop. This topic is: Map Creation [b]We need your feedback on gameplay and graphics[/b]. Don't ask, don't get! Or put a sticky up requesting one sentence questions.

You're right, I'm being a hypocrite here. I ask for short posts and make a long one myself :( Sorry, I was tired and shouldn't have posted here.

Some info up front: Was composing this on and off between 18:00-20:00 servertime, so before post #27 (but didn't get to post it earlier, due to other activities). [quote=Matty]Oh yeah, absolutely right, I didn't read all your posts. Didn't read the last one (completely) either, because it's waaay to much text :) True on the 2's is 3's part as well, I actually did read it, and then promptly forgot B) [quote=ACM]I think he merely overlooked the issue I had with his explanation.[/quote] As was I, apparently. To remedy this, try making your point short and to the point. If you can formulate the point in 1 clear sentence, it's very hard not to understand what you are asking. If you formulate it as 5000 words, it's kinda hard to see exactly what you ask. [b]You tend to make long posts :)[/b][/quote] Yep. Guilty as charged, once again - I do elaborate on stuff on a frequent basis. That said.. I do think I tried to give some concluding remarks in my previous posts, which weren't all that lengthy and should've probably been sufficient to give you guys a clear enough understanding of what I was struggling with. [quote=ACM]Post 3: That said.... if for whatever reason (I dont see why) it's still frowned upon to create such a map... so be it... [b]but I think the current reasoning against it is flawed.[/b] Post 7: Anyway.... I'm not trying to cause a fuzz. If the majority (or even a minority, or whatever) wishes to keep certain numbers banned, so be it. I'm just saying that I believe I would like to play in such 'risky' maps and that [b]the logic behind banning certain numbers seems flawed to me. [/b] Post 17: I mean... I'm in favour of not blocking any particular number/s, but I don't see why 36-38 and 45-51 are blocked, when the ones I just pulled up aren't (and there are more; just took some obvious ones)? [b]All I'm trying to do, is figure out why stuff is the way it is. If it 'just is' - then that's fine too. But the logic which I'm currently being presented with, doesn't hold for me :<[/b][/quote] But... I guess I overestimated the functionality of my 'summaries' in those posts... I know I would've received the message within them, but that's obvious, as I wrote them myself and it's easy to understand oneself :roll: Anyway, I've got no residual negative feelings from this thread (towards anyone in here) - no apologies needed anywhere for me. -Alex

[quote=aeronautic]This is an exert from the DXII Guide to Map Making: [quote] 36-38 and 45-51 territory maps are currently not allowed because in many cases the player to go last has fewer troops to place on their first turn. For example in a 3 player game on a 45 territory map Player 1 gets 5 troops to place but if he takes a territory from Player 2 then Player 2 will only get 4 troops to place.[/quote][/quote] I just joined a map, not checking it's size or anything....... and it now just started for me with 4 players..... and apparently it's got a disallowed number of territories :< Europe: [img]https://dominating12.com/assets/img/maps/33.large.jpg[/img] Number of players: 4-7 players [b]Number of territories: 48[/b] Games last month: 38 [b]Authors[/b]: wca, [b]Vexer[/b], Pntbttr Map size: Large Number of regions: 9 Games played: 13381 Creation date: 11 Jun 2012 Making it 'exactly wrong' to be played with 4 players (which is exactly what I'm doing... with a 2v2 game ;d) Funnily enough, Vexer is one of the authors.... I never checked for this before, simply because I saw no reason to... but now that I ended up in this map and noticed and remembered this topic... I figured I checked all the current maps; found another naughty one: Caribbean Dual: [img]https://dominating12.com/assets/img/maps/15.large.jpg[/img] Number of players: 4-7 players [b]Number of territories: 46[/b] Games last month: 17 [b]Author: Vexer[/b] Map size: Medium Number of regions: 10 Games played: 4264 Creation date: 20 Oct 2011 This then leads me to wonder about two things: 1) Why did noone know about this? Or check this (Yes, I could've also done so, but I simply assumed the staff did monitor this and made sure there were no maps that break the rules) 2) Are there (recent) reports from people that this is getting (ab)used or something? As in... is there reason to actually stick to the rule for disallowing 36-38 and 45-51 territories? Or would it be fine to allow these kinds of maps anyway...? Seeing both maps have been played for thousands of games, I don't feel too badly about this maps (Granted; I haven't done any (re)search in the fora or elsewhere whether there are in fact reservations against these 2 maps). Please don't take this as me trying to stirr the pot (again) - I'm just genuinely curious (and in favour of playing a kickass 36 territory map - but will gladly drop the subject if so requested; just figured this new info might change visions on the subject) -Alex

Vexer is not creator of these maps but he did help. I dont see any problem with Caribbean dual because is not recommended for 3 players. Problem is Anchor bay map, is bad for 2 players and is recommended for 2-4 players :(