Map sizes and number of players

Called T the number of territories of a map, I propose the following as recommended number of players:

2-3p == 18=<T=<23
2-4p == 24=<T=<29
2-5p == 30=<T=<35
3-6p == 36=<T=<44
4-7p == 45=<T=<59
5-8p == 60=<T=<74
6-9p == 75=<T=<89
7-9p == 90=<T=<104
8-9p == 105=<T=<119
9p only == 120=<T=<134

Basically it is based on suggesting a number of players that gives everyone at least 6 and not more than 14 starting territories. Then everybody is free to set up games as he likes. But I think out of that range things may get really unfair.

Map size description (small, medium, large) is very debatable and I like it as it is currently, but just defining a wider classification keeping a logical trend. I think like this:

21 to 25 = very small VS
26 to 35 = small S
36 to 50 = medium M
51 to 70 = large L
71 to 95 = very large VL
96 to 125 = giant G
126 to 160 = great giant GG
161 to 200 = hyper huge HH

This is only in case one day we'll need it. For now all the maps are included in the four main sizes (in bold) with the only exception of Anchor Bay (T=24) but it cannot form a category by it self since it must stay incorporated in the "small" category.

@The_Bishop. Thank you for taking the time to work this out.

Matty has informed me that he has made a temporary amended automated setting which is now currently used to determine map size and recommended players.

It is currently set to:

if < 32 territories
recommended suitable for 2p-4p
if < 40 territories
recommended suitable for 2p-5p
if < 50 territories
recommended suitable for 3p-6p
if < 70 territories
recommended suitable for 5p-7p
if > 70 territories
recommended suitable for 6p-9p

It is also proposed that we can manually choose the map's recommended player size if we submit it as a request during the site Rewrite.
You will also see from the staff thread http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=2116&page=2#post-33478 (only viewable by staff), that Psymon suggested some other changes to the Cartographer Panel as well as more things he has noted and been sent by me. Vexer already had plans to improve this for us and all this might well be implemented during the Rewrite.

I will have a closer look at your recommended sizes and if they don't need adjusting, I will add them to the Neutrals & Territories list, highlighting the player suitability columns, when we change to manual choice.
For now I will add the automated settings to the list.

I think the size descriptions might need rethinking.
Perhaps we could use Men's clothing sizes as a reference for most of them, with the addition of TINY (for the smallest), i.e. T, S, M, L, XL, XXL, XXXL, XXXXL ?

Yes, all those things are picked sort of randomly by me one time, if you have suggestions to improve I can do that, but some maps have more territories than others, but are still suitable for less players, so in the end the 'recommended suitable for' shouldn't be based solely on that or be adjustable anyways.

Also, we should only use other 'map size desciptions' if we have plenty of maps to fill a category. In the end it's just a way to filter maps so that you can pick one you like.

I knew Matty adjusted them but he also told if someone has a better proposal to start a new thread to discuss it, and that is my task here. I don't dislike / I would prefer my proposal instead of the current setting.

I re-post it cleaned by useless extensions:
2-4p == 24=<T=<29
2-5p == 30=<T=<35
3-6p == 36=<T=<44
4-7p == 45=<T=<59
5-8p == 60=<T=<74
6-9p == 75=<T=<89
7-9p == 90=<T=<104
It looks correct to me.

I know the gameplay can influence the right amount of players of a map but I would say minimally: the main parameter still is the number of territories. Then if you say we should be able to judge every map, yes, but we should debate things for every map one by one and we will never agree on how many players are suitable for that map. Since I prefer an automatic setting based on the number of territories.

We must keep into account the forbidden ranges, I mean, to include them but put all in one side of the size range... (mh... it doesn't seem so clear).

I mean for example 39 T maps should stay together with 40, 41, 42 T, because the range from 36 to 38 is forbidden since the most similar size smaller than 39 is 35: not so logical to put them in the same group if they are separated by such a gap.

Then we have a greater gap from 45 to 51, they all should possibly stay in the same suggested number of players. In my proposal they all go with 4-7 players.

And the trend should be a bit more regular. Now we have 2-5p, 3-6p, 5-7p and 6-9p, to keep things regular we should split the 5-7 category in 4-7 and 5-8 and this is what I did.

As for the size description I prefer to avoid clothing size like XL and XXL that sounds a bit funny. And I have only defined a regular trend based on how things are now, since no change suggested, just a model for future possible inclusions of extreme size maps. And also on this subject I tried to follow a regular trend: very small is 5 values wide, small is 10, medium is 15, large is 20... and so on.

Yeah, for the sizes I just want a few groups to filter maps by, the recommanded number of players is for further distinction.

I'll update the numbers now, as it seems you have actually thought about these numbesr. Can't say that of myself

Ok thanks Marshall!

All of those numbers are just suggestions. There is still something cool about a 9 player capital match on Caribbean map lol