I think I'll turn off the "Bonus per N territories" option, which should eliminate the first player getting 5 on their first turn. For most of the rest of the game, no one typically has enough territories to make the difference anyway. If you guys still find the problem overwhelming, I'll look for a deeper fix.

Done. I also changed the rules to allow return to placement from attack, but not return to attack from transfer. This is how it was in the old version, and should also serve to cut down on first turn slaughters.

How did you change a live map?

With Great Power come Great Responsibility and I don't trust Cram

i made a new version and retired the old one. i believe this was all standard powers type stuff. there was no "submit for review" button on the copy of the live map, so I couldn't do that step if I wanted to.

I think maps prior to the review process have a few different flags (meaning they are outside of the Review process, so don't follow those rules). So I believe the Designer would restrict that type of flow for newer maps, that's my understanding anyways.

It probably should. There's a lot of potential for abuse in getting a board through the Review system and then making one "minor" rule change.

That's by design - you can create a new version of a Live board and promote straight to Live without further review being needed. Yes there's potential for abuse but I think most designers wouldn't intentionally sabotage their own boards.

tom wrote: That's by design - you can create a new version of a Live board and promote straight to Live without further review being needed. Yes there's potential for abuse but I think most designers wouldn't intentionally sabotage their own boards.

I'm with tom, here. There's always a balancing act betwen "security" and 'convenience" and I think having to re-review maps would become overly tedious. If I reviewed maps and had to re-review a map 2 days after it went live every time the review team missed a border or a few extra live games exposes some gameplay flaw, I would just mail it in and click thumbs up anyway.

At least when a site has an active administration, you can deal with loophole abuse by swinging a banhammer like the angry fist of old testament God.

Ahhh, cool. That's good to know!

Oh and, I think these fixes should work for Connect Some. I guess I should have focused more on getting in a bunch of wins before you fixed it.

EDIT: nothing

Oops, double post

The first player has a really big advantage:

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/6041

I think the simplest fix would be to cap attacks at 5 per turn. It would force some strategic placement, attacks, and transfers to maximize your 5 moves and stymie your opponent's 5 moves. It would also incentivize actually trying to connect 4 for a continent bonus, as opposed to just all-out attacking each turn.

Either capping the # of attacks, good idea Kjeld, or possibly giving the defenders a slight edge might fix this map. My fear is the defensive bonus might promote turtling and not actually playing the map as you intend.

Yeah, I think there's probably a pretty thin line between too easy and too hard to attack.

right, but that makes choosing when to attack much more important.

Cramchakle wrote:

tom wrote: That's by design - you can create a new version of a Live board and promote straight to Live without further review being needed. Yes there's potential for abuse but I think most designers wouldn't intentionally sabotage their own boards.

I'm with tom, here. There's always a balancing act betwen "security" and 'convenience" and I think having to re-review maps would become overly tedious. If I reviewed maps and had to re-review a map 2 days after it went live every time the review team missed a border or a few extra live games exposes some gameplay flaw, I would just mail it in and click thumbs up anyway.

At least when a site has an active administration, you can deal with loophole abuse by swinging a banhammer like the angry fist of old testament God.

OK.  I just got bit by this because I forgot Cram changed the Rules.  It probably is my fault, but I definitely don't want to have to re-evaluate all the Rules/Territories/Continents when replaying a Live board. 

I just don't want to see this become the norm and would probably maybe even be in favor of a more restrictive "Lock" if it does become a norm.

Told you.

How would having a more restrictive lock on changes made to Live boards help things? Unless you are a board reviewer you wouldn't pick up the changes.

There probably needs to be a notification somewhere on the game join or view page that the board has been re-versioned recently. Or maybe a board change history so you can see the differences between the board versions.

tom wrote: How would having a more restrictive lock on changes made to Live boards help things? Unless you are a board reviewer you wouldn't pick up the changes.

There probably needs to be a notification somewhere on the game join or view page that the board has been re-versioned recently. Or maybe a board change history so you can see the differences between the board versions.

Ya, I'm not sure how it would help either :P  Other than a complete Lock (like WF does) it seems like it would be tough to signal changes.  I reckon a Board Change History for maps that go through to Live status then have something changed by the Designer could work.  Hmmm...

Yertle wrote:

:P 

Your complaint was that you forgot about/didn't notice a rule change that was made after the board was reviewed, approved and gone Live. Which I said originally we should disallow. Then you went ahead and allowed it against my advice, and it messed you up, just like I had said it was going to. So therefore I was right. And when I am right, and other people are wrong (which is a lot), I rub it in by saying "I told you so."