More options to random starting positions

[TradeMark]

At the moment, that random starting positions isnt really so random, you can always guess where your enemy is, if you know where the starting positions are, if you are playing with just few players.

Here's whats in my mind:

1) Random which calculates as much equal space between all players, but still makes some randomness to it.

1b) You could choose using map own starting positions or not, and choose land or water (look 4th suggestion), and make the almost equal space to every player.

2) Random which would just pick any starting position not caring is your enemy behind your back or not.

3) Totally super random, which doesnt care about starting positions at all, it will put your commander anywhere, not caring is it water or land.

4) Same as above, but you could choose between land or water random positions.


What you think?

Though, that'll be a lot of coding, i might try to make some algorithms when i have time.

[KDR_11k]

You'll probably end up on a slope or the top of a mountain with sides you can't climb or other such nonsense.

I'd ather see "assigned start pos" so we can use fixed pos while making sure each team ends up on one side.

[ILMTitan]

What we really need is some sort of map data telling which groupings of start positions can be allowed for each type of game. For some maps, a 1v1 makes sense for any two random positions 1-4, although for some others it's 1-3 or 1-6. That would solve some of the problems where a 1v1 is always position 1 & 2 (randomly assigned). Something similar but a little more complicated could be designed for random position team games.

[YokoZar]

Why not just let the host pick a series of points (similar to picking start boxes) that are possible to spawn from?

[ILMTitan]

Because if it was defined in the map itself, the host would not have to redefine which start pos to use every time he changes a map. The map would Just Work.

[zwzsg]

Mappers should just place their starting pos so it's odd vs even no matter how many.

[KDR_11k]

well, unless it's three teams.

[kiki]

n = number of teams
s = number of spots
k = random arbitrary constant
t = your team number

Team t's spots are any number that satisfies 1 <= kn + t <= n. This means that for 2 teams, one team is odd, one team is even. For 3 teams, one team is 1,4,7,10, one team is 2,5,8,11, and one team is 3,6,9,12. Make sense? This should be the standard

[YokoZar]

n = number of teams
s = number of spots
k = random arbitrary constant
t = your team number

Team t's spots are any number that satisfies 1 <= kn + t <= n. This means that for 2 teams, one team is odd, one team is even. For 3 teams, one team is 1,4,7,10, one team is 2,5,8,11, and one team is 3,6,9,12. Make sense? This should be the standard

What about maps that are playable for 2 or 3 teams? Or 2, 3, or 4 teams?

[kiki]

reread the post

Edit: Oops sorry, i see what you mean. I would go with the highest denominator. For example, 2, 3, or 4 would calculate for 4.

[zwzsg]

Well, if your map looks like it as triangular symmetry, then forget about making it k v k playable and make it k v k v k playable. But maps for 3 teams are rare anyway.

For 4 teams maps, well, what does 4 teams also does 2 teams. Just make sure the team 0 players and the team 2 players are on same side, opposite of team 1 and team 3.

[kiki]

ofc

Glad to see u all understand

[ILMTitan]

A triangular map is both trilaterally and bilaterally symmetrical. It can work for KvKvK and KvK.

[Neddie]

A triangular map is both trilaterally and bilaterally symmetrical. It can work for KvKvK and KvK.

Not necessarily... we can make asymmetric, three team maps!

[ILMTitan]

The point is only that some bi/trilaterally symmetric maps exists and that, unless it's a 1v1/1v1v1 map, KvK/KvKvK triangular maps can't follow the given convention for both KvK and KvKvK.

[TradeMark]

it doesnt really matter does it work for every possible map...