ye, i can't follow

No they're just there to define the positions where the teams spawn. If there are 4 teams, they spawn in position 1,4,7 & 10
and if there are 3 teams they spawn in position 1,5 & 9. Two teams would be 1 & 7.




It's always good to try everything and see the advantage/disadvantage of such a configuration.
Though counter arguments i can think of are:
1. Teams are too close causing more deaths sooner.
2. It makes it easier for the two teams to gang up on 1 team at the start (if there were only 3 teams)


Well it does, on my diagram team 1 is closer to team3 thant to team2. I can post the amended diagram but i figure you guys'll understand...

also team1 and and team 3 are much closer to the center of the zone, Following the paths you drew, it is about 15% more distance for team 2 to get to the center of the zone

Kyle you made me go looking for the trigonometry formulae I forgot long time ago….
And yea you’re absolutely right. Even though all those spawn positions are supposed to be exactly the same distance from the center of the zone, the distance of the path to the center are not quite equal….(what an interesting phenomenon when u can only move in 90 degree turns.)

So how about just moving the spawn position of Team 2 a little closer to compensate for the extra distance??? Would Team 2 now have an advantage?

i think team 1 and 3 would have to be moved a bit further away (don't want to have team 2 in the zone)

i know these are not quite evenly spaced but each are the same distance from the center and i think it would be fair


EDIT: i should have placed arrows on them, team one and 3 spawn down and 2 goes to the left

Looks like this concept is moving more toward a hybrid of knockout and open sumo. And I'm seeing teams of up to 5 too

Yea i think that would be better than moving Team 2 in....



I disagree. I don't think that would be fair. I think team 1 would have the most advantage followed by team 2 then team 3 in that order. Why do you prefer this spawn configuration over the other???

each team would be exactly the same distance from the center of the zone

And so too is the current 3 team spawan positions, which we all agree that isn't fair for the team that gets spawned inbetween the outside two teams. I'm not sure if its because its too hard to implement or maybe there are other reasons but do you agree that my spawn configuration is fairer?

no, it would take too long for team 2 to get to the center before the other 2 yours has team 1 and 3 about 30 degrees off a 90 degree angle and the other one 45 degrees off of a 90. mine all are 30 degrees off a 90. winch essentially means with 1 turn they all have the same distance to go to center. I know it is not the best configuration but moving a spawn point closer or farther in radial distance would also make it unfair further from the zone would have potential zone collapse and closer would be an advantage.

If i moved team 2 to the bottom they would all be evenly spaced but i would have to move them out about 27.6% farther away from the zone
diagram showing this maybe in a more clear way

Only 2 things

1) P4, since you changued the position of the external walls, i always get a horrible headache when i play on ctos.

2) Why instead of changing spawn positions only random teams position each time?

I didn't touch the walls, only the axes angles

I thought we agreed that if we moved the team thats spawns 45 degree to the x/y axis 15% further then the time taken to reach the center is the same????



Well, if we keep the relative positions and make sure they all fit inside the zone then the potential zone collapse wouldn't be a problem. Is being closer an advantage? That i am not sure. One team is geometrically closer to the center but it takes the same time or acutally longer to for them to get to the center because the team that spawns at the 45 degree angle intuitively would go in a zig zag fashion to the center making it necessary to make more turns. If the same team decides not to go towards the center in a zig zag fashion then they take a risk of giving away some of the zone to the team that is away from the direction they turn first.


Well i did consider this configuration as well. I thought the one team that doesn't need to turn to get to the center had an advantage. Maybe it isn't. Its actually very similar to my spawn configuration only offset by 15 degree. I introduced the offset so that every team would have to make a turn at least once to get to the center as opposed to one team not having to make any turns. Also with my 15 degrees offset configuration the team that spawns further is only 15% further as opposed to 27% in this one. I think we really need to try it out in actual play to see what's the bestr but i think all these points should be considered.

Also after PMing this thread link to Zman i did get a brief reply from Zman. He too said that due to the limitation of the spawn directions one team will always be special. So i guess as long as this special team is chosen randomly every round and we can minimize the advantage/disadvantage of this team then that would be the optimal configuration.

PS: He did also add that this kind of thing requieres very special coding.

Is the goal to conquer center ? I'd rather thought a fair situation will be one where all players will/might have the opportunity to conquer an (almost) equal share of the zone as close as possible from center.
Taking this into account, none of the situation above are fair as 1 of 2 players have the opportunity to conquer almost half the zone depending of the third player turns, while this last player can't ...
I might be wrong but that's what it looks like to me ...