The most balanced start in a 5 player game is to have no players in tower 100.
Right now a player in tower 600 can roll a 4 and take a creature next to tower 100.
So not only do you move last, you can't move out of the tower in all 3 directions.
This would also apply in a 4 player balanced tower game with players in both towers 6 and 1.
Maybe there should be a don't use both both towers 6 and 1 when less than 6 players button. (I am not sure how that would translate to other variants, maybe don't use highest and lowest unless all slots are full?)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
If only 5 (or 4) of 6 towers are used, we would want to make sure that at least either first or last (100 or 600) stay unused, because player in tower 100 would even be further in disadvantage since player in 600 might block one of his 3 possible pathways (hexes 41 or 42).
For 12, I think it's like the following:
If there is free towers, but more than half of towers are used ( => there is a case where two neighbored towers will be used).
Generalized, as it happens, it seems this rule applies also to 6 ( 4 > 3, and 3 = 6/2 ).
For Abyssal9, the tower placement and their numbers are so odd, I don't even attempt to find a logic there...
So, for 6 or 12 towers, and less than <nr of towers> players, but more than half of towers used, randomly (50/50) keep either first or last tower unoccupied.
As usual, keeping it open until it's visible to users in a release/public build.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
At the moment (r4932), I have undone (reverted) the changes done earlier, because in some cases the result was not balanced any more at all, and in fact broke some unit test case.
Need to come up with a different idea how to avoid usage of either tower 100 or 600 in 5 player game (actually also 4 player should avoid to use both 100 and 600 together).
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This would also apply in a 4 player balanced tower game with players in both towers 6 and 1.
Maybe there should be a don't use both both towers 6 and 1 when less than 6 players button. (I am not sure how that would translate to other variants, maybe don't use highest and lowest unless all slots are full?)
Resolved in r4923:
If only 5 (or 4) of 6 towers are used, we would want to make sure that at least either first or last (100 or 600) stay unused, because player in tower 100 would even be further in disadvantage since player in 600 might block one of his 3 possible pathways (hexes 41 or 42).
For 12, I think it's like the following:
If there is free towers, but more than half of towers are used ( => there is a case where two neighbored towers will be used).
Generalized, as it happens, it seems this rule applies also to 6 ( 4 > 3, and 3 = 6/2 ).
For Abyssal9, the tower placement and their numbers are so odd, I don't even attempt to find a logic there...
So, for 6 or 12 towers, and less than <nr of towers> players, but more than half of towers used, randomly (50/50) keep either first or last tower unoccupied.
As usual, keeping it open until it's visible to users in a release/public build.
At the moment (r4932), I have undone (reverted) the changes done earlier, because in some cases the result was not balanced any more at all, and in fact broke some unit test case.
Need to come up with a different idea how to avoid usage of either tower 100 or 600 in 5 player game (actually also 4 player should avoid to use both 100 and 600 together).