Experimental 9x9 Arena discussion thread

[47]

what do you all think about the 9x9 board?

i love the strategic implications of the new board... i don't think it changes a whole lot... it cuts down on the advantage of moving first quite a bit... it also trivializes the opening... on the whole, i like the change, from a strategic standpoint.

but...

i hate how it looks on the screen... this is too tall and thin. does anyone else think that the new board looks awkward and that it is an inefficient use of space? (which may explain why you chose 8x10 in the first place?)

[Rhox]

I sort of feel the same way, but that's probably because we are so used to the 10x8. If the 9x9 was the original board and the 10x8 was newly introduced, we'd all think it was too big.

[psychocide]

Yeah, I apologize about the formatting. The QR layout was intended for a rectangular arena shape (i.e. 10x8), but for QRimson we're shooting for a square arena shape with sidebar material to supplement the layout. As a result, the 9x9 looks awkward in the current layout, and I didn't go out of my way to fill up the black space on the left. The 9x9 is intended more as a gameplay prototype for QRimson than as a permanent feature for QR, but since multiple people have brought it up, I'll see what I can do about fitting it more nicely into the layout.

[robponce]

you could move some of the options overthere (sound, tile scuff, shadow, ect) and the move counter. But yea as far as the actual game, it sparks off an instant stalemate which kinda sucks and might drag out the game even longer, but otherwise, once it all gets goin, it seems about the same. It makes intersting formations.

[tony]

Could you please speed up the snakes? If I counted right, they're the same 16 moves as in 10x8, but they move like they're in the Small Arena.

I like the added depth here. It cuts a bit down on the race for the 5th row stuff, which favors anyone who can bully a row-powered piece into the enemy's 4th to do a crapload of damage. Now it's harder to get there (although more dependent on powers, rather than pure move strategy).

[Jimmi]

i think in a week i would like to switch out 9x9 protoype arena to an 8x8. this will feel more like the original, simply missing a column on each side.

The new version will most definitely be a square default.
10x10 = 100
9x9 = 81
10x8 = 80 current
8x8 = 64

I feel 10x10 will drag out the average game time
9x9 will be the same game time, with a new feel of intro moves
8x8 will shorten the average game, and feel the same as now.

Plus configuration may change for default in QRimson, like Driven2sin suggested. But that can be tested with the new arena editor feature for a few weeks in beta mode, then we decide default before QRimson would be released.

I am a fan of 8x8 concept.

[Jimmi]

snakes and bomb speeds are dependent on the arena size, and it expects some very specific sizes. this new size now introduced a few bugs. We will have to look into it.

[OncoByte]

...
I feel 10x10 will drag out the average game time
9x9 will be the same game time, with a new feel of intro moves
8x8 will shorten the average game, and feel the same as now...

I am a fan of 8x8 concept.

I predict 9x9 games will be a little shorter than 8x10 since there are 2 less pieces to start with. This is an easily testable theory - you could keep track of the number of moves when a winner is declared for each arena type (excluding games < 50 moves which might be drops or early quits).

I disagree with some of the posts worried about the opening game. It *is* different, but not necessarily predictable or a stalemate. Unlike the small arena game, there is plenty of space between armies. When orbs spawn here, you are often forced to move laterally. Your opponent then has the option of gaining ground or blocking the advance of your powered piece.

In fact, I don't think that matching move for move is necessarily the best strategy. Of course, having squads start staggered accross three rows instead of two could resolve this issue entirely. *AND* it makes for shorter games since about 20 turns of torus movement would be required to move two rows of pieces into one of these staggered starting configurations.

Let's try 8x8 as well, but keep hashing out the 9x9 option for a while.

[Rubik87]

To have an odd number of rows makes the opening easyer and reduces the starting advantage. Wheather this is good or not so good i dont know. Maybe it's just up to the players to find new ideas to complicate the openings and make this phase more interesting.

To OncoByte: your observation about lateral moves is not entirely correct, but I wont post an analysys here. We should try some games, Onco!

[OncoByte]

To OncoByte: your observation about lateral moves is not entirely correct, but I wont post an analysys here. We should try some games, Onco!

I think I know what you are getting at - 1) you can shadow lateral moves and 2) if an orb is on your side of the board, you can eventually get it by shadowing your opponent. But, if you want to get an orb quickly or get a second power on one piece, a lateral move may be the way to do it.

I would love to play more, but am suddenly much more busy at work. I hope I don't miss my chance to try 9x9!

[Rhox]

I'm 3-0 on 9x9 so far.

[psychocide]

I'd just as soon add an 8x8 option and leave 9x9 on the table for comparison.

[robponce]

I'm a fan of the 8x8 idea.

[El Skimpy]

This was the very first game I played on this board.....maybe its a sign hahah

[Visa]

I'm a fan of adjustable board size. But with an agreed upon default used for tournament matches.