Poll: What size scenario is best to play?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll. |
| Very Small |
0% |
0 |
0% |
| Small |
22.22% |
4 |
22.22% |
| Medium |
55.56% |
10 |
55.56% |
| Medium-Large |
11.11% |
2 |
11.11% |
| Large |
11.11% |
2 |
11.11% |
| Huge |
0% |
0 |
0% |
Thread Rating:
- 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
|
Does scenario size matter?
|
|
03-20-2013, 01:21 AM,
|
|
|
campsawyer
First Lieutenant
|
Posts: 1,023
Threads: 34
Joined: May 2012
|
|
RE: Does scenario size matter?
(03-19-2013, 10:10 PM)Shad Wrote: (03-19-2013, 09:43 PM)campsawyer Wrote: Shad,
A couple of clarifications, the x-axis is the number of maps, correct? With the two series, %-series does this define the % of maps used in all scenarios within PG or something else?
The x-axis is the number of geomorphic maps in a scenario. Non-GM maps are converted to their GM-area equivalents.
The blue line is the % of all scenarios having that map count.
The green line is the % of all plays having that map count.
Bulge 1, for example, is a key reason the one-map-play percentage is so far above the actual one-map-scenario percentage.
Mind you these are all from the article I wrote after 1000 plays. That was a LONG time ago and a LOT of new scenarios have been released since then, so both lines will change somewhat when I re-run all the calcs at 5k.
Thanks, makes sense now.
|
|
|
|
| Messages In This Thread |
RE: Does scenario size matter? - by campsawyer - 03-20-2013, 01:21 AM
|
Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)
