Conquer Club

What we've learned so far:

A.Symmetrical and highly interconnected maps do not play well with current bonus.

B.This proposed bonus system will only work on highly interconnected maps.

A+B. This bonus system may make symmetrical maps more fun to play, and I'm betting it will.





Please note! This "map" is NOT a proposed gameplay map! It is only and example to demonstrate the bonus calculation concept! Please vote on the concept, not this "map"!



in the above example:

Red= 3+1(b8.) =4
Green= 4+1(e6)+1(f6)+1(h4) =7
Blue= 3+1(g2) =4
Yellow=4+1(b40+1(c4)+1(d4)+1(e4) =8

You'll not that every node is connected to four others.

(I think this can develop into a completely new set of interesting maps!)

wrong place for begining map>move to map idea

i really dislike maps that are too symmetrical, like chinese checkers or the US senate maps. if you could make it a little less balanced then it could be interesting

t.e.c wrote:i really dislike maps that are too symmetrical, like chinese checkers or the US senate maps. if you could make it a little less balanced then it could be interesting

I agree.

I also dislike maps with unimaginative territory names like d2 and a6

Balsiefen wrote:I ... dislike maps with unimaginative territory names like d2 and a6

I agree also! The sample was included to describe the bonus concept, and give a sample system of interconnections, not as a proposed background.

The actual game play map (or maps) would look quite different. I'm no artist. I'm more of the bit-basher type. Somebody else will have to create the actual maps.

qwert wrote:wrong place for begining map>move to map idea

I see that. I followed the lead thread in the foundry which gave a format then when it was moved here I read sub-forum announcement.

Andy it might help if you made a note in the foundry announcement to that effect. It might save on housekeeping time.

t.e.c wrote:i really dislike maps that are too symmetrical, like chinese checkers or the US senate maps. if you could make it a little less balanced then it could be interesting

yes there are definitely those that will dislike symmetrical maps, but what's the spread? Chinese checkers remains a viable map here with plenty of happy users. Is there enough appeal for more symmetrical maps?

stringybeany wrote:yes there are definitely those that will dislike symetrical maps, but what's the spread? Chinese checkers remains a viable map here with plenty of happy users. Is there enough appeal for more symmetrical maps?

Well, I MADE Chinese Checkers and even I don't play it.

I think there is a place for symmetrical maps, as it puts players on more even footing from the start than when one player starts with, say, half of Australia, or the Throne and half of the Great Hall (game over, Siege players). But it's a tough sell, which requires a really original idea and graphics that wow people into looking past the straightforward gameplay.

oaktown wrote:

stringybeany wrote:yes there are definitely those that will dislike symetrical maps, but what's the spread? Chinese checkers remains a viable map here with plenty of happy users. Is there enough appeal for more symmetrical maps?

Well, I MADE Chinese Checkers and even I don't play it.

I think there is a place for symmetrical maps, as it puts players on more even footing from the start than when one player starts with, say, half of Australia, or the Throne and half of the Great Hall (game over, Siege players). But it's a tough sell, which requires a really original idea and graphics that wow people into looking past the straightforward gameplay.

So far the poll is running about even, but I wonder if people are focusing on the concept or the sample map?

It's the discussion about the bonus calculation concept that interests me.

The strategies employed on these types of maps would be quite different, which is what is encouraged in the development announcements:

"don't just make another classic risk clone if you want success"

This bonus calculation style can apply to many maps and nodal configurations, not just symmetrical ones.

For instance on the classic map holding japan kamchatka and mongolia would get you a bonus of one. So would holding south africa, east africa, and madagascar.

Holding siam and all of australia would give you a bonus of four which would be far too much, which gives you an easy example of the limitations of the concept. Maps with long connected strings (some of the island maps) don't work well either.

so the maps have to stay open with lots of nodal connections, but they certainly don't need to be symmetrical.

OK Stringy, I've read your last post and re-read your opening post, and I don't get what you're suggesting; still, I'd like to hear more. Please revise your original descrption to give us a better idea of what you're getting at... I thought i had it for a second, but the math in your example didn't work for each color.

It sounds like you're proposing a map in which there aren't set bonus regions, but bonuses are granted for holding clusters, and these clusters can be found anywhere on the board. If so, people have played with similar ideas - Deck of Cards being one example that isn't exactly the same but has a similar idea - but they've been abandoned due to the complexities of the XML. The recent changes to the XML options at the site may make this easier.

oaktown wrote:...

It sounds like you're proposing a map in which there aren't set bonus regions, but bonuses are granted for holding clusters, and these clusters can be found anywhere on the board. If so, people have played with similar ideas - Deck of Cards being one example that isn't exactly the same but has a similar idea - but they've been abandoned due to the complexities of the XML. The recent changes to the XML options at the site may make this easier.

Yes, I figured people weren't getting me, so I modified the post but there is still a gap in understanding.

listen: I've tested this concept out thoroughly with real dice on a classic map. It does work extremely well.

The play style is definitely fast and different.

Somebody please get me sample files and XML code set and I'll build a test board.

I get the idea that the process here for new maps requires the artwork first. This concept needs to have working code first, I think.

I probably shouldn't have posted this here (actually, the thread was moved here)

Get me the samples, and let me do what I do best. The artwork will have to come later.

Please.

qwert wrote:wrong place for begining map>move to map idea

Actually, this isn't a map idea, and moving it here just added to the confusion.

It's a bonus concept.

oaktown wrote:Deck of Cards being one example that isn't exactly the same but has a similar idea - but they've been abandoned due to the complexities of the XML.

PS The complexities of the XML aren't the problem now the new code is in - the problem with the Poker map is that the site would choke on it... as it would have too much XML for the server to cope with well!!!

C.

Your "concept" might as well be gibberish, I don't understand a bit of it. All I see is a map and some numbers with no explanation of what they mean or how they were derived. Perhaps you should try just saying what your idea is, preferably in complete sentences.

here is the easiest explanation for this new bonus system:


Safe Territory bonus:

you get +n for every safe territory you own.
a safe territory is a territory that only borders territories that you own.

like in the image above if yellow takes c3 and e3 then d3 becomes a safe territory.

i'm not sure if this is possible to code. it could be but analyzing each and every possible combination would make for a huge xml that would put even AoM to shame

aside from the xml issue i think the gameplay would be interesting but rather difficult especially on a geographical map.

for example let's take classic. you get australia and defend it on siam. 1 border 5 terits and 4 safe terits which would bring a bonus of 4. kinda strange.

let's go over to europe. 7 terits 4 borders and just 3 safe terits for a bonus of +3.

with this kind of bonus system choke points like siam would destroy the gameplay.

or imagine the indochina map where with just 2 terits you can defend half of the map for a HUGE bonus.

i guess the only map where this gameplay would work would be a symmetrical map where each terit has the exact same number of borders. otherwise the gameplay would be skewed badly and people with a lucky deployment behind a choke point would clearly win.


but overall i like the idea. perhaps if chinese checkers would have this bonus system i'd play it.

DiM wrote:....

but overall i like the idea. perhaps if chinese checkers would have this bonus system i'd play it.

Thank you! Well said!

Maps without your "choke points" and this bonus system work well together.

What will it take to get a test map built?

thank you DiM... Stringy, you may want to include that explanation in the opening post.

As creating a "test map," what is there to test? It wouldn't be at all difficult to code - it'll just take some time to work out all of the possibilities.

The question isn't whether or not it will work, the question is will people play it. Somebody will have to design and develop a map that uses this system, explain it thoroughly, and take feedback via the Foundry process. If you can map out a rough draft with the basic mechanics, and if it survives the slings and arrows of this site, somebody will step up to help with the graphics.

oaktown wrote:... somebody will step up to help with the graphics.

It's a challenge because the tone of this site seems to be "graphics first".

I'd like to see a working model first. If the code is easy, then let's see some samples.

first a theme is required. then you can build from that theme and make the graphics. at the same time have the gameplay in mind.

for the graphics part you will find plenty of cartographers interested to help you if you manage to find that theme and perhaps make a rough sketch.

DiM wrote:first a theme is required. then you can build from that theme and make the graphics. at the same time have the gameplay in mind.

for the graphics part you will find plenty of cartographers interested to help you if you manage to find that theme and perhaps make a rough sketch.

You just proved my point. "first you need a theme".

Somebody please explain to me why the graphics need to come first? In my opinion you have it backwards...when you have a new concept you need to test it out before you go to the trouble of developing the color, or "theme".

Others haven't been so positive when it comes to the viability of the required code. so why don't we test some code first before spending a lot of effort developing color for a map that might never fly because of code constraints?

Let's please try out some code!

stringybeany wrote:

DiM wrote:first a theme is required. then you can build from that theme and make the graphics. at the same time have the gameplay in mind.

for the graphics part you will find plenty of cartographers interested to help you if you manage to find that theme and perhaps make a rough sketch.

You just proved my point. "first you need a theme".

A theme is nothing to do with the graphics. the theme is what your going ot base the map around. Will it be a country? A symetrical map? abstract?

gimil wrote:
A theme is nothing to do with the graphics. the theme is what your going ot base the map around. Will it be a country? A symetrical map? abstract?

That's all irrelevant until the code can be proved to be viable or not. Again, why waste time on all that if the coding problems can't be worked out?

stringybeany wrote:

gimil wrote:
A theme is nothing to do with the graphics. the theme is what your going ot base the map around. Will it be a country? A symetrical map? abstract?

That's all irrelevant until the code can be proved to be viable or not. Again, why waste time on all that if the coding problems can't be worked out?

We ask an XML expert like coleman or yeti_c they'll tell everyone weather or not its possible without having to go through all this trouble.

stringybeany wrote:

That's all irrelevant until the code can be proved to be viable or not. Again, why waste time on all that if the coding problems can't be worked out?

the coding is possible. it's hard but possible.

At least I am serious about it.

Here's a message for all the XML monkey's out there. I will pay $500 for a fully working test map using this concept.

No joke, I'm serious. Paid in cash through paypal upon completion.

Maybe that will get some action.

PM me if you want to give it a shot.