XML Modifications and Variations

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:34 am

it's useless guys. i've posted these requests more then 2 months ago and nobody even looked at them. i don't think they will ever get implemented.

i have several projects that need them and i had to abbandon them because of lack of features

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:35 am

Despite the fact that lack's not currently looking for ideas for new XML features, I'd still like to express my support for gimil's proposal, in case lack does want more work to do in the future. The different sides should be randomly allotted, of course, and if there are few enough players (e.g. two or three), players should receive multiple sides.

There are several important questions, though:

total

extra

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:03 pm

When Lack first approved the new XML additions, he did mention this was just the first 'batch'. Be patient, not everything that is good can come at once.

--Andy

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:07 pm

Well for mine map WWII Western Front,its must have these Win Condition-holding 40 terittory.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:56 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:When Lack first approved the new XML additions, he did mention this was just the first 'batch'. Be patient, not everything that is good can come at once.

--Andy

i know he said that but several months have passed since and he hasn't even looked at the new proposals :cry:

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:58 pm

Don't worry, a time will come again. He wants to finish up some major things with the few next updates.

--Andy

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:12 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:Don't worry, a time will come again. He wants to finish up some major things with the few next updates.

--Andy

cool.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:43 am

qwert wrote:Well for mine map WWII Western Front,its must have these Win Condition-holding 40 terittory.

You could program in a bonus for holding 40 - but I don't think the <required> tag goes into the <objective> tag...

It would be fairly simple for Lack to do this though...

C.

Jota · Post by **Jota** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:41 am

Not just any bonus, but a bonus of 600 armies -- that'd be practically equivalent to declaring a win. (I'd advise against 6000, though, on the grounds that it'll look terrible against the army shadows.)

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:43 am

Jota wrote:Not just any bonus, but a bonus of 600 armies -- that'd be practically equivalent to declaring a win. (I'd advise against 6000, though, on the grounds that it'll look terrible against the army shadows.)

i cant help but feel this is in the wrong thread lol or am i just stupid?

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:16 am

gimil wrote:
Jota wrote:Not just any bonus, but a bonus of 600 armies -- that'd be practically equivalent to declaring a win. (I'd advise against 6000, though, on the grounds that it'll look terrible against the army shadows.)

i cant help but feel this is in the wrong thread lol or am i just stupid?

i have the same feeling. or we share the same stupidity :lol:

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:21 am

So long as im not alone:D

GreecePwns · Post by **GreecePwns** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:23 pm

I managed to find this thread.

Suggestion Idea: Territory Hold Time Bonus

Description: A bonus that is given for holding a certain territory, maybe in the middle of a map or connected to many territories, for a set amount of turns.

Why It Should Be Considered: This xml variation could be used for war scenarios (WWII and D-Day would have been great with these), and would make for focal points on the map.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:36 pm

since the thread has already been bumped i might as well post again my suggestions :roll:

DiM wrote:
DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: One-time Bonus

Description: you receive a one time bonus when you conquer a terit. after that the terit gives no other bonus regardless if somebody else takes the terit.

DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Modifiable bonus for number of owned terits

Description: normaly you get 1 for every 3 terits you own (minimum 3 troops if you have less than 12). well, i'd preatty much like to regulate these numbers. for example get +1 for each terit. or +3 for every 2 terits, or why not? get absolutely nothing regardless of the terits you have

DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Converting Territories

Description: a territory can be converted to another player if certain conditions are met. let's say we have a green territory surrounded by blue. if blue's troops are ten times stronger the green teritory becomes blue with just one army

DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Variable Attack Range

Description: we have ranged attacks but those are predefined ranged attacks and can only be applied to set territories. i want those attacks to be variable. so you have a catapult in territory A and it can attack at a certain range (let's say 3 territories in any direction) but in time that catapult becomes a cannon and thus it should be able to attack at a longer range.
or perhaps you get a certain territory that while it is held it provides a boost in catapult range and if you lose it you return to normal range.

DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Conditions for xml features

Description: let's say we have a cannon terit that has ranged attack. but i don't want that ranged attack to be available unless the owner also has another terit called ammo depot. so can the cannon terit lose his ranged attack if the owner loses the ammo depot?

DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Win condition - number of armies

Description: can a specific number of armies be added as a wining condition? let's say you must have terit x & y but also have 100 armies in those terits.

DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Multiple ownership of a terit

Description: some terits are not attackable but more players can move into the same terit.
let's say we have terit A -> B <- C
with the arrows being one way moving. not attacking just moving. green is in terit A and he moves his troops to B. he selects attack but no dice are rolled he just moves. then red has terit C and also moves into terit B. now both red and green have their armies in the same terit. it's multiple ownership. since the teit is move only there's not the problem of someone attacking it to see who defends and such

DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Random assigned xml features

Description: let's say i have a map where some terits give bonuses. i want those terits to be random every time a new game starts

DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Motion detectors

Description: i want triggers in the xml for certain actions done by the players. let's say a players moves from terita A to B. if he moves 10 troops it's ok but if he moves 100 troops a motion detector is triggered and a xml feature is applied (like an impassable border or decay or something)
DiM wrote:Suggestion Idea: Starting positions by colour

Description: i don't know how i forgot this one but i did. luckily i remembered
so i want to be able to write in the xml where will each player start depending on the number of players. something like:
Code: Select all
if 2 players -> red terit A green terit H (the rest neutral)
if 3 players -> red terit A green terit H and blue in terit D (the rest neutral)
......

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:51 am

I'll add another one here...

Optional components for Continents...

i.e.

Code: Select all

<continent>
  <name>foobar</name>
  <bonus>2</bonus>
  <components>
    <component>foo</component>
    <optionals>
      <component>bar 1</component>
      <component>bar 2</component>
      <component>bar 3</component>
      <required>1</required>
    </optionals>
  </components>
</continent>

This would allow us to make continents with fixed parts - and optional parts really easily - for good example - see Mibi's Supermax.

C.

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:47 pm

Most likely Lack will look over the next batch of suggestions after his next site update.

--Andy

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:00 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:Most likely Lack will look over the next batch of suggestions after his next site update.

--Andy

and when is the next update?

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:03 pm

Sometime from the current next minute...to some other minute...in some other day of some week. But probably on a shorter time span than the last previous site update.

--Andy

GreecePwns · Post by **GreecePwns** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:05 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:Sometime from the current next minute...to some other minute...in some other day of some week. But probably on a shorter time span than the last previous site update.

--Andy

Why can't we get a straight answer?

And when will you mod a mafia game?

Begbie · Post by **Begbie** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:59 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:Sometime from the current next minute...to some other minute...in some other day of some week. But probably on a shorter time span than the last previous site update.

--Andy

as long as it is before x-mas it's ok

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:27 am

does anybody know if the XML tester at /mapmaker reflects the latest XML changes? I'm working with territory bonuses in the Berlin map, and I get the following error for each one:

line 690: <bonus>1</bonus> - Did not expect element bonus there

I assume that either the tester is out of date, or I can't use a <bonus> tag within a territory as suggested in the XML tutorial.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:17 am

oaktown wrote:does anybody know if the XML tester at /mapmaker reflects the latest XML changes? I'm working with territory bonuses in the Berlin map, and I get the following error for each one:

line 690: <bonus>1</bonus> - Did not expect element bonus there

I assume that either the tester is out of date, or I can't use a <bonus> tag within a territory as suggested in the XML tutorial.

Hi Oaktown,

The new XML tester has been updated recently...

The <bonus> tag is in the latest Schema that I sent Lack... (although I notice I've got minOccurs=1 on it - which is incorrect as it's optional)

So I assume around Line 690 you've got something a bit wrong... can you put up the section surrounding 690 here and I'll take a look?

C.

Shino Tenshi · Post by **Shino Tenshi** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:19 am

Forgive me if either one of the following two suggestions has already been posted, but there's FAR too many pages to read to make sure I'm not duplicating.

Preset Player Territories

Description: The ability for a mapmaker to specify which players, including neutral, own specific territories in the game.

Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow mapmakers to create maps where players all start off on equal footing. An example would be each player in Chinese Checkers starting off with a triangle and the rest being set to neutral. I have also been considering a space conquest map of sorts involving homeworlds, in which I would need to be able to assign a homeworld, and likely surrounding planets, to each player.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Shino Tenshi · Post by **Shino Tenshi** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:24 am

Preset Starting Armies

Description: The ability for a mapmaker to specify how many armies any given territory starts off with.

Why It Should Be Considered: This would be useful for making special territories (the Throne in Siege, a flag in 'Capture the Flag', etc) that would give bonuses for owning just the one territory. The territory could be set to have 20 armies on it (neutral, of course, which would require the above update as well).

Lack Label (Mod Use):

Shino Tenshi · Post by **Shino Tenshi** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:29 am

Limit Bonus for Territories Owned

Description: The ability for mapmakers to limit or eliminate the bonus for the number of territories that you own.

Why It Should Be Considered: This would allow mapmakers to come up with alternative troop economies and control them better. For example, the map I have in mind I would like to make it so that if you don't own your homeworld, you don't get any reinforcements at all. It would be the equivalent of a capitols Risk idea, only instead of being eliminated, you would have a chance to take back your homeworld. The reinforcements would be given for owning your homeworld and any given planet, plus perhaps 'continent' bonuses as well.

Lack Label (Mod Use):