Conquer Club

[game]2485221[/game]


looks like there's a problem in the starting areas coding.

Some players are getting 2 of the parachute territories to start.

edbeard wrote:[game]2485221[/game]


looks like there's a problem in the starting areas coding.

Some players are getting 2 of the parachute territories to start.

Agreed edbeard...what the xml has done is take 4 starting areas of 8 players each and allocated 6 players 5 places each with two neutrals.
I beleive this might have something to do with the way the starting postions are written, contacting lackattack now.

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:Congratz on another wonderful map (although I still haven't figured out if I can win from 2nd in seq 1v1s).

One small xml bug though (so far):

Markt can be attacked by, but cannot attack Wache dim

that's not a bug. DiM is actually invincible

Game 2485913 is listed as assassin. This map should not allow assassin as the game will last forever

first player to hold the four blue places wins?

For the Win ==> Escape Flugzeuge (1) Funkraum (1) Kom. Wilhelm (1) Munitionsraum (1) - Held by Tisha

but i only won because the guy missed three turns, not for holding the territories..

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2487509

do you need hold it for one turn?

kletka wrote:Game 2485913 is listed as assassin. This map should not allow assassin as the game will last forever

Terminator and Assassin games just become regular "objective" games. Lack didn't want to specifically hard code those variations not playable at this time.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Terminator and Assassin games just become regular "objective" games. Lack didn't want to specifically hard code those variations not playable at this time.
--Andy

I guess it is all right with terminator but this becomes dodgy in assassin

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:Congratz on another wonderful map (although I still haven't figured out if I can win from 2nd in seq 1v1s).

QFT, 'cause no matter what you do, the other guy's gonna get 11 armies at least.

Reply from lackattack:

lackattack wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Thanks lackattack.
Howver, we have a bigger challenge in this map.

cairnswk wrote:

edbeard wrote:[game]2485221[/game]
looks like there's a problem in the starting areas coding.
Some players are getting 2 of the parachute territories to start.

Agreed edbeard...what the xml has done is take 4 starting areas of 8 starting positions each and allocated 6 players 5 places each with two neutrals.
I believe this might have something to do with the way the starting positions are written, contacting lackattack now.

Do you know of any solutions to this?
The 8 positions that start on the bottom right of the map need to be only allocated to 1 player each.
Would it work if those territories were removed from the starting positions code?
Unfortunately i have to get to RL work, so will have to attend to this later.
Thanks guys.

Didn't anyone read the XML tutorial!?

XML Tutorial wrote:So in the above example we have 12 start positions. In a game players will get one or more of these depending on how many people are playing and the rest of the territories are distributed normally.

I'm not sure how to limit it to 1 position each. But the engine should either allocate 1 each or 2 each or 3 each, never 2 to some people and only 1 to others. So it should be fair at least

Well it seems it is not fair....
What the engine does is use the total number of starting positions in this case which is 32, then divides and allocate those terts according to number of players.

So, my solution for this would be it use the starting position xml only on the People named terits which have bonuses attached to them, and leave the rest of the non-neutral terits to the engine distribution which should then be fair on everyone.

What do others think?

Hang on here Cairns - I think we've got a misunderstanding...

C.

kletka wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Terminator and Assassin games just become regular "objective" games. Lack didn't want to specifically hard code those variations not playable at this time.
--Andy

I guess it is all right with terminator but this becomes dodgy in assassin

It doesn't matter - no-one can be assassinated - however the game can still end by gaining an objective.

C.

yeti_c wrote:Hang on here Cairns - I think we've got a misunderstanding...

C.

yes seems so.

There is also a misunderstanding from my part.
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.

But there is an error on starting in the parahcute area.

cairnswk wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Hang on here Cairns - I think we've got a misunderstanding...

C.

yes seems so.

There is also a misunderstanding from my part.
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.

But there is an error on starting in the parahcute area.

We are reading from the same page now... see my PM for a fix.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Hang on here Cairns - I think we've got a misunderstanding...

C.

yes seems so.

There is also a misunderstanding from my part.
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.

But there is an error on starting in the parahcute area.

We are reading from the same page now... see my PM for a fix.

C.

Thanks c.

below is the fix xml i sent to lackattack for upload.

http://h1.ripway.com/cairnswk/das_schloss_220508B.xml

I am in bdsm love with this map. I love the gameplay but I hate how much imbalanced it is!!

In sequential 1v1 it is 100% win for the starting player!! One really has to put huge stacks (30 I reckon) on AA, AB and AC to give non-starting player any chance...

And I am afraid of trying it with more players as it has STALEMATE written all over it

kletka wrote:I am in bdsm love with this map. I love the gameplay but I hate how much imbalanced it is!!

In sequential 1v1 it is 100% win for the starting player!! One really has to put huge stacks (30 I reckon) on AA, AB and AC to give non-starting player any chance...

And I am afraid of trying it with more players as it has STALEMATE written all over it

kletka...appreciate your input, and i hear you.
I am hoping that the new xml will alleviate some of that...so watch this space.

XML challenges should be fixed on this one now.

and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.

Seems like one thing that could potentially be done to alleviate stalemate issues would be to have the X1 and X2 terits in the southwest respawn as 3's instead of 1's if they're bombarded (dunno if this is possible in the xml tho). Otherwise it's like night of the living dead down there, you think you've got your opponent on the run but he just keeps coming with fresh numbers.

Incandenza wrote:Seems like one thing that could potentially be done to alleviate stalemate issues would be to have the X1 and X2 terits in the southwest respawn as 3's instead of 1's if they're bombarded (dunno if this is possible in the xml tho). Otherwise it's like night of the living dead down there, you think you've got your opponent on the run but he just keeps coming with fresh numbers.

I'll sus that out incandenza....i've started a few games myself and would like to see how they play out.
Thanks for good suggestion once again.

why is there no one on the castle? didn't the gameplay get stamped with guys on the castle?

cairnswk wrote:and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.

Hmmm - why did you do this Cairns?

C.

cairnswk wrote:There is also a misunderstanding from my part.
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.

cairnswk wrote:XML challenges should be fixed on this one now.

and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.

It looks like Cairnswk took them out...


--Andy

I'll be VERY curious to see how that big 8p game goes...

edbeard wrote:why is there no one on the castle? didn't the gameplay get stamped with guys on the castle?

Incandenza wrote:I'll be VERY curious to see how that big 8p game goes...

AndyDufresne wrote:

cairnswk wrote:There is also a misunderstanding from my part.
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.

cairnswk wrote:XML challenges should be fixed on this one now.
and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.

It looks like Cairnswk took them out...
--Andy

yeti_c wrote:

cairnswk wrote:and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.

Hmmm - why did you do this Cairns?
C.

No, i didn't take them out...my error for stating they were there...they were never in the stamped xml...and it got through and wasn't picked up, and i and nobody else picked it up. here is the link for you to check from the 2 May upload file on p27.
http://h1.ripway.com/cairnswk/das_schloss_020508.xml

Then came the challenge with the starting position allocation....i could see that players in 1 vs 1 game from looking at some of the early games (essentially this is sandbox mode!) were not using cable cars, nor the helipad. This is an essential part of conquering this map (from the original storyline)....

Therefore, i have made a decision to leave them our for now. If there is a big enough outcry ( and not from you guys) that they should be re-instated....then i will do so.

However, from three small games that i have going at present, i can say that that starting gameplay is more in line with what the original gameplay should be and what was my original idea for this map, thanks to yeti_c for solving the starting position challenge.

no offense but this is bullshit. You can't just change the map when it wasn't stamped for that gameplay.

If we want to make a policy that new maps are uploaded but are not called new but beta then we can use it as a testing system where any final gameplay tweaks can be made that's one thing (players can lose points at their own risk). Just changing it without disclosing anything is something else entirely.