XML Modifications and Variations

[hecter]

This already exists - the Conquerman code uses this feature...

C.

Then why on earth is the code so long? You'd think it would be shorter, but I guess not...

Well then, how about a play on that idea?



Suggestion Idea: Allow Multiple Required in One Continent Set

Description: Right now, you can only have one required per territory set, correct? Why can't we have more? It could work like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>NAME</name>
   <bonus>##</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>A</component>
      <component>B</component>
      <component>C</component>
      <component>D</component>
      <required>2
          <bonus>##</bonus>
      </required>
      <required>3
          <bonus>##</bonus>
      </required>
   </components>
</continent>

Why It Should Be Considered: It would allow for quicker and easier coding, and would allow addons to run faster.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[Coleman]

I'm beginning to see more and more people suggesting things that aren't really RISK, but real war games. Like losing armies for winter and dehydration and crap like that... I don't know if I'm for it or against it.

-W123

The good news is you'll still have all the current maps, many of which don't deviate from risk a whole lot.

I think a method that separates lists, maybe even so far as a drop down where you can't even see the whole list at once would help players like you ignore players and maps who want to do more with the same user interface.

[unriggable]

I'm beginning to see more and more people suggesting things that aren't really RISK, but real war games. Like losing armies for winter and dehydration and crap like that... I don't know if I'm for it or against it.

-W123

Age of Magic has this.

[yeti_c]

This already exists - the Conquerman code uses this feature...

C.

Then why on earth is the code so long? You'd think it would be shorter, but I guess not...

Well then, how about a play on that idea?



Suggestion Idea: Allow Multiple Required in One Continent Set

Description: Right now, you can only have one required per territory set, correct? Why can't we have more? It could work like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>NAME</name>
   <bonus>##</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>A</component>
      <component>B</component>
      <component>C</component>
      <component>D</component>
      <required>2
          <bonus>##</bonus>
      </required>
      <required>3
          <bonus>##</bonus>
      </required>
   </components>
</continent>

Why It Should Be Considered: It would allow for quicker and easier coding, and would allow addons to run faster.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

I can't see this working with the current code that Lack has - however if you check back a couple of pages you will see a similar idea to this - but purely based on the territory count modification - that would be better for Lack and for me.

C.

[lackattack]

I caught up on the suggestions because it's time for another round of xml extensions. I want to keep this batch smallish to stay on target for a January forum upgrade. Here is my feedback on the new suggestions:

Note: Any sort of dynamic XML (i.e. something triggers a different set of rules mid-game) would be put off yet again because of complexity.

EDIT: nothing is set in stone, please feel free to debate my decision tags

Variable basic army grants / Standard Army Bonus Adjustment

Code: Select all

<Bonus Adjustment>
      <matrix>
         <lower>1</lower>
         <upper>30</upper>
         <count>3</count>
      </matrix>

With xml like above [Yes]

Converting Territories Surround = conquer is very non risk-like. Not sure if it should be a game option, at the map level or at the territ level. I'd say [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

Variable Attack Range This is actually 2 ideas. Since you can mimic attack range by listing a bunch of bombardments, this isn't priority. The variable part is just a subset of the dynamic xml idea. [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

One-time Bonus [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

Multiple X/Y coordinates even though I don't understand it, [No]

Win condition - number of armies [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand)

Random assigned xml features This doesn't seem to be worth the cost. [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

Motion detectors Forting / advancing could be a trigger for dynamic xml. [Maybe]

Starting positions by color The order of joining the game should not affect gameplay. Do we really need starting positions considering we already have DiM's technique? [No]

Nested Continents I really like this one, plus I don't want DiM to TP my house!

Code: Select all

<continent>
  <name>A</name>
  <components>
    <component type="territory">B</component>
    <component type="continent">C</component>
  </components>
  <bonus>0</bonus>
</continent>

I propose xml like this, with type="territory" optional for backwards compatibility. The xml checker would have to test for infinite loops, and you may have to define a continent before you reference it but I'm not sure yet. [Yes]

Territory Hold Time Bonus [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

RESETTING NEUTRAL TERRITORIES / Respanwing Neutrals [Yes]

SENTRY TERRITORIES

Code: Select all

<visibles>
  <visible>territory</visible>
</visibles>

Cool idea but quite a bit of work when you can have something similar using borders or bombardments. [Maybe]

Continent Bonus Applied to a Territory [Maybe]

Preferred Neutrals Not fun to program [No]

Deffered Armies [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

Kingdoms Care to provide an example of how this xml would work, because I can't picture it. [No] (or [Maybe] if we can spec it out).

Kingdom Missions Objectives exist and should do the trick [No]

Mission Cards not really an xml thing [No]

Allow Multiple Required in One Continent Set This could reduce the XML but our current technique allows for better log entries (e.g. "holding two zeroes" vs "holding four zeroes") [No]

So in summary, I'd like to go ahead with the 3 "yes" items listed above. I might be able to include a 4th, which would be from the maybes here or the yeses/maybes from the previous batch that didn't make it.

[cairnswk]

I caught up on the suggestions because it's time for another round of xml extensions. I want to keep this batch smallish to stay on target for a January forum upgrade. Here is my feedback on the new suggestions:

Note: Any sort of dynamic XML (i.e. something triggers a different set of rules mid-game) would be put off yet again because of complexity.

Lackattack..forgive if i am vague....but what about player starting positions.

I am wanting this for Das Schloss map, where one starting region of the map requires a start by one each of the players, but other areas separate again on the map can have a normal random disbursement.
For example.
Area A: needs to start with one of each player (like programming nuetrals)
Areas B and C can start with a random order.

[Coleman]

Starting positions by color The order of joining the game should not affect gameplay. Do we really need starting positions considering we already have DiM's technique? [No]

I disagree with this one sort of.

Starting by color is bad. I don't like that either.

I would like to be able to set starting territories by player count. Like there would be a section for each player count 2 through 8 (if 7 and 8 are viable) and then we set up a tag for each player (player 1, player 2, ect) inside these and then we give them all the countries we want them to always have.

Any countries not set to someone (doesn't matter which color, each person randomly sorts into one of these players) are handed out randomly as normal.

This may be insanely hard to code. Like if I said in a 2 player game Player one should always have X Y & Z and player two should always have A B C D E then of the ones left whoever managed to be player one would need 2 extra so it's still even.

The advantage would be we don't have to keep blanketing the maps in neutrals to make sure someone always has one or two of an important territory. Like if DiM wanted to make his last map 'Chaos' or something, and everyone started with a castle but everyone also randomly got the rest he could do it.

I doubt DiM is planning that... but if he was...

Anyway, you mentioned wanting to keep this smallish, so in the interest of that this can be put off but we'll probably ask for it again.

[lackattack]

Okay, so something like this?

Code: Select all

<positions>
   <position>
      <components>
         <component>territ 1</component>
         <component>territ 2</component>
         <component>territ 3</component>
      </components>
   </position>
   <position>
      <components>
         <component>territ 4</component>
         <component>territ 5</component>
         <component>territ 6</component>
      </components>
   </position>
</positions>

[yeti_c]

I think it would be better off if we could label territories as "starts" - thus allowing us to ensure that we give an even spread of starting territories...

Also - as a double bonus - this tag could have an army number inside...

i.e.

<start>6</start>

So this means that this territory is a starting territory and has 6 to start with...

The <start> territories are dealt out randomly first - and then the rest of the territories are randomly assigned...

This way we could solve Cairns' problem - and also you could make some of the Conquest maps non Conquest but even up the drops...

C.

[yeti_c]

Other queries...

RESETTING NEUTRAL TERRITORIES / Respanwing Neutrals [Yes]

How do you plan on this one?

<components>
<component type="territory">B</component>
<component type="continent">C</component>
</components>

Marvellous - also - if no type then does this default to type="territory"? If not - then some Search n Replace will be necessary!!

C.

[lackattack]

By tagging the starting position on each territory you lose the ability to group them.

If you want to be able to specify starting armies > 3 we could do something like this:

Code: Select all

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory strat="6">territ 1</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 2</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 3</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory strat="6">territ 4</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 5</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 6</territory>
   </position>
</positions>

[yeti_c]

By tagging the starting position on each territory you lose the ability to group them.

If you want to be able to specify starting armies > 3 we could do something like this:

Code: Select all

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory strat="6">territ 1</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 2</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 3</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory strat="6">territ 4</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 5</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 6</territory>
   </position>
</positions>

Coleman? Do we want to group them?

I guess grouping could be useful - in Feudal for instance - you could group up each empire for instance!!

Just allowing definite start territories is enough for me... of course if you had 8 starts in a 2 player game 2 would be for each player - 2 for the neutral player - and the other 2 would be neutral too...

9 starts would be 3 for each player and 3 for neutral...

C.

[lackattack]

RESETTING NEUTRAL TERRITORIES / Respanwing Neutrals [Yes]

How do you plan on this one?

Your territories will respawn when you click begin turn. If you get eliminated, it will handled the same as auto-kick.

Marvellous - also - if no type then does this default to type="territory"? If not - then some Search n Replace will be necessary!!

Read my post again carefully

[lackattack]

Coleman? Do we want to group them?

Look at cairn's post. My understanding is that he wants grouping.

[yeti_c]

RESETTING NEUTRAL TERRITORIES / Respanwing Neutrals [Yes]

How do you plan on this one?

Your territories will respawn when you click begin turn. If you get eliminated, it will handled the same as auto-kick.

How does it fit in the XML?

<neutral respawn="true">5</neutral>

Marvellous - also - if no type then does this default to type="territory"? If not - then some Search n Replace will be necessary!!

Read my post again carefully

Doh missed the word "optionally" - that's exactly how I'd've done it - nice.

[yeti_c]

Coleman? Do we want to group them?

Look at cairn's post. My understanding is that he wants grouping.

Cairns starting technique would be acheivable with my <start> tags...

i.e. the bottom left group are <start> tags...
the rest are just normal
and the other territories are all neutral.

C.

[yeti_c]

PS - I forgot to say - we love you Lack... great news that the XML is imminent...

This means we can release the shackles on Iraq & Supermax...

Also - we can rewrite Conquerman & AOM to be quicker...

Super sweet...

Can we have an approximate ETA on this - so I can shedule in time to

a) rewrite AOM
b) modify BOB

C.

[Coleman]

By tagging the starting position on each territory you lose the ability to group them.

If you want to be able to specify starting armies > 3 we could do something like this:

Code: Select all

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory strat="6">territ 1</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 2</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 3</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory strat="6">territ 4</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 5</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 6</territory>
   </position>
</positions>

That would work, I don't care about the start or 'strat' so much, but if other people want it and it isn't hard...

The tricky part is if we set one position to have like 5 territories and another to have say 2, we still need both players to have the same amount of territories in the end.

[yeti_c]

By tagging the starting position on each territory you lose the ability to group them.

If you want to be able to specify starting armies > 3 we could do something like this:

Code: Select all

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory strat="6">territ 1</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 2</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 3</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory strat="6">territ 4</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 5</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 6</territory>
   </position>
</positions>

That would work, I don't care about the start or 'strat' so much, but if other people want it and it isn't hard...

The tricky part is if we set one position to have like 5 territories and another to have say 2, we still need both players to have the same amount of territories in the end.

That will be upto Lack to sort out in the coding...

C.

[Coleman]

Also with positions could we do a <positions count="2"> where count is a tag for how many people are playing. So we can have it be different for each count or maybe not have a positions for some counts?

[yeti_c]

My only problem with "positions" like this is that we really have to get a handle on balance better...

AOM:Might was so unbalanced at the start - but we didn't realise - with this sort of stuff in then we'd be practically running the game ourselves... we have to get this right!!

C.

[DiM]

My only problem with "positions" like this is that we really have to get a handle on balance better...

2 words come in mind. testing facility

[yeti_c]

My only problem with "positions" like this is that we really have to get a handle on balance better...

2 words come in mind. testing facility

Testing facility won't work for this though...

Only huge amounts of playtesting would work... 2 or 3 games are good for checking the code is correct...

But gameplay balance like this would need much more work...

C.

[DiM]

My only problem with "positions" like this is that we really have to get a handle on balance better...

2 words come in mind. testing facility

Testing facility won't work for this though...

Only huge amounts of playtesting would work... 2 or 3 games are good for checking the code is correct...

But gameplay balance like this would need much more work...

C.

testing facility would be exactly for play testing the game in as many games as possible.
for AoM i played more than 50 games with my friends before it was released and i tried all kinds of games from teams to asassin.

but those 50 games took a lot of time. if i had the possibility to play on CC on a map as many times as i want i could iron out all the flaws in a gameplay. i would host games for my maps in all stages of development and after each update to make sure it's perfect.

that's what i want in a testing facility. the possibility to play unranked games whenever i want on a map that's still in production.

of course this requires lack to delete lots of games and upload images and xmls whenever it's needed.

[gimil]

My only problem with "positions" like this is that we really have to get a handle on balance better...

2 words come in mind. testing facility

Testing facility won't work for this though...

Only huge amounts of playtesting would work... 2 or 3 games are good for checking the code is correct...

But gameplay balance like this would need much more work...

C.

testing facility would be exactly for play testing the game in as many games as possible.
for AoM i played more than 50 games with my friends before it was released and i tried all kinds of games from teams to asassin.

but those 50 games took a lot of time. if i had the possibility to play on CC on a map as many times as i want i could iron out all the flaws in a gameplay. i would host games for my maps in all stages of development and after each update to make sure it's perfect.

that's what i want in a testing facility. the possibility to play unranked games whenever i want on a map that's still in production.

of course this requires lack to delete lots of games and upload images and xmls whenever it's needed.

unless CA where given some privlages