* Massacre à Paris [3.11.13] Gameplay Discussion

[generalhead]

Awesome! every thing has been made clear. Much better.

[cairnswk]

and this is a general 88s vision (from xml) of what it may look like at start

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[koontz1973]

Al right cairns, I can start to see where this one is going now, it take me time sometimes to see these things. All looking good. As always, sticky for a few days and then you get the move.

[cairnswk]

Al right cairns, I can start to see where this one is going now, it take me time sometimes to see these things. All looking good. As always, sticky for a few days and then you get the move.

Thank-you koontz for keeping as always the stuff upper lip...holding up the process...instead of getting this into workshop where players can see it the gameplay discussion area, you're going to hold it up for a few more days...congratuations...are you sure you didn't work for the Brits before WWI before the "parade ended"...sometimes the bueacracy never ceases to amaze me
no offense koontz, but holding up a map for the sake of process is simply plain stupid.

[koontz1973]

Thank-you koontz for keeping as always the stuff upper lip...holding up the process...instead of getting this into workshop where players can see it the gameplay discussion area, you're going to hold it up for a few more days...congratuations...are you sure you didn't work for the Brits before WWI before the "parade ended"...sometimes the bueacracy never ceases to amaze me
no offense koontz, but holding up a map for the sake of process is simply plain stupid.

No it is not stupid. And I did not hold the map up for the sake of the process. I held this one up as I was not sure which way you where going with it so until I was, I kept it here as per the drafting room guidelines.
As for the playable image, you only provided bonuses 2 days ago and text that I could read yesterday, and finished that of with the update before your 88 tests. All done whilst I was asleep. I asked you a gameplay question about the starting advantage which you have answered with this:

Perhaps we need to minimise that somehow

You want ideas from us, but you have not given any indication of what your ideas would be, what your preference would be. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as you have made many many maps and gave you the sticky. I did this as soon as I had logged on.

So where in your opinion have I held this up for the sake of it?

[cairnswk]

Thank-you koontz for keeping as always the stuff upper lip...holding up the process...instead of getting this into workshop where players can see it the gameplay discussion area, you're going to hold it up for a few more days...congratuations...are you sure you didn't work for the Brits before WWI before the "parade ended"...sometimes the bueacracy never ceases to amaze me
no offense koontz, but holding up a map for the sake of process is simply plain stupid.

No it is not stupid. And I did not hold the map up for the sake of the process. I held this one up as I was not sure which way you where going with it so until I was, I kept it here as per the drafting room guidelines.
As for the playable image, you only provided bonuses 2 days ago and text that I could read yesterday, and finished that of with the update before your 88 tests. All done whilst I was asleep. I asked you a gameplay question about the starting advantage which you have answered with this:

Perhaps we need to minimise that somehow

You want ideas from us, but you have not given any indication of what your ideas would be, what your preference would be. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as you have made many many maps and gave you the sticky. I did this as soon as I had logged on.

So where in your opinion have I held this up for the sake of it?

koontz...yes i have done many maps, and because of the process of this foundry where everyone gets to have a say, i quite often now hold back on my opinions about how things should work, since my ideas may not always be the best for the map, and others e.g yourself, funkyterrance, DoomYoshi etc. in this map may have ideas that will enhance the playability of the map particarliy (since conditional border were discussed as one stage), and everyone seemed to have difficulty at how the connections worked since i failed to state clearly in everyone else's language their machanics.
I beleive i gave the main coditions for what my ideas were for the map at the start, and this has now been somewhat enhanced and i have had to improve the graphics towards same.
If i only provided the main conditions for the map while you were asleep, then now that they seem to be provided, holding it up does nothing for the discussion process.
So continue, if you want to hold it up...

[koontz1973]

So continue, if you want to hold it up...

Thank you for giving me permission.

And as always, I stickied when conditions warranted it and will move it 48 hours later as per my normal routine. I am not stopping you talking about game play or graphics while here. In fact, I encourage it as it means less work later for the game play and graphics mods.

[cairnswk]

So continue, if you want to hold it up...

Thank you for giving me permission.
...

oh you didn't need my permission !

[Funkyterrance]

Cairns, when I stated I was hopeful that the map would take color-blindness into consideration I mean in general. I'm not all that familiar with the drafting process so I didn't know whether or not once a change was made if it was permanent and tbh I still had a little trouble telling the black pants from the brown(?) pants. I just figured I would get my 2 cents in before the map was advanced to the next stage, causing you to get further agitated.

I still would appreciate a direct answer to this question:

For instance, in the case of H01, CO2, CA, and HB, are all four of these terts considered adjacent?

If I knew the answer to this question I would have a better idea whether or not my fears of an unbalanced map were warranted. If the borders of certain bonus areas are 2 terts wide as opposed to 1 it would make a world of difference.

[Funkyterrance]

I've got a suggestion that may be helpful: Make pavestones or something on the ground under the duelers so that it is obvious who can attack who. As it stands it could be a bit jumbled. Something like a dueler can attack any adjacent pavestone. It's just the sort of thing that could make the difference between someone trying or not trying out the map based on how easily read it is. If you don't know what I mean by pavestones I can try to clarify.

[generalhead]

Cairns, when I stated I was hopeful that the map would take color-blindness into consideration I mean in general. I'm not all that familiar with the drafting process so I didn't know whether or not once a change was made if it was permanent and tbh I still had a little trouble telling the black pants from the brown(?) pants. I just figured I would get my 2 cents in before the map was advanced to the next stage, causing you to get further agitated.

I still would appreciate a direct answer to this question:

For instance, in the case of H01, CO2, CA, and HB, are all four of these terts considered adjacent?

If I knew the answer to this question I would have a better idea whether or not my fears of an unbalanced map were warranted. If the borders of certain bonus areas are 2 terts wide as opposed to 1 it would make a world of difference.

It shows in the attack route in the legend how they can attack within the region and then cairns installed the asterisks to show how they can attack between regions. I am shore the asterisk are just temporary and will get changed once cairns works on graphics, but right now cairns is just trying to show game play. The attack routes and asterisks have made it pretty clear. It is pretty much you can attack the same color adjacent swordsman and you can attack the opposing color adjacent swordsman. adjacent would be like tic tac toe, up down and diagonal. That goes for in regions and across regions.

[cairnswk]

Cairns, when I stated I was hopeful that the map would take color-blindness into consideration I mean in general. I'm not all that familiar with the drafting process so I didn't know whether or not once a change was made if it was permanent and tbh I still had a little trouble telling the black pants from the brown(?) pants. I just figured I would get my 2 cents in before the map was advanced to the next stage, causing you to get further agitated.

i don't beleive i got agitated over the CB issue since i was testing for it myself to see what colours would be working, so your questioning on this was not a hit at you.

I still would appreciate a direct answer to this question:

For instance, in the case of H01, CO2, CA, and HB, are all four of these terts considered adjacent?

If I knew the answer to this question I would have a better idea whether or not my fears of an unbalanced map were warranted. If the borders of certain bonus areas are 2 terts wide as opposed to 1 it would make a world of difference.

Since i have now changed the" who can attack who re the border issues" in the above V7, i am not going to feed you terrance with an answer to this...please examine the map above and notice the legend wording and then apply it to the map. You might notice the wording on impassables (hint: wall between H01 and CA) and duelers marked with an asterisk (*C02 and *HB). Then come back with your answer.

I've got a suggestion that may be helpful: Make pavestones or something on the ground under the duelers so that it is obvious who can attack who. As it stands it could be a bit jumbled. Something like a dueler can attack any adjacent pavestone. It's just the sort of thing that could make the difference between someone trying or not trying out the map based on how easily read it is. If you don't know what I mean by pavestones I can try to clarify.

That is a helpful suggestion, and were there more room in the small version i would probably consider doing something towards this.
However, I think it will clutter the ground appearance and make the map more intense than is needs to be graphic wise, and colourw-ise that could become another issue/road i don't want to travel...i would like to keep this as simply as possible...and we will all get there together to find a solution that fits all.
i beleive the current V7 with rectangles for the tert code and squares above it for army numbers may provide some better interpretation for you.

[cairnswk]

...It shows in the attack route in the legend how they can attack within the region and then cairns installed the asterisks to show how they can attack between regions. I am shore the asterisk are just temporary and will get changed once cairns works on graphics, but right now cairns is just trying to show game play. The attack routes and asterisks have made it pretty clear. It is pretty much you can attack the same color adjacent swordsman and you can attack the opposing color adjacent swordsman. adjacent would be like tic tac toe, up down and diagonal. That goes for in regions and across regions.

Spot on. but don't forget the impassables.

[Funkyterrance]

Cool, I somehow missed the whole asterisk thing, thanks guys.
Smaller "bottlenecks" tend to lead to more unbalanced play but to me, now knowing the border widths, it looks like it could be ok. I suppose trying it out for 10 games or so will be the real test.

[cairnswk]

Version 7 - bumped

Click image to enlarge.