Conquer Club

cairnswk wrote:Thanks natty for the xml check.

Gilligan wrote:

ender516 wrote:I wonder if the term "non-stackable" will be clear to all users.
The only bonus I am unclear on now is the 1 Rev. + 6 Landowners, which is worth +3. If I have 2 Revs. and 6 Landowners, will I get +6, or do I need 2 Revs. and 12 Landowners? There is a way to code either one.

2 Revs and 12 Landowners, 3 Revs and 18 Landowners, etc. It's coded to be that way.

Yes, that means it accumulates, doesn't it.
So for the other bonuses which don't accumulate, they would be non-accumulative, or is that still the wrong word?

How about this:

"Can only be used once (will not multiply)"

Also, latest XML:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... lFinal.xml

Gilligan wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Thanks natty for the xml check.

Gilligan wrote:

ender516 wrote:I wonder if the term "non-stackable" will be clear to all users.
The only bonus I am unclear on now is the 1 Rev. + 6 Landowners, which is worth +3. If I have 2 Revs. and 6 Landowners, will I get +6, or do I need 2 Revs. and 12 Landowners? There is a way to code either one.

2 Revs and 12 Landowners, 3 Revs and 18 Landowners, etc. It's coded to be that way.

Yes, that means it accumulates, doesn't it.
So for the other bonuses which don't accumulate, they would be non-accumulative, or is that still the wrong word?

How about this:

"Can only be used once (will not multiply)"

Also, latest XML:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... lFinal.xml

Thanks for xml link Gilligan.
On the words...ah too wordy to go under the Bonus title, and is that not the same thing as non-accumulative. I don't want to sound as though i am arguing about it, just want to get it right, that's all.

Then how about "Can only be used once"?

Gilligan wrote:Then how about "Can only be used once"?

That would possibly be OK for the right hand main bonuses (although still a bit wordy), but does it convey the (5*) in the gossip bonus?

cairnswk wrote:

Gilligan wrote:Then how about "Can only be used once"?

That would possibly be OK for the right hand main bonuses (although still a bit wordy), but does it convey the (5*) in the gossip bonus?

I think so.

cairnswk wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:How about saying that you only receive the bonus once no matter how many you have?

how about "non-cumulative"
oops, i should have used non-accumulative

This would work.

Hola! As far as clarity is concerned, I don't think the asterisks are necessary. Simply say that a meeting house and five or more landowners yields the Gossip bonus, signified by a (5+), instead of the current (5*) you have. I think that should solve the problem.

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:Hola! As far as clarity is concerned, I don't think the asterisks are necessary. Simply say that a meeting house and five or more landowners yields the Gossip bonus, signified by a (5+), instead of the current (5*) you have. I think that should solve the problem.

-Sully

Thanks Sully for that. That metematics of yours...i gotta say
so this should be it....

Good solution, Sully. This seems clear enough now, cairns.

ender516 wrote:Good solution, Sully. This seems clear enough now, cairns.

Yes me also, ender516.

I present V32...i think this will be the finishing touches to this.
I've re-layered the outside blue frame and placed under it the tree branches just for that finishing polish.
Non of the army placements have been moved, Gilligan.
Is everyone happy with the new title?

Small


Large

*Yay for Sully*

-Sully

yay sully yay ...........

Cairns, what do you think?

Gilligan
Small map -
The Bs -
B4 > 1
B8 ^ 1
B12 > 1
B13 > 1
B16 > 1
B19 > 1
B20 ^ 1
Putnam & Prince ^ 1
Southwick Family ^ 1
Sarah Good ^ 1
Large next post.

Large....
B1 > 1
B3 > 1
B4, B5, B6 > 1
B7 v 1
B9 > 1
B10 > ^ 1
B11 > 1
B12 > maybe 2
B15 > 1
B16 > 1 (i think)
B18 ^ 1
B21 > 1 maybe ^ 1
Do those and post the new xml as attachement below, and i'll look at the rest as i think many of the large could do with some adjustment.

cairnswk wrote:Large....
B1 > 1
B3 > 1
B4, B5, B6 > 1
B7 v 1
B9 > 1
B10 > ^ 1
B11 > 1
B12 > maybe 2
B15 > 1
B16 > 1 (i think)
B18 ^ 1
B21 > 1 maybe ^ 1
Do those and post the new xml as attachement below, and i'll look at the rest as i think many of the large could do with some adjustment.

I know my eyes are bad, but I didn't think that bad...to me they look pretty good Harder to sense the center on larger circles...

At any rate...here are those changes...

Gilligan wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Large....
B1 > 1
B3 > 1
B4, B5, B6 > 1
B7 v 1
B9 > 1
B10 > ^ 1
B11 > 1
B12 > maybe 2
B15 > 1
B16 > 1 (i think)
B18 ^ 1
B21 > 1 maybe ^ 1
Do those and post the new xml as attachement below, and i'll look at the rest as i think many of the large could do with some adjustment.

I know my eyes are bad, but I didn't think that bad...to me they look pretty good Harder to sense the center on larger circles...

Gilligan wrote:At any rate...here are those changes...

Thanks, i'll take a look after i return from getting uni text books this morning.

Version 33 centering





http://www.peeje.com/files/358939288/salem_V32.xml.html

I think the new army circles are alright, cairns.

This is a very bonus heavy map. Will be interesting to see how 1v1 plays on it! I'll let you know what I think as soon as this is in beta !

Gillipig wrote:This is a very bonus heavy map. Will be interesting to see how 1v1 plays on it! I'll let you know what I think as soon as this is in beta !

Yes, but i don't think it will be easy...i could be wrong.

cairnswk wrote:

Gillipig wrote:This is a very bonus heavy map. Will be interesting to see how 1v1 plays on it! I'll let you know what I think as soon as this is in beta !

Yes, but i don't think it will be easy...i could be wrong.

It doesn't have to be and I hope it won't be , but it's important that it's balanced so that moving first does not favor players too much. Which can be a concern when there are high bonuses and few/no neutrals that separate players. It's always possible to speculate but not until this hits beta will we know for sure !

Gillipig wrote:It doesn't have to be and I hope it won't be , but it's important that it's balanced so that moving first does not favor players too much. Which can be a concern when there are high bonuses and few/no neutrals that separate players. It's always possible to speculate but not until this hits beta will we know for sure !

This has many neutrals seperating the start positions, and the starts are wdiely scattered. so that shouldn't be an issue, but6 one never knows!