Conquer Club

Been happening a lot for the last 12 hours.

will all games be deleted that have recently started or only those 5+ standard player games? Game 12534207 This is a dubs game and everyone started with 1 region instead of 2. I noticed this is different from older running dubs games. I'm just wondering so I know whether or not to put time and effort into playing it or if it will get deleted I will let people know so we don't waste our time.

I have no idea. All I know is some games have already been deleted and the map is locked.

I think we found out the problem. I've already sent a fix to rds, we will make a couple of test as soon as possible, then if everything is in the right place I'll unlock the map again.
Well, if we're lucky enough, before the day ends, we can play this one again.

About deleting games I'll ask to admins what they want to do, I think that they will delete only affected games, so 5+ players.
Said that, all those who are playing now (whatever game type on this map) can have issues due the not proper xml currently used....but afterall beta stage is there for a reason!

Nobodies

The problem seems solved. It wasn't a real bug, just there were 4 unfriendly lines into the XML that caused the mess.
Essentially the SP had underlying neutrals, so for game where those were skipped 5+ players, the game engine wasn't able to split territories among the players due the low number of regions in the starting drop.

Just to be everyone on the same page, the file attached to this post is the working one, so both mapmakers know that is the file to use in future if necessary.

I'll keep an eye on games in the next hours but things should work properly now.
I'm going to unlock the map right now.
Have fun and sorry for the inconvenience that has occured.

Nobodies

nobodies, and to everyone that worked hard to solve this, thanks.

So to get this straight. You removed the underlying neutrals. This will mean in a 1v1 game, 2 of the four starting positions will be handed out, the other two and the 4 centre ones will now go to random drop. So we can end up with 3-1 corners.

koontz1973 wrote:nobodies, and to everyone that worked hard to solve this, thanks.

So to get this straight. You removed the underlying neutrals. This will mean in a 1v1 game, 2 of the four starting positions will be handed out, the other two and the 4 centre ones will now go to random drop. So we can end up with 3-1 corners.

After having played some 1v1 games, I honestly don't think this is that bad of a problem. Movement around the map is facilitated with the Pegasus', and the only bonus advantage for the center of the map is the Sirens. Maybe you can just increase the amount of neutrals on the two middle Dead Warriors?

Edited to add that I think we should remove the 4 positions from the starting positions, and put all 8 slaves entrances in there with a max of 2 to be distributed. That way we can reinstate the underlying neutrals for the starting positions. This will solve the manual deployment problem that we discussed.

gimme 2-5 mins to finish to type

nolefan5311 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:nobodies, and to everyone that worked hard to solve this, thanks.

So to get this straight. You removed the underlying neutrals. This will mean in a 1v1 game, 2 of the four starting positions will be handed out, the other two and the 4 centre ones will now go to random drop. So we can end up with 3-1 corners.

After having played some 1v1 games, I honestly don't think this is that bad of a problem. Movement around the map is facilitated with the Pegasus', and the only bonus advantage for the center of the map is the Sirens. Maybe you can just increase the amount of neutrals on the two middle Dead Warriors?

After all the discussions we had over the corners being the ones with the advantages.

Lets give it a week or two and see what it looks like then.

But again guys, a huge thanks from me.

Without unexpected events life is boring!


About the current changes, yeah, I thought about what can happen without the underlying neutrals.
Actually I'm worried about a 3-1 corner layout. Yes, we can leave it and say that an unlucky drop is part of the game, but I know what you want to achieve.
What's the problem, if we code UN on the corners everything works perfectly for games with 4 or less players. The problem is that for 5+ players, the SP are ignored, so the game reads if they have underlying neutrals and so turn them neutral. In this way we have just 4 regions to split among 5 or more players. What happens? exactly what happened, the game starts because there's no players limit applied on the map but the count for the split doesn't work, or saying it better it works just the result is less than one.
Anyway, this should not happen, at least anymore

Since you want to have a fair drop there's a thing you can do. Code 4 starting positions, but instead of having them with a single position add two position for each starting positions.
For example:

1. A1 and J16
2. E1 and N16
3. J1 and A16
4. N1 and E16

In this way 2-4 players will have a very fair drop (i'm thinking right now about some crazy team game, but nvm) and with 5+ players the positions are ignored but there's enough regions to start the game becuase there's no underlying neutral.
The only issue is that with fog if you know a position you know also the other, but I don't care so much considering how damned well it could work with all other game types.

What do you think? It seems a good solution to me.

Nobodies

not a bad solution - just new players down the road need to get that information to not have an unfair disadvantage right off the bat.


On another note:
Is there a reason why the NW corner only has 2 food sources while all the others have at least 3?

Like this tnb?

Code: Select all

<positions max="1">
   <position>
      <territory>A1</territory>
      <territory>J16</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>A16</territory>
      <territory>J1</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>N1</territory>
      <territory>E16</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>N16</territory>
      <territory>E1</territory>
   </position>
</positions>

yes and no neutrals coded on those territories

edit: eventually you can also remove the max=1 but it's up to koontz this. I think he wants it

jcarter1 wrote:On another note:
Is there a reason why the NW corner only has 2 food sources while all the others have at least 3?

And on top of that:

Is anyone actually ever going to go for the food sources if 3 of them combined only give +1 but start with 2 neutral troops each?

Two things then. Nole and nobodies, change the xml for the double starting positions please. Max of one can come out as it is not needed.

jcarter1 wrote:

jcarter1 wrote:On another note:
Is there a reason why the NW corner only has 2 food sources while all the others have at least 3?

And on top of that:

Is anyone actually ever going to go for the food sources if 3 of them combined only give +1 but start with 2 neutral troops each?

Food is in a pattern like all of the other icons. But slight differences have been put in to make the game slightly unbalanced/uneven depending on where you go from. And yes, food is the first to get captured. Less neutrals to get through in 1v1 games. Larger games may be different but they are more of an added extra and not a bonus to change the game. The swords are more like that in the way you are thinking.

i highly doubt food is first to be captured - and it is also not less neutrals to go through until you get the bonus

Game 12524814 Round 12
big flaw in the code
I just killed my opponent slave positions without holding Prometheus

pamoa wrote:Game 12524814 Round 12
big flaw in the code
I just killed my opponent slave positions without holding Prometheus

Yes there is. The ring of fire regions are showing as bordering the Slave Entrances, whereas Prometheus is not showing as bordering the slave entrances.

isaiah40 wrote:

pamoa wrote:Game 12524814 Round 12
big flaw in the code
I just killed my opponent slave positions without holding Prometheus

Yes there is. The ring of fire regions are showing as bordering the Slave Entrances, whereas Prometheus is not showing as bordering the slave entrances.

prometheus is not supposed to border slave entrances

jcarter1 wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:

pamoa wrote:Game 12524814 Round 12
big flaw in the code
I just killed my opponent slave positions without holding Prometheus

Yes there is. The ring of fire regions are showing as bordering the Slave Entrances, whereas Prometheus is not showing as bordering the slave entrances.

prometheus is not supposed to border slave entrances

No. but you should hold him to be able to attack the slave entrances.

So, for 1vs1, is it supposed to have 2 starting positions or only one?
I started a 1vs1 yesterday, we started with 2 starting positions.
I just played 1v1 few minutes ago and we had only one starting positions. ( and that sucks, especially because we were playing nuke and I got my only slave entrance nuked..........)


Btw, would it be possible to code, that nuke can NOT be a slave entrance? Because it kind of make it very lucky... think to a 8 player games with nuke :S

I have a doubt, if i hold a trap do i get -1 troop in that territorie or do i have -1 in my slave entrance autodeploy?

When this prometeus thing is fixed(we just have seen an example where someone didnt hold prometheus and won a game by killing enemy), my currently game will be fixed too?or only when i start a new game?

Cheers

With a trap you have -1 to deploy.
So for example if you dont have any bonus, instead of receving 3 troops at the beginning of your turn, your receive 2 !

donelladan wrote:With a trap you have -1 to deploy.
So for example if you dont have any bonus, instead of receving 3 troops at the beginning of your turn, your receive 2 !

what if i have 2 traps? 1 deploy only?or 3 traps...no deploys...is that it?...what if i have 4?..lololol

I didnt try with several traps on that map.
But on other map with negative drop ( king's court II) then you have 0 troop to deploy