Conquer Club

Gilligan wrote:

murphy16 wrote:most likely a map I wont be playing again, just had someone drop 23 or so in the second round and a 1 min round game, not impressed

There's someone that doesn't understand the point of Beta phase.

Haha indeed.

There's certainly a lot of potential in this map. I think dolomite's idea of having some autodeploy on the track is a good one! Maybe just a +1 on the circles in red.

I think this is already covered in the XML fix that's been identified ... but by holding only the 3 pit engines, there's a +9 deploy being awarded. Looks like the tools and jacks are also being awarded in that case.

I will try to take a look soon.

nolefan5311 wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:Game 12533060 I took Pit Equipment A and it is giving me +3 for that one spot. According to the legend it is +3 if you hold 1 of each Fuel, Tires and Engine. Or am I reading it wrong??

Yeah, that doesn't seem right. Continents overview describes it as "A Pit Tool, a Pit Jack, and a Pit Engine".

I think I see the problem in the code:

Code: Select all

<continent>
<name>A Pit Tool and A Pit Jack and A Pit Engine</name>
<bonus>3</bonus>
<components>
<continent>A Pit Fuel</continent>
<continent>A Pit Tires</continent>
<continent>A Pit Engine</continent>
</components>
<required>1</required>
<overrides>
<override>A Pit Fuel</override>
<override>A Pit Tires</override>
<override>A Pit Engine</override>
</overrides>
</continent>

I think the <required> tag is throwing it all off.

Yeah, the error in the code has been identified here.

b00060 wrote:Neutrals need to be 3 or higher.. Player going first gets almost 20 men after one round and can easily bombard second player to deploy less than 3. Going second equals definite loss.

this
Totally unplayable 1 vs 1 at the moment with the massive bonuses available
Saw someone mention less starting positions for 2 player games, which should help

i think the cars should all have 2 starting neutrals instead of 1. too much bonus given too quickly unballances the game. and yes; in trech you should be allowed to bombard cars otherwise it's even more completely unballanced in 1vs1.

I had a passing thought when it was mentioned that attacking along the track is all forward, like overtaking another car. I wondered if bombarding backward might be useful -- you could think of it as a manoeuvre to prevent someone passing you.

ender516 wrote:I had a passing thought when it was mentioned that attacking along the track is all forward, like overtaking another car. I wondered if bombarding backward might be useful -- you could think of it as a manoeuvre to prevent someone passing you.

Maybe you can go so far forward it looks like you are going backward ...

thehippo8 wrote:

ender516 wrote:I had a passing thought when it was mentioned that attacking along the track is all forward, like overtaking another car. I wondered if bombarding backward might be useful -- you could think of it as a manoeuvre to prevent someone passing you.

Maybe you can go so far forward it looks like you are going backward ...

that looks fantastically fun.

I think all of the bonuses for the pit area are off.

I am seeing +2 per "jack" when the intent was building sets.

1 jack + 1 tools = +2
not
1 jack = +2

same with fuel, tires, engine

1 fuel + 1 tires + 1 engine = +3
not
1 fuel = +3

=D=

dolomite13 wrote:I think all of the bonuses for the pit area are off.

I am seeing +2 per "jack" when the intent was building sets.

1 jack + 1 tools = +2
not
1 jack = +2

same with fuel, tires, engine

1 fuel + 1 tires + 1 engine = +3
not
1 fuel = +3

=D=

Yes it looks to me like <required>1</required> tags have been scattered throughout this XML in places where they should not have been. Any of the continents which say "n This and n That" should not have those tags.

Here is the new XML to fix those bonuses

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... uer500.xml

Have you figured out what you are going to do about the car gauge bonuses? Those need to be fixed ASAP. Either lower the bonus or up the neutral.

ender516 wrote:

dolomite13 wrote:I think all of the bonuses for the pit area are off.

I am seeing +2 per "jack" when the intent was building sets.

1 jack + 1 tools = +2
not
1 jack = +2

same with fuel, tires, engine

1 fuel + 1 tires + 1 engine = +3
not
1 fuel = +3

=D=

Yes it looks to me like <required>1</required> tags have been scattered throughout this XML in places where they should not have been. Any of the continents which say "n This and n That" should not have those tags.

I probably misunderstood what those were used for.

=D=

I

Gilligan wrote:Here is the new XML to fix those bonuses

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... uer500.xml

Have you figured out what you are going to do about the car gauge bonuses? Those need to be fixed ASAP. Either lower the bonus or up the neutral.

I would rather up the starting neutrals so the image doesn't have to change

I would be open to suggestions but increasing the start values for both the pit equipment and the gauges to 3 neutral would slow that down quite a bit. The question is what values would make the cars and pits attractive but also not so attractive that people ignore the track. Versus what values make focusing on the track the only viable way to play the map.

Did you change the two player start to liomit the players to 1 pit crew each? And is that even possible?

I also noticed this in the xml... the name is off... it should be "A Pit Fuel and A Pit Tires and A Pit Engine"... looks like i must have done that as a copy and paste error or maybe I was drunk when I typed it ... who knows.

Code: Select all

<continent>
<name>A Pit Tool and A Pit Jack and A Pit Engine</name>
<bonus>3</bonus>
<components>
<continent>A Pit Fuel</continent>
<continent>A Pit Tires</continent>
<continent>A Pit Engine</continent>
</components>
</continent>


=D=

I can make those slight XML changes. (Increase neutral to 3, fix wording of that bonus)

You can't make a position limit based on the number of players. Once there's a limit, it's used for all games. Maybe we can try 1v1 with higher neutrals to see if that fixes it. If not we can impose a max position.

Gilligan wrote:I can make those slight XML changes. (Increase neutral to 3, fix wording of that bonus)

You can't make a position limit based on the number of players. Once there's a limit, it's used for all games. Maybe we can try 1v1 with higher neutrals to see if that fixes it. If not we can impose a max position.

Interesting. I think we may want the higher numbers on 2 and 3 player games.

Who will need to sign off on us making these changes?

=D=

dolomite13 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:I can make those slight XML changes. (Increase neutral to 3, fix wording of that bonus)

You can't make a position limit based on the number of players. Once there's a limit, it's used for all games. Maybe we can try 1v1 with higher neutrals to see if that fixes it. If not we can impose a max position.

Interesting. I think we may want the higher numbers on 2 and 3 player games.

Who will need to sign off on us making these changes?

=D=

You, basically You can ask the GP carto ian for his input if you'd like.

My opinion, though, increase the neutrals and see how it goes. Maybe even lower the autodeploy to 2.

Maybe I was a bit unclear before - if you coded a max position of "3", it would give 3 positions for 2 player games, 2 positions for 3-4 player games, and 1 for 5-8.

if you coded a max position of "2", it would give 2 positions for 2-4 player games, and 1 for 5-8. Personally I think this is the better option if you were going to choose.

if we coded it for max positions "2" it would be 2 for 2-4 and 1 for 5-8?

I wonder if dumping the autdeploy entirely and bumping the car controls to 2 would be good. You are going to get 3 every turn and would have to choose rather than getting 3 auto and 3 more to play with.

=D=

dolomite13 wrote:if we coded it for max positions "2" it would be 2 for 2-4 and 1 for 5-8?

I wonder if dumping the autdeploy entirely and bumping the car controls to 2 would be good. You are going to get 3 every turn and would have to choose rather than getting 3 auto and 3 more to play with.

=D=

So neutral 2s, no autodeploy, and max position of 2?

Gilligan wrote:

dolomite13 wrote:if we coded it for max positions "2" it would be 2 for 2-4 and 1 for 5-8?

I wonder if dumping the autdeploy entirely and bumping the car controls to 2 would be good. You are going to get 3 every turn and would have to choose rather than getting 3 auto and 3 more to play with.

=D=

So neutral 2s, no autodeploy, and max position of 2?

I am thinking we need some sort of autodeploy ...

So lets try neutral 2s, autodeploy 2, and max position of 2?

I'll do a new graphic to reflect the lower autodeploy.

=D=

dolomite13 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

dolomite13 wrote:if we coded it for max positions "2" it would be 2 for 2-4 and 1 for 5-8?

I wonder if dumping the autdeploy entirely and bumping the car controls to 2 would be good. You are going to get 3 every turn and would have to choose rather than getting 3 auto and 3 more to play with.

=D=

So neutral 2s, no autodeploy, and max position of 2?

I am thinking we need some sort of autodeploy ...

So lets try neutral 2s, autodeploy 2, and max position of 2?

I'll do a new graphic to reflect the lower autodeploy.

=D=

That sounds pretty good, I must have misunderstood you. Let's hear what others think about that!

While I'm mucking around with graphics do you want me to do a graphic with the car conditions laid out a bit more spaced out so that the small map is easier to click on via the click maps addon thingy?

=D=

Gilligan wrote:

dolomite13 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

dolomite13 wrote:if we coded it for max positions "2" it would be 2 for 2-4 and 1 for 5-8?

I wonder if dumping the autdeploy entirely and bumping the car controls to 2 would be good. You are going to get 3 every turn and would have to choose rather than getting 3 auto and 3 more to play with.

=D=

So neutral 2s, no autodeploy, and max position of 2?

I am thinking we need some sort of autodeploy ...

So lets try neutral 2s, autodeploy 2, and max position of 2?

I'll do a new graphic to reflect the lower autodeploy.

=D=

That sounds pretty good, I must have misunderstood you. Let's hear what others think about that!

You had it right but I changed my mind while you were writing your response ... hehe

I agree anyone have feedback on this?

=D=

I think the small map is fine, haven't heard anything about clickie issues. If anything I could just push over Engine a few pixels instead of redoing graphics, but it wouldn't look as nice.

Gilligan wrote:I think the small map is fine, haven't heard anything about clickie issues. If anything I could just push over Engine a few pixels instead of redoing graphics, but it wouldn't look as nice.

Lets not worry about it then =)