Moderator: Community Team
laddida wrote:chip i understand what your trying to say its a good idea and i think it would be cool to be used on new maps being made that are specifically made to use those tools. But i would not very much like the current maps to have that tool implemented it would be something i would like in new maps but it would change the game too much if all maps were considered.
RedBaron0 wrote:It's a nice addition... only reservation I have is the fact the number can't go over 6. It's a coding issue I know, but what's the point if you can't get a 7 to override a defenders 6 if the attacker is supposed to be more powerful. I think it defeats the purpose.
That aside, I think it'd be a welcome addition.
<territory>
<name>Catapult</name>
...
<dice>
<type>Attack</type>
<bonus>3</bonus>
<cap>7</cap>
</dice>
</territory>
<territory>
<name>Easy Target</name>
...
<dice>
<type>Defence</type>
<bonus>-3</bonus>
<cap /> (or no tag)
</dice>
</territory>
chipv wrote:There doesn't have to be a cap at all. I was looking to the mapmakers to say which would be preferable, looks like no cap.
So you can simply have an additional tag (which is optional) which determines the cap.
If the tag isn't there then there is no cap for that territory.
So from the catapult example above, the xml might look like this
- Code: Select all
<territory>
<name>Catapult</name>
...
<dice>
<type>Attack</type>
<bonus>3</bonus>
<cap>7</cap>
</dice>
</territory>
For a very weak defence with no cap
- Code: Select all
<territory>
<name>Easy Target</name>
...
<dice>
<type>Defence</type>
<bonus>-3</bonus>
<cap /> (or no tag)
</dice>
</territory>
<territory>
<name>Poorly Defended Catapult</name>
...
<dice>
<attack bonus="3" ceiling="7 />
<defend bonus="-3" floor="-1" /> <!-- Note that I have introduced terminology for a lower bound with regard to negative bonuses. -->
</dice>
</territory>
<territory>
<name>Overloadable Landing Craft</name>
...
<dice>
<attack bonus1="2" bonus2="1" bonus3="-1" ceiling="7" floor="0" />
</dice>
</territory>
sully800 wrote:This is an interesting idea, especially since the switch away from dice to "intensity cubes". Dice have 6 sides for a reason, but the intensity cubes could go all the way up to level 9 without causing any sort of problem. It could definitely make for some unique and more complicated gameplay with fortresses or weak zones.
ender516 wrote:If it is a problem of explaining this feature to game players, I vote for no cap. Isn't it simpler to understand "add one to your die" than "add one to your die but limit the total"? "No cap" also leaves the possibility of creating (with a dice bonus of +6) an irresistable force or (with a dice bonus of -6) an immovable object.
chipv wrote:ender516 wrote:If it is a problem of explaining this feature to game players, I vote for no cap. Isn't it simpler to understand "add one to your die" than "add one to your die but limit the total"? "No cap" also leaves the possibility of creating (with a dice bonus of +6) an irresistable force or (with a dice bonus of -6) an immovable object.
A defence bonus of +6 would only be immovable if the bordering attackers have no attack bonus.
It would be possible to have a +6 defence surrounded by say +3 attackers.
Some thought would be needed because a player holding a +6 defence territory bordered by attackers with no dice bonus
could not be eliminated.
I think for brevity you are right, probably better to have no cap.
ender516 wrote:Yes, with a map like that you could have an invincible player, but careful review in the forge and in beta could eliminate such problems.
MeanestBossEver wrote:ender516 wrote:Yes, with a map like that you could have an invincible player, but careful review in the forge and in beta could eliminate such problems.
Interestingly, you could have a territory that was invincible on attack but extremely vulnerable on defense. One could even create a loop of rock-paper-scissors territories. It creates some huge new potentials.
yeti_c wrote:MeanestBossEver wrote:ender516 wrote:Yes, with a map like that you could have an invincible player, but careful review in the forge and in beta could eliminate such problems.
Interestingly, you could have a territory that was invincible on attack but extremely vulnerable on defense. One could even create a loop of rock-paper-scissors territories. It creates some huge new potentials.
RPS & Risk - sounds like a winner to me?!
C.
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users