Conquer Club

XML updates!

I am really enjoying the Adj.Attacks games i have been participating in & would like to see this implemented in the Game menu options. Often players [including myself] forget they are playing AA, & this can cause the game to slow down while reparations restore order & fair play.

NotNowKato wrote:I am really enjoying the Adj.Attacks games i have been participating in & would like to see this implemented in the Game menu options. Often players [including myself] forget they are playing AA, & this can cause the game to slow down while reparations restore order & fair play.

I agree. Also I think zombie spoils sounds like a good idea. So here is my (short) list:
1: Adjacent attacks
2: Zombie spoils

Adjacent Attacks FTW! Give me that and I'll buy a premium right away

1. Adjacent Attacks
2. 12 Player Games
3. Wall Clear

1. more xml updates
2. 12-16 player games
3. animated maps
4. flash maps.

alright here is my list

1. adjacent attacks --- reason for this is that it would open up a whole new element to the site.

2. 12 player games - reason this would be a lot of fun to be able to play 12 player games i know there are some maps that cannot go to 12 players but for those that can it would add more fun.

3. more XML updates to allow the mapmakers let there creativity fly with more options.

and just a couple of thoughts.

the suggestion precess it is hard to figure out what is going on for the suggestion's i think that should be improved. and i think the time it takes to get something implemented is a long time adjacent attacks has been a "submitted suggestion" ever i started playing on CC

there is my 2 cents

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this but...

I'd like to see the ability to turn chat off as a game mode.
Whilst I enjoy a good chat as much as the next man/woman/creature, this optional mode would enable maps to be played without alliances forming explicitly.

Might be a rubbish idea but I think it might be cool. Would probably be easy to implement too since it's a functional reduction.

Anyway, see you all on the battlefield.
Cheers
Demen

P.S. No Flash thanks (HTML5 all the way) and iPad/iPhone optimisation where/when possible would be nice.

I haven't hung out around the Suggestions forum much recently, but I do try to keep an ear open to the "maybes" of CC.

I have always been a fan of Adjacent Attacks, and while we can play it as the rules are currently written, mistakes are inevitably made (generally by account sitters) which does vastly affect the game, even though we do our best to repair the game. I think far more players would appreciate the tactics involved in AA if they were given the chance, than the small group we currently have playing.

Zombie/Infected Neutrals has been kicking around for a long time as well, and I'd also support that one. Unfortunately we don't have any way to try playing it under the current rules, but it would again be a drastic change to gameplay (for people that say nuclear spoils was a drastic change - it wasn't, it's basically no spoils with a huge element of luck).

I also support the idea of 10, 12, or even more player games. While the Battle Royales are obviously extreme, they are a lot of fun to play in because of the sheer number of players. Allowing for combination of gametypes with this increase (such as triples assassins) would be a significant gain as well.

As for non-gameplay related, I remember reading long ago (this may not be relevant anymore) that there was talk of a proxy login for sitters. Players could turn this proxy on and off for when they are on vacation, enabling who can access their games via the sitter's account. This would eliminate all account abuse as there would never be a reason to give out your password, and it would be far easier to track if teams/clans are abusing team games. You could further limit it to proxies only accessing games, not the forums, so that moderators would not have to worry about non-moderators covering their turns.

I would love to see an iPhone/iPad/iPod friendly site, or preferably an app. While the game is playable through the site on the smaller screens, having an interactive app would be far preferable, and could even increase revenue if marketed properly to iPhone owners. At the very least, creating an interface that works better for these platforms (that would presumably work better for all smartphones/tablets) would be very useful.

Increasing the KML database available for map makers sounds like a good idea to me, although I am not knowledgeable in the area. Anything that creates cooler maps would definitely be a plus to me.

And finally, I know I may get some backlash for this one, but the removal of maps from the site that don't get played often. Everybody groans when Crossword comes up as the random map for a quads game, and not many people play it by choice. With so many new and exciting maps coming out, I think it's worth removing some of the older ones, or perhaps cycling through. You could then bring back older maps for events and the like.

denominator wrote:
And finally, I know I may get some backlash for this one, but the removal of maps from the site that don't get played often. Everybody groans when Crossword comes up as the random map for a quads game, and not many people play it by choice. With so many new and exciting maps coming out, I think it's worth removing some of the older ones, or perhaps cycling through. You could then bring back older maps for events and the like.

NO!!! I actually ran a tournament on Conquer 4/Crossword/Chinese Checkers and it was great! Don't remove maps - there are always people that like them!

MIne would be as follows -

Adjacent Attacks
Increase to 12 players

The big suggestion I would like to see implemented would be Adjacent Attacks. There are even tournies that have this rule into effect, which would make the tourny run a lot smoother if it was built into the site rather then trust your enemies.

denominator wrote:I haven't hung out around the Suggestions forum much recently, but I do try to keep an ear open to the "maybes" of CC.

I have always been a fan of Adjacent Attacks, and while we can play it as the rules are currently written, mistakes are inevitably made (generally by account sitters) which does vastly affect the game, even though we do our best to repair the game. I think far more players would appreciate the tactics involved in AA if they were given the chance, than the small group we currently have playing.

It could be said that it is the feature with the biggest alphatesting for all CC. We have tested the mechanics in 100s of games (no exageration at all) and continue playing after all those games despite the difficulties of having to use an honour based rule, which means that the concept is solid.

denominator wrote:Zombie/Infected Neutrals has been kicking around for a long time as well, and I'd also support that one. Unfortunately we don't have any way to try playing it under the current rules, but it would again be a drastic change to gameplay

Yes. It's a pitty we can't try those games. I am sure they would be very enjoyable.

denominator wrote:(for people that say nuclear spoils was a drastic change - it wasn't, it's basically no spoils with a huge element of luck).

Exactly my thougts. nuclear spoils is just one more luck factor. Sure, you can develop strategies to minimize the effects of your exposure to luck, but this does not change the fact that it's nothing new.

denominator wrote:Increasing the XML database available for map makers sounds like a good idea to me, although I am not knowledgeable in the area. Anything that creates cooler maps would definitely be a plus to me.

You don't need to know a lot about XML. Just look at all the good ideas for maps in the Foundry that cannot be implemented yet because the engine doesn't support them.

denominator wrote:And finally, I know I may get some backlash for this one, but the removal of maps from the site that don't get played often. Everybody groans when Crossword comes up as the random map for a quads game, and not many people play it by choice. With so many new and exciting maps coming out, I think it's worth removing some of the older ones, or perhaps cycling through. You could then bring back older maps for events and the like.

Maybe a way to limit random maps would also work. Like when starting a game you choose more than one map and the choosen map is random between those.

The Adjacent Attacks gameplay option is my wish right now. I have a hard time playing AA games because of the an innate tendency to take and attack, take and attack. If the gameplay restricted my attacks to just territs I already owned, I would be much happier playing those games.

Adjacent Attacks is a hugely different game - even on the classic map. It changes the way to play certain maps entirely!

denominator wrote:As for non-gameplay related, I remember reading long ago (this may not be relevant anymore) that there was talk of a proxy login for sitters. Players could turn this proxy on and off for when they are on vacation, enabling who can access their games via the sitter's account. This would eliminate all account abuse as there would never be a reason to give out your password, and it would be far easier to track if teams/clans are abusing team games. You could further limit it to proxies only accessing games, not the forums, so that moderators would not have to worry about non-moderators covering their turns.

This one is important to me - I regularly play team games with a mod, and as I am not a mod, sharing passwords is an issue...

As far as anything else goes, I would like some sort of OPTIONAL (note: O P T I O N A L) failsafe that prevents one from accidentally activating "begin game", until one is actually ready to play. After one episode months ago of accidentally starting my turn in a team game, I'm still paranoid when I leave notes in team game chat about exactly where the mouse pointer is, and it's a bit stressful - I wish I could just relax, knowing that I won't mess up my turn in a team game because of spastic typing/mousing...

#1: XML updates. We've seen only one totally new feature in the last 2 years, and barely more optimizations for making it easier to write. Right now I know of three otherwise exceptional maps unable to be released to CC because the XML does not support it yet.

#2: Map filters. We've got over 150 maps right now. I remember when the list was hard to sort through when it was just 80. Having filters by both site-designed types (classic, conquest, etc.), as well as user-definable (my favorites, what-not-to-play, etc.) would help the confusion greatly.

#3: Infected neutrals. Just the mere existence of this option would change up the strategy on countless maps, particularly conquest. It might even breathe new life into older maps.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

1. Which Suggestions should be implemented first?
2. Which add-ons should be built into the site?
3. If you were to make an ordered top 10 list of Submitted Suggestions to be Implemented, what would it be?
4. What are some outstanding problems that you see with the Suggestions process?
5. Are there any improvements you'd like to see?
6. Which should have more priority:
   
   1. Suggestions that affect gameplay or
   2. Suggestions that improve site maintenance, hardware, processes, forum, etc (i.e. Usergroup Control Panel, https login)

1) XML updates, Adjacent Attacks, 12 players, Infected Neutrals, speed game options (1, 2 1/2, 5), Team Terminator/Assassin games... in that order
2) Would rather see above suggestions implemented than add-ons coded, as the add-ons are already available as an option to those who go check for them.
3) See #1
4) The lack of a prioritized list for implementation, though this may be something only Lack can provide
5) It would be nice to know what the implementation schedule is. More improvements need to happen as well, which would likely require a web developer
6) Suggestions that have gameplay affect are always nicer to see. After all, the game is why we're all here and not on some other type of game site, no?

The XML updates are definitely most important. With unique gameplay being a major factor in the advancement of maps through the Foundry, extensions to the XML have the potential to take map development in many fascinating directions.

adjacent attacks.

As a player in an adjacent attacks tournament, i would like the rules hard-coded to stop players (such as me) from inadvertently breaking the rules.
And one thing really irritates me is the game finder - I put in my request and more often than not, the first few games shown are the same map, number of players, format etc. because one player likes a particular map and sets up several at the same time - couldn't the list be randomised, so that at least the first few maps are different (when selecting several maps at a time) and could it be possible to show a list of games that only need one player before starting?

Paul

oh i would love to finaly have Adjacent Attacks implented!

Catarah wrote:oh i would love to finaly have Adjacent Attacks implented!

I 100% agree with this post.

it would be about ime to see adjacent attacks implemented.

Wow! I never actually knew there was so much support for adjacent attacks! Thanks for your thoughts, I will be closing this Sunday, so if you have any more things to add, do so quickly!

-rd

The most posts and second most views (behind Infected neutrals) of anything in submitted suggestions, so I think there's a bit of support