Conquer Club

+16 is kind of unavoidable, it's the way the code would work. I think if anyone had a 4x4 block, the game would most likely be over anyway.

Maybe it's just me, but I find the system easy enough to understand and I thought it was explained okay. Anybody else have trouble understanding the multiple bonus concept?

Lets use A1 to D4 as our example block. For +6:
Example 1 - A1, A2, A3 and A4 = +2
- A2, B2, C2 and D2 = +2, sharing one border with first bonus
- D1, D2, D3 and D4 = +2, sharing one bordeer with seoncd bonus
- total bonus of +6, 3 sets with 2 shared spaces.

Does that help explain?

4 grouped together is not a bonus because it's not a line, maybe that needs to be cleared up.

ok...that looks a bit complicated...id prefer not doing the xml for this, ask the other guy who vounteered.

KEYOGI wrote:Lets use A1 to D4 as our example block. For +6:
Example 1 - A1, A2, A3 and A4 = +2
- A2, B2, C2 and D2 = +2, sharing one border with first bonus
- D1, D2, D3 and D4 = +2, sharing one bordeer with seoncd bonus
- total bonus of +6, 3 sets with 2 shared spaces.

So what would the bonus be when you add A4, B4, C4 & D4 to the above example?
An additional +2, right?
But then the previous bonus of 3 sets with 2 shared spaces is now 4 sets with 4 shared spaces.,
Add in a third row (A1, B1, C1 & D1) and you now have 5 sets worth +10 but with 6 shared spaces.
Add the fourth row (As, B3, C3 & D3) and we end with 8 sets, +16 but 16 shared spaces, and hence the rule of "multiple bonuses may only share a single space" seems to be broken.

I think I know what it is you are trying to achieve (i.e. eliminating overlapping 4s such as 6 in a row containing 3 sets of 4 in a row and hence equalling +6, but only going to gain the player +2). It is putting that into the legend portion of the map succintly that needs to be addressed.

Maybe you could add an example of '6 in a row' to the top illustrations of only +2, highlighting the difference. Possibly matched with reduction in other examples; removing the vertical '+2' and one of the vert/horiz crossing '+4's for example.

Cheers

I see your point. This is one of the reasons this map may never go anywhere, it's just too damn confusing!

KEYOGI wrote:I see your point. This is one of the reasons this map may never go anywhere, it's just too damn confusing!

It just has to be well worded so as to reduce the confusion.
People will always get confused (Case in point: World 2.0's Sumatra/Brunei/Central Indonesia issue).

It'll get there.

My view. If people don't understand it they don't have to play it. I like it, I'd play it. Even if you don't like my silly map.

You even have pictures spelling it out, I don't get the confusion. Worst case you've made another Crosswords or Circus Maximums, those maps may not get played the most but they are fun for something different.

I would suggest cutting the bonuses in half though. If I'm holding the block of 4 like you show I'd be getting +16 continental in addition to at least 5 from the territories. Not that I mind slugging it out with groups of 30+ at a time, which I'm sure would happen a lot on this map down to 3 players, but if that wasn't your intent...

Anyway, I just don't want you to abandon the map. The yes's are leading still.

Coleman wrote:If people don't understand it they don't have to play it.

Hear, hear!

People dont want to stydu matematic, people want to play risiko and get fun. For me its compicated map, but these only my opinion.

i probs would not play it...like crossword but i like the way it is done...keep going!

spinwizard wrote:i probs would not play it...like crossword but i like the way it is done...keep going!

'
this isn't as confusing as crossword, its a simple grid layout with an interesting bonus configuration, I'd really like to see it done, but the xml is gonna be scary

I had a thought about the bonuses... I think it would be easiest if you could only have one bonus per row and column. It would probably simplify the xml and still leave open the possibility for combined bonuses with diagonal and cross-over combos.

Thoughts?

random question would u be able to attack diagonally or just vertical and horizontal

Yes, diagonal attacks would be an option.

KEYOGI wrote:I had a thought about the bonuses... I think it would be easiest if you could only have one bonus per row and column. It would probably simplify the xml and still leave open the possibility for combined bonuses with diagonal and cross-over combos.

Thoughts?

I've been thinking about that point some more. It doesn't really change much but get rid of the possiblilty of an extra bonus for holding an entire row.

KEYOGI wrote:

KEYOGI wrote:I had a thought about the bonuses... I think it would be easiest if you could only have one bonus per row and column. It would probably simplify the xml and still leave open the possibility for combined bonuses with diagonal and cross-over combos.

Thoughts?

I've been thinking about that point some more. It doesn't really change much but get rid of the possiblilty of an extra bonus for holding an entire row.

I can code up a few variants if you like - not til Monday though (when I'm at work!!!)...

Essentially thee vairants will be this...

a) All matches of 4 equal bonus. (Probably too much bonus)
b) Like Initial draft mentions (4's & 8's get bonuses)
c) One bonus per Row/Column (Not sure I like the really - if you've got 8 in a row you definitely have 2 sets?)

Now going back to the image... I like it a lot... I see the point made about the bonuses... will get my thinking cap on to determine what's the best way to explain it.

C.

PS XML is never scary!!

My only other point - Coming from a mathmatical point of view I would have A-G on the bottom and work up from 1-6 not down?

C.

I really appreciate the help yeti. I'll be sure to put your name up in lights on the map if/when this thing gets through.

I wouldn't worry about doing any coding yet though until we've figured out the best bonus option. I really want to get this nutted out, because I think it's our biggest hurdle.

shouldn't the +12 bonus be a +14? There are 3 across, 3 down, and 1 diagonal.

And the +16 should be +20 because there's 4 across, 4 down, and 2 diagonal.

yeti_c wrote:My only other point - Coming from a mathmatical point of view I would have A-G on the bottom and work up from 1-6 not down?

C.

Will do.

maniacmath17 wrote:shouldn't the +12 bonus be a +14? There are 3 across, 3 down, and 1 diagonal.

And the +16 should be +20 because there's 4 across, 4 down, and 2 diagonal.

Yes, you are right. Sorry, maths isn't my specialty. I think the bonuses are definately getting too big since that's the case. Suggestions?

KEYOGI wrote:I really appreciate the help yeti.

Not a problem pal - I enjoy coding, I enjoy being at CC - thus I want to help the site grow...

In terms of the bonus - I prefer the original method with - 1 shared space = 2 bonuses.

The important thing to remember is that it's 1 shared space between two different sets...

i.e. that's why A1,2,3,4,5,6,7 is two sets as the only share is A4.

Where's A1,2,3,4,5,6 is one set as 3 & 4 are shared.

With A1,2,3,4 & A1,B1,C1,D1 - A1 is shared.

If you add A3,B3,C3,D3 this is 3 bonuses as A1 is shared between the first two sets and A3 is shared between the second 2 sets.

It's not the total amount of shares - it's the shared spaces between 2 sets.

C.

KEYOGI wrote:

maniacmath17 wrote:shouldn't the +12 bonus be a +14? There are 3 across, 3 down, and 1 diagonal.

And the +16 should be +20 because there's 4 across, 4 down, and 2 diagonal.

Yes, you are right. Sorry, maths isn't my specialty. I think the bonuses are definately getting too big since that's the case. Suggestions?

Could lose diagonals from bonus? Not sure I like that...
or
Could drop bonus to +1 for each connection?

C.

KEYOGI wrote:

maniacmath17 wrote:shouldn't the +12 bonus be a +14? There are 3 across, 3 down, and 1 diagonal.

And the +16 should be +20 because there's 4 across, 4 down, and 2 diagonal.

Yes, you are right. Sorry, maths isn't my specialty. I think the bonuses are definately getting too big since that's the case. Suggestions?

It won't be much of a problem since by the time someone actually has that kind of a bonus the game will be over anyways.

I just like to point out mathematical flaws

So what happens when we have:

XXXX
XX00
X0X0
X00X

Does it matter that there's three bonuses sharing the single space?

maniacmath17 wrote:It won't be much of a problem since by the time someone actually has that kind of a bonus the game will be over anyways.

I just like to point out mathematical flaws

That was my opinion when it was +16. If my maths is right, there only remains 7 possible bonuses on the board once someone has a 4x4 block. It's also basically one big continent with potentially 12 border spaces to defend.

Besides, nobody's going to want let a player get that sort of bonus, so I think it might make for some intense fighting on the board.