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?
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.
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.
KEYOGI wrote:I really appreciate the help yeti.
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?
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?
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
KEYOGI wrote:So what happens when we have:
XXXX
XX00
X0X0
X00X
Does it matter that there's three bonuses sharing the single space?
KEYOGI wrote: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.
yeti_c wrote:I think that It's on a set by set basis.
i.e. Set A and Set B share top left only... and Set B and Set C share top left only.
The fact that Set A B & C share the same space isn't compared or cared about!!
C.
KEYOGI wrote:yeti_c wrote:I think that It's on a set by set basis.
i.e. Set A and Set B share top left only... and Set B and Set C share top left only.
The fact that Set A B & C share the same space isn't compared or cared about!!
C.
Right, yes I remember now. All this math at once is getting me confused.
KEYOGI wrote:Also, is there any need for a large and small version of the map? I was originally working on a larger image, but the spaces were too big and it just looked all wrong. If anything, the bonus guide could be stretched but I'd rather leave the game board consistent.
its an original idea though the XML will be hard to make
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users