Conquer Club

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.

KEYOGI wrote:So what happens when we have:

XXXX
XX00
X0X0
X00X

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

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: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.

Cool (We can compare and poll which looks better - it won't affect the XML at all (except for co-ords - but I might need you to do those anyway!)

C.

NO.

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.

reverend_kyle wrote:NO.

Care to elaborate?

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.

I think you are getting there:

"4 spots in a row = a 'set' = +2" (Vertical, Horizontal or Diagonal)
"Any single set may only share 1 spot with any set...but may share that 1 spot with any number of different sets"

Combined with some judicious examples in the legend should make it easy to understand.

(But as mentioned previously: There will always be those who get confused...hey I might have a chance of winning a game! )

I like the idea of having the 4*4 block in the examples, as it shows what people will be striving to achieve.
Also isn't a single group with 16 'spots', i.e. 10 sets, having from 7 to 12 borders worth a hefty chunk of bonus (+20)?
Especially when you can create that 'continent', to use the traditional term, anywhere you like!

This map is making me drool. Death to those that oppose it.

its an original idea though the XML will be hard to make

Okay, so I think we're nutting out the mechanics of how this will work and it all seems to gel together well enough IMO.

With an absolute minimum of 7 border spaces and a minimum of 9 opposing border spaces, I think the 4x4 block is justified in having +20 as a bonus. The majority of those border spaces can be attacked by three other spaces. It does seem high at first, but the more I think about it the more it seems right.

Any opinions on the actual look of the thing itself? As long as the spaces are set where they are the xml can be started on when yeti's up to the daunting task. Obviously I'll reword the bonus explanation and fix up the bonus guide, but anything else?

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.

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.

Hmmm i like the idea of simply making the larger map an extension of the instructions?

So I reckon keep the game boards (which is pretty big anyway) the same size and perhaps add more examples of non bonus's or something!!?

C.

its an original idea though the XML will be hard to make

Bah - it shall be done tomorrow. The hardest part will be copying and pasting it all and ensuring I've got the combinations correct!!!

C.