Conquer Club

Gilligan wrote:I can make those slight XML changes. (Increase neutral to 3, fix wording of that bonus)

You can't make a position limit based on the number of players. Once there's a limit, it's used for all games. Maybe we can try 1v1 with higher neutrals to see if that fixes it. If not we can impose a max position.

Interesting. I think we may want the higher numbers on 2 and 3 player games.

Who will need to sign off on us making these changes?

=D=

dolomite13 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:I can make those slight XML changes. (Increase neutral to 3, fix wording of that bonus)

You can't make a position limit based on the number of players. Once there's a limit, it's used for all games. Maybe we can try 1v1 with higher neutrals to see if that fixes it. If not we can impose a max position.

Interesting. I think we may want the higher numbers on 2 and 3 player games.

Who will need to sign off on us making these changes?

=D=

You, basically You can ask the GP carto ian for his input if you'd like.

My opinion, though, increase the neutrals and see how it goes. Maybe even lower the autodeploy to 2.

Maybe I was a bit unclear before - if you coded a max position of "3", it would give 3 positions for 2 player games, 2 positions for 3-4 player games, and 1 for 5-8.

if you coded a max position of "2", it would give 2 positions for 2-4 player games, and 1 for 5-8. Personally I think this is the better option if you were going to choose.

if we coded it for max positions "2" it would be 2 for 2-4 and 1 for 5-8?

I wonder if dumping the autdeploy entirely and bumping the car controls to 2 would be good. You are going to get 3 every turn and would have to choose rather than getting 3 auto and 3 more to play with.

=D=

dolomite13 wrote:if we coded it for max positions "2" it would be 2 for 2-4 and 1 for 5-8?

I wonder if dumping the autdeploy entirely and bumping the car controls to 2 would be good. You are going to get 3 every turn and would have to choose rather than getting 3 auto and 3 more to play with.

=D=

So neutral 2s, no autodeploy, and max position of 2?

Gilligan wrote:

dolomite13 wrote:if we coded it for max positions "2" it would be 2 for 2-4 and 1 for 5-8?

I wonder if dumping the autdeploy entirely and bumping the car controls to 2 would be good. You are going to get 3 every turn and would have to choose rather than getting 3 auto and 3 more to play with.

=D=

So neutral 2s, no autodeploy, and max position of 2?

I am thinking we need some sort of autodeploy ...

So lets try neutral 2s, autodeploy 2, and max position of 2?

I'll do a new graphic to reflect the lower autodeploy.

=D=

dolomite13 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

dolomite13 wrote:if we coded it for max positions "2" it would be 2 for 2-4 and 1 for 5-8?

I wonder if dumping the autdeploy entirely and bumping the car controls to 2 would be good. You are going to get 3 every turn and would have to choose rather than getting 3 auto and 3 more to play with.

=D=

So neutral 2s, no autodeploy, and max position of 2?

I am thinking we need some sort of autodeploy ...

So lets try neutral 2s, autodeploy 2, and max position of 2?

I'll do a new graphic to reflect the lower autodeploy.

=D=

That sounds pretty good, I must have misunderstood you. Let's hear what others think about that!

While I'm mucking around with graphics do you want me to do a graphic with the car conditions laid out a bit more spaced out so that the small map is easier to click on via the click maps addon thingy?

=D=

Gilligan wrote:

dolomite13 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

dolomite13 wrote:if we coded it for max positions "2" it would be 2 for 2-4 and 1 for 5-8?

I wonder if dumping the autdeploy entirely and bumping the car controls to 2 would be good. You are going to get 3 every turn and would have to choose rather than getting 3 auto and 3 more to play with.

=D=

So neutral 2s, no autodeploy, and max position of 2?

I am thinking we need some sort of autodeploy ...

So lets try neutral 2s, autodeploy 2, and max position of 2?

I'll do a new graphic to reflect the lower autodeploy.

=D=

That sounds pretty good, I must have misunderstood you. Let's hear what others think about that!

You had it right but I changed my mind while you were writing your response ... hehe

I agree anyone have feedback on this?

=D=

I think the small map is fine, haven't heard anything about clickie issues. If anything I could just push over Engine a few pixels instead of redoing graphics, but it wouldn't look as nice.

Gilligan wrote:I think the small map is fine, haven't heard anything about clickie issues. If anything I could just push over Engine a few pixels instead of redoing graphics, but it wouldn't look as nice.

Lets not worry about it then =)

I love the map.

Btw, I'm not sure if this should go elsewhere, but the BOB list of bonuses has a spelling error "One Track Location in Each Segemnt (40)"
It should be spelled 'segment'

I think I found a bug;

I'm getting the bonus: A Pit Tool and A Pit Jack and A Pit Engine (3)

And I don't have a pit tool or a pit jack

https://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=12572671

Yes that has been reported and Gilligan has that in the latest XML that he posted. I hope that once the starting position questions have been resolved, these fixes will all be uploaded.

White background makes it tough to read BOB, and given the unconventional attack routes, BOB is particularly useful.

had a similiar thought to gormbroc.... particuarlly around the white area in each box for the cars. impossible to see the bob highlighting.

Swifte wrote:had a similiar thought to gormbroc.... particuarlly around the white area in each box for the cars. impossible to see the bob highlighting.

This is great to know ... I was thinking it was about time someone introduced anti-bob characteristics to maps!

What about making the crew a requirement?

I mean

If you have no crew, you're out of the race.

Gilligan wrote:What about making the crew a requirement?

I mean

If you have no crew, you're out of the race.

Nuclear games you could end up wining without really doing much. I am playing one now where noone has any pit crew left.

=D=

I didn't see any complaints to

So lets try neutral 2s on the cars, autodeploy 2 on the crews, and max position of 2 on the crews?

I will need to update the map for that ... i also think I should make a new graphic for the cars that seperates the numbers a bit

Thoughts?

=D=

I'll do that XML up.

About nukes, it's only a 1.35% chance that you'll actually get a card for a crew. Remember that other maps have losing conditions too, and could happen there too (IE labyrinth, in which case the outcome would be even more drastic)

But it's entirely up to you.

Only way to lose your crew is by nuke or by someone getting the winners circle ... it happens so late in a game it doesnt matter much ... would be more important to have no track = elimination

OK here is an image with Autodeploy 2 for the crews.

I also changed the car backgrounds to be a little more translucent and the display for the fuel, tires, and engine for each car by making them little gauges. This will require that the numbers for the cars be rearranged a bit.

Thoughts?

Large



Small



Large with Numbers (88's)

http://imageshack.us/a/img195/8475/c500 ... 078288.png

Can we see them with the 888's on it please? The image does look better, I believe you touched up the engine and such too right?

isaiah40 wrote:Can we see them with the 888's on it please? The image does look better, I believe you touched up the engine and such too right?

Stop rushing I'm workin on it!!

Adjustments to XML http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... uer500.xml
--Changed autodeploys to 2
--Changed car gauges to neutral 2
--Max position of 2