Forum

by **dacey** on Sun May 22, 2011 9:25 pm

greenoaks wrote:
dacey wrote:Hi all,
I know this map isn't in beta anymore, but I have to say that the description is a bit misleading. I just started a game with it and had no idea what was going on...The "Region number bonus: 1 troop for every 2 regions above 6" is ambiguous at best. My guess was that one would get the normal region bonus for their first six regions, then one troop for every two regions thereafter (ie, +1 for 3 regions, +2 for 6, +3 for 8, +4 for 10,... with a minimum of three). A colleague read it as a bonus (ie, 1 troop for every 3 regions + a BONUS 1 troop for every two regions). And, if you take the actual literal translation of what is written, it should be no troops for less than six regions---since you are apparently replacing the standard (1 troop for every 3 regions with a minimum of 3 troops), you really need to add that there is a minimum of three, or at least note that you are replacing the standard deploy (perhaps by not calling it a bonus).

I glanced back a bit at the discussion (maybe 10-15 pages), and others mentioned this topic. It appeared to have quite a bit of support. Why wasn't anything done to fix this problem? You should be able to understand the rules before you join the game.

i don't see a problem with the wording. it was perfectly understandable to me.

It's not really a problem for the people whose interpretation of the bonus is what the author was apparently going for. The problem is that there are clearly multiple interpretations, and the instruction makes an assumption without noting it. It does not say anywhere that there is a minimum of three troops. If the plan is to ignore the standard region bonus, then you can't take it's minimum of three troops as a given (esp. since there are maps where there is not a minimum of three).

Looking back, there were a lot of really good suggestions for how to fix this. I personally liked "regions/2, min 3" since it takes up very little space and actually says what the authors were apparently going for (the division sign would look better if it were actually on top, but with images that's really easy)...

by **ben79** on Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:58 pm

i was wondering if it was possible to have the same deployement as on the king's court map ... i played a 1 vs 1 on clandemonium and it took at least an hour to play it
i mean having only 2 starting positions instead of 5

by **ManBungalow** on Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:58 pm

ben79 wrote:i was wondering if it was possible to have the same deployement as on the king's court map ... i played a 1 vs 1 on clandemonium and it took at least an hour to play it
i mean having only 2 starting positions instead of 5

In terms of the XML, this is a very minor, easy to make change, but convincing the developers to adopt it is the main hurdle.

So yes, it is possible. Only I don't think Blitzaholic posts here any more. Or something like that, anyway....

by **Kabanellas** on Sat Aug 27, 2011 3:11 am

I'm totally ok with it

(actually, I prefer it)

by **grifftron** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:30 pm

I think I posted this before, but it was talked about way back in the thread...

When can we update this to the top clans atm? Still think it would be cool to update it once every year or 2 years with the top ranking clans in place of the year before... although thinking of it again, it might confuse those who play the map a lot changing tert names and what not...

-griff

by **Dukasaur** on Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:36 pm

ben79 wrote:i was wondering if it was possible to have the same deployement as on the king's court map ... i played a 1 vs 1 on clandemonium and it took at least an hour to play it
i mean having only 2 starting positions instead of 5

An hour for the whole game, or an hour for a turn?

I've had 1v1s on Clandemonium go more than two weeks, but even the most complicated turns didn't take more than 10 or 12 minutes along the way.

by **thenobodies80** on Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:18 pm

Dukasaur wrote:
ben79 wrote:i was wondering if it was possible to have the same deployement as on the king's court map ... i played a 1 vs 1 on clandemonium and it took at least an hour to play it
i mean having only 2 starting positions instead of 5

An hour for the whole game, or an hour for a turn?

I've had 1v1s on Clandemonium go more than two weeks, but even the most complicated turns didn't take more than 10 or 12 minutes along the way.

Damn! Your post has reminded me that I promised that fix to Kab long time ago.
Kab, I'll do it this weekend. Sorry for the delay....i totally forgot it. :oops:

Nobodies

by **Victor Sullivan** on Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:51 pm

thenobodies80 wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
ben79 wrote:i was wondering if it was possible to have the same deployement as on the king's court map ... i played a 1 vs 1 on clandemonium and it took at least an hour to play it
i mean having only 2 starting positions instead of 5

An hour for the whole game, or an hour for a turn?

I've had 1v1s on Clandemonium go more than two weeks, but even the most complicated turns didn't take more than 10 or 12 minutes along the way.

Damn! Your post has reminded me that I promised that fix to Kab long time ago.
Kab, I'll do it this weekend. Sorry for the delay....i totally forgot it.

Nobodies

*Insert typical inappropriate response about nobodies' getting disapproval/disciplinary action that could potentially be interpreted as mildly sexual by an old man in pink*

-Sully

by **thenobodies80** on Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:46 am

I've updated the xml (max 2 positions for each players). Kab, if it is ok for you I'll send it to the turtle.

the link is the same you have in the first post, let me know

by **Kabanellas** on Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:42 pm

Thanks a lot NB!!!! you're the man!!!!

by **thenobodies80** on Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:03 am

Updated, let me know how it works

by **Dukasaur** on Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:09 am

It's absolutely terrible.

The nice part about having 5 starting points is that good/bad dice tend to average out, and everybody starts with an almost-level playing field. For this reason, Clandemonium was the ONLY "Conquest-type" map where strategy was more important than luck. Cutting it back to two starting points means it will be like every other Conquest-type map, all about lucky dice. First guy to get a good streak going and break past 6 terts wins.

by **thenobodies80** on Fri Dec 16, 2011 6:13 am

We can increase it. Kabanellas what do you think?

by **Kabanellas** on Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:12 am

that makes sense... the game-play mechanics here are quite different from King's Court, were cutting the starting points to 2 was an improvement. That can work the other way around for Clandemonium.

I'm ok with taking it all back...

by **HighlanderAttack** on Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:32 am

Dukasaur wrote:It's absolutely terrible.

The nice part about having 5 starting points is that good/bad dice tend to average out, and everybody starts with an almost-level playing field. For this reason, Clandemonium was the ONLY "Conquest-type" map where strategy was more important than luck. Cutting it back to two starting points means it will be like every other Conquest-type map, all about lucky dice. First guy to get a good streak going and break past 6 terts wins.

I totally agree here--why the change--I just read back starting from August 27th and I guess I missed why it was changed anyway. I didn't think large changes occurred to quenched maps like this.