[Abandoned] Research & Conquer

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Sun May 26, 2013 7:20 pm

RedBaron0 wrote::pokes isaiah: Since the primary focus seems to have switched back to gameplay, I changed the button to the old simple green button. I don't want to burden you with having to make a GFX update when you are clearly working on gameplay. I won't pull the stamp, but lets just say is provisional, till all parties are satisfied. And we'll poke at ian when you think you're good just to make sure we're all good to focus back on graphical type updates.

For what it's worth, seeing as most of the gameplay discussion are points that I've been raising, I'd be happy with the map going to beta with the gameplay it has now, with the exception of the mines being +1/+2 instead of +2/+4, which I think is a point that should be discussed further if Isaiah feels it shouldn't be put back to +2/+4. It's been said many times in the past and it's something I wholeheartedly believe: When it comes to gameplay for this map, it really needs to get into beta play before any serious gameplay discussions/tweaks can really take place. Other than the mines, all of the points I've brought up I feel are minor tweaks that *may* add to the gameplay, but are not worth holding up the map getting to beta.

I could be wrong, but I think other the neutral values getting put down onto the map, I think this map is ready to be put back into Final Forge while Oliver works on finalizing the XML. Personally I think any of the gameplay discussions that have been going on are the types of things that can be considered as tweaks to the beta version of the map if the gameplay ends up needing tweaks, which I'm fully expecting it to need for several weeks of beta.

Anyway, just my 0.02 worth

by **isaiah40** on Sun May 26, 2013 11:17 pm

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:
RedBaron0 wrote::pokes isaiah: Since the primary focus seems to have switched back to gameplay, I changed the button to the old simple green button. I don't want to burden you with having to make a GFX update when you are clearly working on gameplay. I won't pull the stamp, but lets just say is provisional, till all parties are satisfied. And we'll poke at ian when you think you're good just to make sure we're all good to focus back on graphical type updates.

For what it's worth, seeing as most of the gameplay discussion are points that I've been raising, I'd be happy with the map going to beta with the gameplay it has now, with the exception of the mines being +1/+2 instead of +2/+4, which I think is a point that should be discussed further if Isaiah feels it shouldn't be put back to +2/+4. It's been said many times in the past and it's something I wholeheartedly believe: When it comes to gameplay for this map, it really needs to get into beta play before any serious gameplay discussions/tweaks can really take place. Other than the mines, all of the points I've brought up I feel are minor tweaks that *may* add to the gameplay, but are not worth holding up the map getting to beta.

I could be wrong, but I think other the neutral values getting put down onto the map, I think this map is ready to be put back into Final Forge while Oliver works on finalizing the XML. Personally I think any of the gameplay discussions that have been going on are the types of things that can be considered as tweaks to the beta version of the map if the gameplay ends up needing tweaks, which I'm fully expecting it to need for several weeks of beta.

Anyway, just my 0.02 worth

I'm fine with the values as they are - I'll change the mining bonuses to +1/+2 - I've just been really busy this last couple of weeks.

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Mon May 27, 2013 2:39 am

isaiah40 wrote:
-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:
RedBaron0 wrote::pokes isaiah: Since the primary focus seems to have switched back to gameplay, I changed the button to the old simple green button. I don't want to burden you with having to make a GFX update when you are clearly working on gameplay. I won't pull the stamp, but lets just say is provisional, till all parties are satisfied. And we'll poke at ian when you think you're good just to make sure we're all good to focus back on graphical type updates.

For what it's worth, seeing as most of the gameplay discussion are points that I've been raising, I'd be happy with the map going to beta with the gameplay it has now, with the exception of the mines being +1/+2 instead of +2/+4, which I think is a point that should be discussed further if Isaiah feels it shouldn't be put back to +2/+4. It's been said many times in the past and it's something I wholeheartedly believe: When it comes to gameplay for this map, it really needs to get into beta play before any serious gameplay discussions/tweaks can really take place. Other than the mines, all of the points I've brought up I feel are minor tweaks that *may* add to the gameplay, but are not worth holding up the map getting to beta.

I could be wrong, but I think other the neutral values getting put down onto the map, I think this map is ready to be put back into Final Forge while Oliver works on finalizing the XML. Personally I think any of the gameplay discussions that have been going on are the types of things that can be considered as tweaks to the beta version of the map if the gameplay ends up needing tweaks, which I'm fully expecting it to need for several weeks of beta.

Anyway, just my 0.02 worth

I'm fine with the values as they are - I'll change the mining bonuses to +1/+2 - I've just been really busy this last couple of weeks.

Just for clarification sake, the mining bonuses are +1/+2 as of the last revision, prior to that they were +2/+4 which is what I believe they should be. If the bonuses remain +1/+2, then the neutral values should be look at as they're going to be horribly off for such a small bonus. I still think the better option is for them to be +2/+4 though.

by **OliverFA** on Mon May 27, 2013 6:01 pm

isaiah40 wrote:I'm fine with the values as they are - I'll change the mining bonuses to +1/+2 - I've just been really busy this last couple of weeks.

Should I start writing the XML for the map? As far as I know, the territory coordinates and the adjacencies won't change. Am I right? That's the big part of the XML work. Changing neutrals or bonuses is not such a big issue.

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Mon May 27, 2013 11:20 pm

OliverFA wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:I'm fine with the values as they are - I'll change the mining bonuses to +1/+2 - I've just been really busy this last couple of weeks.

Should I start writing the XML for the map? As far as I know, the territory coordinates and the adjacencies won't change. Am I right? That's the big part of the XML work. Changing neutrals or bonuses is not such a big issue.

Hi Oliver,

Unfortunately I have a feeling that territory positions and adjacancies are going to be quite different. Isaiah has changed the map to be a hex based map and I'm sure he would have had to move territories around in order for the 888's to fit perfectly into one hex. He also had to remove 3 of the territories, which will also make a difference. I think it would be worth while to get a start on that part of the XML using the current map. I don't see anything changing from a position point of view. Most of what we're discussing are neutral values and maybe a couple bonus changes, but those are pretty easy to change.

As far as the XML goes, are we counting only land territories towards the normal territory count? If so, the minimum reinforcements will need to be set to a flat 0 and then a continent with all of the land territories will need to be formed and then the three different levels of land bonus (standard, secret, and open conscription) can be created from there. The only thing I haven't been clear on is what Isaiah decided to do as far as whether Secret Conscription was going to be +1 per 2 regions or +2 per 3 regions.

by **OliverFA** on Tue May 28, 2013 5:40 pm

Hello Tanarri

Ok. I will wait a little bit then. Was just asking because I would not want the map to get stuck because of me.

About the territory count for bonus, the concept is using only the land territories, because the research territories are just a way to represent a different concept. They are not real territories and for that reason they can not count towards bonus. The XML I did long ago had the "territorial bonus" to 0 and then this bonus was simulated by continents.

by **RedBaron0** on Thu May 30, 2013 4:12 pm

I wouldn't say the map is stuck, I'm just lifting the burden of graphical updates... for now. Work is being done, I respect that. Cuz the alternative is the bin, such as it has been 5 weeks since a GFX update. Work, discuss, get-r-done... simple as that.

by **isaiah40** on Fri May 31, 2013 4:11 pm

RedBaron0 wrote:I wouldn't say the map is stuck, I'm just lifting the burden of graphical updates... for now. Work is being done, I respect that. Cuz the alternative is the bin, such as it has been 5 weeks since a GFX update. Work, discuss, get-r-done... simple as that.

Will get it done. I am at home this weekend and won't be available until Tuesday, so expect something after Tuesday.

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:09 pm

Just a quick note of encouragement and anticipation for the next update, whenever it's able to be done...

I think the best thing we can do for this map at this point is just finish up the graphics and code and get it into beta. Once we're in beta we can figure out a lot easier what works and what doesn't and tweak from there.

by **isaiah40** on Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:23 pm

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:Just a quick note of encouragement and anticipation for the next update, whenever it's able to be done...

I think the best thing we can do for this map at this point is just finish up the graphics and code and get it into beta. Once we're in beta we can figure out a lot easier what works and what doesn't and tweak from there.

Exactly what I was going to do. I will be posting the Provisional numbers by Monday night CC time I promise.

by **OliverFA** on Sun Jun 16, 2013 4:46 pm

isaiah40 wrote:
-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:Just a quick note of encouragement and anticipation for the next update, whenever it's able to be done...

I think the best thing we can do for this map at this point is just finish up the graphics and code and get it into beta. Once we're in beta we can figure out a lot easier what works and what doesn't and tweak from there.

Exactly what I was going to do. I will be posting the Provisional numbers by Monday night CC time I promise.

Looking forward to it! Cheers!!!

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Sun Jun 16, 2013 8:51 pm

OliverFA wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:Just a quick note of encouragement and anticipation for the next update, whenever it's able to be done...

I think the best thing we can do for this map at this point is just finish up the graphics and code and get it into beta. Once we're in beta we can figure out a lot easier what works and what doesn't and tweak from there.

Exactly what I was going to do. I will be posting the Provisional numbers by Monday night CC time I promise.

Looking forward to it! Cheers!!!

I'm looking forward to it as well

by **isaiah40** on Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:45 pm

Well here is the new provisional numbers version. Looking at it, I think we need to make all the neutral regions start the same, and all the mines to start the same to reduce the size of the XML file. I suggest all non-mine region start with n3, and all the mines start with n4 or n5. All homeland regions c- except the capitals - can start with n2. Does this sound good to everyone??
Provisional Numbers:

Click image to enlarge.

by **EricPhail** on Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:23 am

Simplified neutrals could work, I'd start with 4 for the mines (what neutrals would the mines in the capital get n2 or n4?)

Have you made up your mind on a lab recovery route? (if yes that needs adding to the legend, and xml presumably)

Other than that, looking good to me

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Wed Jun 19, 2013 7:32 pm

Some thoughts on the recent map revision:

* For the land regions, I'm happy for them to be as they are or as was suggested, since these can always be tweaked once we get to Beta and I think in the end we won't know either way until the map gets played a bit. I have my suspicions that neutral values will need to be higher than either the current revision or the suggestion, just simply because fairly early on in the game people will be dropping 15, but either current option is a good starting point to find out.
* Before I forget to mention again, there should be some mention of no standard region bonus and the bonus is +1 per 3 land regions. If there's to be a minimum of 3 for the land region bonus, then that should be stated as well.
* Mining either needs to be fixed back to +2 per mine or the neutral on Mining and Deep Mining need to be reduced according to the drop in value. Personally I think putting it back to +2 is the better option, since I feel it will add to the gameplay and the importance of the mines (and Sabotage as a result, which also should be reduced a bit if mines are put back to +2). I'd be happy enough with either of these options for the map to go to Beta.
* I still think TSFs should be brought down to 30 neutral, since the +6 bonus would be a 5 turn payback at that point. I suspect the 45 neutral there currently is an artifact from the times where TSFs were a pre-requesite for researching advanced techs. This isn't a point that I'd hold up the map getting to Beta for though.
* I also still think it would be worthwhile to restrict the number of bridges to two per river section, as I think it would add to the strategic value of taking over a single landmass before proceeding to the other land masses.
* As Eric mentioned, the research attack routes need to be sorted out. I think the option of basic reseaches attacking the lab and advanced researches attacking the basic researches is the best option. It could be worded something like "Basic researches border their laboratory and their advanced research" and "Laboratories one way attack TSF and Doomsday" or something similar would probably work out well. This has the added benefit of making sure TSFs and especially Doomsday autodeploys aren't able to be used directly for researching from the labs.

Over all everything's looking great. I think if we can wrap up the last few bits and get the XML taken care of, then having the map in Beta will help figure out the finer details of gameplay a lot easier.

by **cairnswk** on Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:51 pm

Guys, this is looking much better from design pov.

1. there is a line sitting right above the "only the most ..." - intentional?

2. the black text is not totally clear immediately on the olive backgrounds in each box for N NW NE etc. With number in there (yes?) it could be very hard to see what these box names are.

3. i think the black text on the brownish background could do with a little lift - perhaps some light brown undershadow or similar just to lift it out of the background.

Hope this helps.

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Sat Jun 22, 2013 12:31 pm

Hi Cairns, thanks for dropping by and providing your feedback, it's always nice to have new people posting in here

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:07 pm

Does anyone else have any other feedback for the provisional numbers? The brief discussion seems to have stalled

by **dolomite13** on Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:41 am

I've been following this one a long time. I absolutely love its concept.

I however still feel like the map is a bit too small and the tech areas are just a bit too large for what you are trying to do here. Everything looks so cramped on the map. Great idea to switch to the hexes though.

The edge around he map area is recessed into the control panel. Would that not look better as raised? Like the plates under the controls on the left.

This map was an inspiration to me when I started to create Krazy Kingdoms and Homeworlds. I hope to play it someday.

I like the provisional amounts you have listed on the map.

=D13=

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Sat Jun 29, 2013 6:40 pm

dolomite13 wrote:I've been following this one a long time. I absolutely love its concept.

I however still feel like the map is a bit too small and the tech areas are just a bit too large for what you are trying to do here. Everything looks so cramped on the map. Great idea to switch to the hexes though.

The edge around he map area is recessed into the control panel. Would that not look better as raised? Like the plates under the controls on the left.

This map was an inspiration to me when I started to create Krazy Kingdoms and Homeworlds. I hope to play it someday.

I like the provisional amounts you have listed on the map.

=D13=

Hi Dolomite, thanks for stopping by and providing feedback

I've always thought the map was cramped, but without cutting down the number of territories (which I think would affect the overall gameplay too much) or significantly super sizing the map (which will likely affect the playability for many players) I don't see how we could increase the size of the land area significantly enough to make a difference. At the current size, even if we really worked at cutting down the grey space in the tech tree (which will be difficult enough to do on its own), I don't think we'd get very much extra space and the net result may be an increase in size by 1-2px per hex, which isn't going to make that much of a difference to how crammed the land section is. I think switching to hexes helped a lot in getting everything organized, but I really can't think of what else could be done here. If you have any other thoughts short of a serious re-do of the whole map, we'd love to hear them.

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:28 am

So what's the next step for the map, it seems the discussion has finished for now.

by **Aleena** on Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:53 am

not sure - maybe time to scrap it....??

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Thu Jul 04, 2013 2:12 pm

Aleena wrote:not sure - maybe time to scrap it....??

I didn't mean the map seemed dead, just that this phase of the discussion seemed to be finished. I would never think it's time to scrap this map, there's been so much time and dedication put into it and once it's finished, I have no doubt it will be one of the few maps the continues to get regular play due to its unique gameplay.

by **isaiah40** on Fri Jul 05, 2013 12:45 am

Aleena wrote:not sure - maybe time to scrap it....??

Hell no this isn't going to be scraped!!! After 5 years this is going to be finished!

On that note, sorry for no response for the last couple of weeks, RL has been busy, and with my wife in and out of the hospital a couple of times the last couple of weeks with heart troubles, this has been placed on the back burner. I will get some changes cairns mentioned later, but I will get an update up this week some time.