Conquer Club

iancanton wrote:in 1v1, the game engine always allocates one-third of the uncoded regions to the neutral "player". this is why 1v1 classic games start with 14 neutrals, even though no-one coded any neutral regions.

ian.

Ok. So if the 1v1 games can be limited to 10 total terts per player (9 regular and 1 City), then that's what I would like to do.

So what does the xml look like for that?

iancanton wrote:27 regions is 9 regions per player in 1v1, with 9 random regions starting neutral. 28 regions is also 9 regions per player in 1v1, with 10 random regions starting neutral. in addition, in both cases, each player also receives 1 city position.

ian.

Ah crap, I forgot about the neutral player! You are right ian.

You can take out that extra neutral added. My apologizes. Other than that, there would be no XML changes, Seamus.

Gilligan wrote:

iancanton wrote:27 regions is 9 regions per player in 1v1, with 9 random regions starting neutral. 28 regions is also 9 regions per player in 1v1, with 10 random regions starting neutral. in addition, in both cases, each player also receives 1 city position.

ian.

Ah crap, I forgot about the neutral player! You are right ian.

You can take out that extra neutral added. My apologizes. Other than that, there would be no XML changes, Seamus.

Lol, no problem.

Do you mind removing the neutral code on kuaiji, and moving the city we've been talking about? And if so, what do the starting numbers look like for all the game types? Thanks again for the help.

Seamus76 wrote:what do the starting numbers look like for all the game types?

2p: 1 city position plus 9 other regions (10 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 6 neutral city positions, 10 random neutrals = 42 total
3p: 1 city position plus 9 other regions (10 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 5 neutral city positions, 1 random neutral = 42 total
4p: 1 city position plus 7 other regions (8 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 4 neutral city positions, 0 random neutrals = 42 total
5p: 1 city position plus 5 other regions (6 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 3 neutral city positions, 3 random neutrals = 42 total
6p: 1 city position plus 4 other regions (5 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 2 neutral city positions, 4 random neutrals = 42 total
7p: 1 city position plus 4 other regions (5 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 1 neutral city position, 0 random neutrals = 42 total
8p: 1 city position plus 3 other regions (4 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 0 neutral city positions, 4 random neutrals = 42 total

Aleena wrote:would be nice if features like this had binary on off switches - so that this map maker could op not to use that feature and have the system evenly distribute between players only. (except for remainders which will be given to neutrals) - maybe this could be in a future update - is their a thread that lists all of these functions and also one that is open for suggestions on what could be added to the engine?

to put forward a suggestion that can affect the whole of cc, click the "new topic" button in the suggestions forum (link below).

viewforum.php?f=4

ian.

iancanton wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:what do the starting numbers look like for all the game types?

2p: 1 city position plus 9 other regions (10 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 6 neutral city positions, 10 random neutrals = 42 total
3p: 1 city position plus 9 other regions (10 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 5 neutral city positions, 1 random neutral = 42 total
4p: 1 city position plus 7 other regions (8 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 4 neutral city positions, 0 random neutrals = 42 total
5p: 1 city position plus 5 other regions (6 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 3 neutral city positions, 3 random neutrals = 42 total
6p: 1 city position plus 4 other regions (5 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 2 neutral city positions, 4 random neutrals = 42 total
7p: 1 city position plus 4 other regions (5 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 1 neutral city position, 0 random neutrals = 42 total
8p: 1 city position plus 3 other regions (4 total) each, 6 coded neutrals, 0 neutral city positions, 4 random neutrals = 42 total

ian.

Thank ian. I updated the OP with those numbers. And once we can get the xml updated to remove the coded neutral on Kuaiji, and move the city we should finally be done.

With Koontz's help I tried to update the XML myself. It's attached to the OP, and I have posted it in the Offcial XML thread. Please let me know if there are any problems with it.

in the xml, u have the former city of guiyang, instead of the new city of changsha, starting as n2.

to bring the three capitals into play during 1v1 games, consider letting each capital start as n1 rather than n2. the gameplay stamp remains valid even if u do not do this.

ian.

iancanton wrote:in the xml, u have the former city of guiyang, instead of the new city of changsha, starting as n2.

to bring the three capitals into play during 1v1 games, consider letting each capital start as n1 rather than n2. the gameplay stamp remains valid even if u do not do this.

ian.

I'm not sold on 1n. I think that might make taking that bonus too easy, especially in other player types, i.e. quads, or even 1v1 if there's a lucky drop. At 1n a player would only need to kill 3 neutrals to get +4, and again with a lucky drop that could be pretty easy. Personally I'd like to take it to BETA and see how the 1v1 games play out before making such a large bonus so easy to take, in my opinion.

I did try to update the xml, just moving the "neutral" line from one tert to the other, but when I load it in the xml wizard I get this...

Loading File china7(seamus).xml ...
Error: Line 3 - Invalid attribute max for element positions
Warning: Tian Shui attacks Yong but not vice versa.
XML Load Complete 1 warnings and 1 errors found. Click Close to close this window.

I know the Warning is just the one-way attack, so I'm not worried about that, but I wasn't sure about the Error: Line 3, which was also on the last version I posted, and may not be anything to worry about as well. Either way, I updated the OP with the new XML, and the Official XML post I made yesterday. v7(seamus) is the most recent.

Has anyone been able to verify this xml? Sticky? Potential beta launch?

Seamus76 wrote:Has anyone been able to verify this xml? Sticky? Potential beta launch?

Still waiting for tnb.

Gilligan wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:Has anyone been able to verify this xml? Sticky? Potential beta launch?

Still waiting for tnb.

Ok...i thought I saw him for a second, but that was just your avatar. Just kidding, hope all is well with him.

Seamus76 wrote:

Gilligan wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:Has anyone been able to verify this xml? Sticky? Potential beta launch?

Still waiting for tnb.

Ok...i thought I saw him for a second, but that was just your avatar. Just kidding, hope all is well with him.

Me too...he hasn't visited the site since last Friday, and hasn't posted at all since June 22.

Is there a plan for this? As far as I know it has been checked and is ready to go, but no sticky. Sorry, just impatient.

Seamus76 wrote:Is there a plan for this? As far as I know it has been checked and is ready to go, but no sticky. Sorry, just impatient.

Ditto! Please bring on the beta ASAP!

yawn... lets go! Beta!

Files have been sent!

isaiah40 wrote:Files have been sent!

Thanks. Just saw it's live!! Let the games begin.

Seamus76 wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:Files have been sent!

Thanks. Just saw it's live!! Let the games begin.

Well that was a mistake, it shouldn't have gone live yet.

Beta - Quenching

---The development period has concluded for the Three Kingdoms of China Map. All objections have had their time. The Foundry and I hereby brand this map with the Foundry Beta Brand. Let it be known that this map is now ready for BETA Play. After an extended period of time in BETA and once all quirks and issues have been resolved, the map will be put into Full Play (barring any Admins or Foundry Foreman vetoes).

Conquer Club, enjoy!

While the map is in BETA Play, there are a couple of administrative tasks that are required of the mapmaker(s) in addition to the initial gameplay testing:

1. Please ensure that the first post of the thread contains all the necessary information to help future visitors to the development thread; it's particularly important to ensure the most recent images are there, along with any helpful guides (such as gameplay quirks/nuances or the location/size of any starting neutrals etc.)
2. It is the responsibility of the mapmaker(s) to ensure that they respond to further feedback in a timely and constructive manner.
3. Write a "creative" map description and send it to the Foundry Foreman via PM. You're encouraged to post it into the first post of the thread as well; the description will be used to populate the maps database.

isaiah40

Okay I'll open the beta feedack with a quick question:

Cities bonus: The legend says +1 per 2 (implying +4 if you hold all of them)

however accoring to BOB: City Bonus (1) 3 City Bonus (2) 4 City Bonus (3) 5 City Bonus (4) 6 City Bonus (5) 7 City Bonus (6)
8 City Bonus (7) (that +1 for every city after the first)

Is BOB misreading this? If not: is the legend misleading, or the bonus coded wrong?

EricPhail wrote:Okay I'll open the beta feedack with a quick question:

Cities bonus: The legend says +1 per 2 (implying +4 if you hold all of them)

however accoring to BOB: City Bonus (1) 3 City Bonus (2) 4 City Bonus (3) 5 City Bonus (4) 6 City Bonus (5) 7 City Bonus (6)
8 City Bonus (7) (that +1 for every city after the first)

Is BOB misreading this? If not: is the legend misleading, or the bonus coded wrong?

Probably BOB misreading it. BOB hasn't been fixed (to my knowledge, anyway) to read the collections bonus properly. You'll see the same problem with USA 2.1's capital cities and interstate bonuses, for example.

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:

EricPhail wrote:Okay I'll open the beta feedack with a quick question:

Cities bonus: The legend says +1 per 2 (implying +4 if you hold all of them)

however accoring to BOB: City Bonus (1) 3 City Bonus (2) 4 City Bonus (3) 5 City Bonus (4) 6 City Bonus (5) 7 City Bonus (6)
8 City Bonus (7) (that +1 for every city after the first)

Is BOB misreading this? If not: is the legend misleading, or the bonus coded wrong?

Probably BOB misreading it. BOB hasn't been fixed (to my knowledge, anyway) to read the collections bonus properly. You'll see the same problem with USA 2.1's capital cities and interstate bonuses, for example.

I though BOBs problem with collections was underestimating not overestimating (eg. labyrinth doesn't recognise, multiple minotaur or food bonuses)

This goes the other way (and with each item listed seperately) and thus looks to be a different issue IMO

EricPhail wrote:

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:

EricPhail wrote:Okay I'll open the beta feedack with a quick question:

Cities bonus: The legend says +1 per 2 (implying +4 if you hold all of them)

however accoring to BOB: City Bonus (1) 3 City Bonus (2) 4 City Bonus (3) 5 City Bonus (4) 6 City Bonus (5) 7 City Bonus (6)
8 City Bonus (7) (that +1 for every city after the first)

Is BOB misreading this? If not: is the legend misleading, or the bonus coded wrong?

Probably BOB misreading it. BOB hasn't been fixed (to my knowledge, anyway) to read the collections bonus properly. You'll see the same problem with USA 2.1's capital cities and interstate bonuses, for example.

I though BOBs problem with collections was underestimating not overestimating (eg. labyrinth doesn't recognise, multiple minotaur or food bonuses)

This goes the other way (and with each item listed seperately) and thus looks to be a different issue IMO

That does sound like a different problem then, since the one I'm familiar with is underestimating, rather than over estimating.

EricPhail wrote:Okay I'll open the beta feedack with a quick question:

Cities bonus: The legend says +1 per 2 (implying +4 if you hold all of them)

however accoring to BOB: City Bonus (1) 3 City Bonus (2) 4 City Bonus (3) 5 City Bonus (4) 6 City Bonus (5) 7 City Bonus (6)
8 City Bonus (7) (that +1 for every city after the first)

Is BOB misreading this? If not: is the legend misleading, or the bonus coded wrong?

Ok, I see this too. I had 3 cities and received +2 instead of the +1 it should be, until 4 cities are held, then +2 would be correct.

So, are you all saying it's an XML issue? If so that's fine, we can take a look and see what the problem is. If it's BOB, then I'm not sure what to do, since some people don't use BOB. But based on what you all are saying it doesn't seem like BOB, correct?

Seamus76 wrote:

EricPhail wrote:Okay I'll open the beta feedack with a quick question:

Cities bonus: The legend says +1 per 2 (implying +4 if you hold all of them)

however accoring to BOB: City Bonus (1) 3 City Bonus (2) 4 City Bonus (3) 5 City Bonus (4) 6 City Bonus (5) 7 City Bonus (6)
8 City Bonus (7) (that +1 for every city after the first)

Is BOB misreading this? If not: is the legend misleading, or the bonus coded wrong?

Ok, I see this too. I had 3 cities and received +2 instead of the +1 it should be, until 4 cities are held, then +2 would be correct.

So, are you all saying it's an XML issue? If so that's fine, we can take a look and see what the problem is. If it's BOB, then I'm not sure what to do, since some people don't use BOB. But based on what you all are saying it doesn't seem like BOB, correct?

Whether it's a BOB or XML issue can easily be determined by what bonus you're actually getting as indicated by the game log. If the log is saying +2 for 3 cities then it's likely an XML issue, if it's saying +1 for 3 cities, then it's likely a BOB issue.