Proteins 101 <v.24 - new gameplay? *POLL!*> p1, p13

[captainwalrus]

First off, let me advise you that there isn't really much point working on XML until a map is showing signs of being ready for the Final Forge - primarily because until that point, anything and everything is likely to go through several major revisions - including coordinate locations, bonuses, region groupings, territory connections etc. etc... At this stage, it honestly is simply not worth the effort

I appreciate your concern that my efforts might be wasted, but with Premier2k's new XML Generator tool, and a map with so many regions and zones sharing similar names, it is really quite easy to generate the XML. A little careful use of the paste buffer allows rapid construction of the regions, then zones and connections are a matter of selecting from lists. Updates from this point are a simple matter of using a text editor, until the tool improves its ability to reload a previously generated file. Also, spelling out the XML can be a good way to ensure that everyone knows what gameplay is possible and what it is defined to be for the map in question.

Don't do the xml. It is really just a waste of time. If people can't tell the gameplay by the map itself then there needs to be changes.

[ender516]

First off, let me advise you that there isn't really much point working on XML until a map is showing signs of being ready for the Final Forge - primarily because until that point, anything and everything is likely to go through several major revisions - including coordinate locations, bonuses, region groupings, territory connections etc. etc... At this stage, it honestly is simply not worth the effort

I appreciate your concern that my efforts might be wasted, but with Premier2k's new XML Generator tool, and a map with so many regions and zones sharing similar names, it is really quite easy to generate the XML. A little careful use of the paste buffer allows rapid construction of the regions, then zones and connections are a matter of selecting from lists. Updates from this point are a simple matter of using a text editor, until the tool improves its ability to reload a previously generated file. Also, spelling out the XML can be a good way to ensure that everyone knows what gameplay is possible and what it is defined to be for the map in question.

Don't do the xml. It is really just a waste of time. If people can't tell the gameplay by the map itself then there needs to be changes.

Again, thanks for your concern, but it is already done. And you're right, the map should depict the gameplay. But the XML is the final arbiter, so until you actually code it, you don't know if what you see is what you will get.
It's not really an issue on this map, but I have seen mapmakers propose gameplay ideas which are simply not possible with the current site engine, and clarifying this by the litmus test of coding is always better done sooner rather than later.

[slowreactor]

My 2c, and this is a graphics rather than a gameplay suggestion:

I know what you wanted is to have it like a 3-d model that is standing in front of the blackboard. What it looks like, now, though, is that it's eerily floating perfectly on top of the blackboard. I think what you need to do is make it seem more like a model, so perhaps some wire supports? or maybe give the molecule itself depth? I dunno, perhaps someone can add to this thought.

[AndyDufresne]

My 2c, and this is a graphics rather than a gameplay suggestion:

I know what you wanted is to have it like a 3-d model that is standing in front of the blackboard. What it looks like, now, though, is that it's eerily floating perfectly on top of the blackboard. I think what you need to do is make it seem more like a model, so perhaps some wire supports? or maybe give the molecule itself depth? I dunno, perhaps someone can add to this thought.

Something like this, or the actual drawing on the chalkboard idea, could help improve the visual theme. I'll look over the game play and see what I can make of it when I've got some more free time.


--Andy

[natty dread]

Ok, I said I wouldn't post on the topic this week, but this is the one exception.

Alternate gameplay plan:

Click image to enlarge.

How's that for some gameplay changes?

alternate alternate gameplay plan:

Click image to enlarge.

[ender516]

My 2c, and this is a graphics rather than a gameplay suggestion:

I know what you wanted is to have it like a 3-d model that is standing in front of the blackboard. What it looks like, now, though, is that it's eerily floating perfectly on top of the blackboard. I think what you need to do is make it seem more like a model, so perhaps some wire supports? or maybe give the molecule itself depth? I dunno, perhaps someone can add to this thought.

Something like this, or the actual drawing on the chalkboard idea, could help improve the visual theme. I'll look over the game play and see what I can make of it when I've got some more free time.


--Andy

I really would not like to see this reduced to a chalkboard drawing, but getting some more variation in depth might be an improvement. As it is now, the shadow is offset equally from each atom, implying that the molecule is one plane, parallel to the plane of the blackboard. Now, the atoms in the tryptophan and histidine are somewhat smaller. They would appear farther from the viewer and closer to the board if the shadow were tighter to the molecule in that area. Shifting it farther from the other amino acids could enhance the effect. This would be a piece of cake in some 3D rendering software, I suppose, but otherwise, you have my sympathies.
On a nerdish note, does this combination of amino acids qualify as a protein, or just a peptide, or what? My knowledge of organic chemistry is quite limited.

[MeanestBossEver]

OK...I love this map. I loved the idea from the get go. I've been lurking, watching it improve. Obviously, there is always some minor tweaking to be done on any map, but this is already much more attractive than the majority of the maps that are live.

Keep up the good work natty & don't let the criticism discourage you.

[slowreactor]

Ok, I said I wouldn't post on the topic this week, but this is the one exception.

Alternate gameplay plan:

Click image to enlarge.

How's that for some gameplay changes?

alternate alternate gameplay plan:

Click image to enlarge.

Hmmm.... some interesting points there... alright, here we go:

What attracted me to this map is its unique style and fairly simplistic gameplay. What I don't want happening, though, is for this map to get reduced to a BOB-map. Perhaps the changed objectives can just be as simple as "all nitrogens/amides connect to each other" or something like that?

[MeanestBossEver]

I agree with slowreactor. I don't think you need to complicate this map with these additional connections. I think the connections you already have and the the overlapping regions create enough challenges.

[danoprey]

I really want to see this map made and think it is more than ready to go to the next stage. C'mon mods!

[natty dread]

OK, I'll break my rule again, the week is almost over anyway.

I agree with slowreactor. I don't think you need to complicate this map with these additional connections. I think the connections you already have and the the overlapping regions create enough challenges.

So, how about this version, where no additional connections are added, but instead, the connectors only apply to the blue nitrogens... So you can use the blue nitrogens to jump around, but you need to do it through the nitrogen connectors.

Click image to enlarge.

In this version, the nitrogen connectors would all start with 5 or 6 neutrals. Thus, they would not be available in the early game when everyone is short on troops. Then later on, when troop amounts rise, the connectors would come in play when players can afford to take the 5 neutrals, and the gameplay would drastically change midgame. Good strategists would of course foresee this and plan ahead.

Also there is a decay on the nitrogen connectors, to discourage players from forting them, allowing access through the connectors for everyone. The amount of decay can be discussed...

We discussed this version with ender, and came to the conclusion that this would bring interesting gameplay features to the map. Also, the way the nitrogens were in the original version, any nitrogen would connect to any other nitrogen... This would make it a bit too easy to leap anywhere on the map, so now the connections are circular, so that adjacent nitrogens on the molecule are connected via the nitrogen connector.

So, this way there won't be too many connections, the gameplay won't be too complex, but there are interesting and unique features to the gameplay, which should attract players to the map.

What do you think?

[porkenbeans]

Nat,
This map is starting to look pretty nice. I like the chalk board theme. The reduced glow is an improvement. Overall, the graphics are surely coming along nicely.

My favorite maps are the more complicated ones, and the ones that have been researched thoroughly. Such as cairn's maps, like Prohibition Chicago. This map IS in that vane. Don't let the simpletons among us, that do not like these sorts of maps, dissuade or hinder you from the progression of this very interesting project.

One sugg, maybe the drop shadow would be better if it were cast down instead of up. I think that it would be more natural to the chalk board theme, as a class room is normally lit that way.

[natty dread]

One sugg, maybe the drop shadow would be better if it were cast down instead of up. I think that it would be more natural to the chalk board theme, as a class room is normally lit that way.

Ah, but look at the shading on the molecule itself... it is clearly rendered with the light source coming from below. I had the shadow cast down initially, and it looked very unnatural, since the shading on the molecule shows the light coming from below... so the shadow must be cast upwards.

There's not much I can do to change the shading on the molecule without starting again from almost scratch, and unless everyone else feels the same way as you, I'm not going to bother with doing that... also, is it not realistic to assume, that if a model molecule was set up on display, it would have spotlights illuminating it from below?

And, thanks for your encouraging words. I really appreciate it, and I'm not too worried, as several people have expressed their interest for the map during this 5 day period I didn't post on the thread (except once or twice to show my plans for alternate gameplay).

I should also say the same to you; I also like many of your maps, and I hope you won't let a few inconsiderate people to discourage you from continuing their development.

[porkenbeans]

One sugg, maybe the drop shadow would be better if it were cast down instead of up. I think that it would be more natural to the chalk board theme, as a class room is normally lit that way.

Ah, but look at the shading on the molecule itself... it is clearly rendered with the light source coming from below. I had the shadow cast down initially, and it looked very unnatural, since the shading on the molecule shows the light coming from below... so the shadow must be cast upwards.

There's not much I can do to change the shading on the molecule without starting again from almost scratch, and unless everyone else feels the same way as you, I'm not going to bother with doing that... also, is it not realistic to assume, that if a model molecule was set up on display, it would have spotlights illuminating it from below?

And, thanks for your encouraging words. I really appreciate it, and I'm not too worried, as several people have expressed their interest for the map during this 5 day period I didn't post on the thread (except once or twice to show my plans for alternate gameplay).

I should also say the same to you; I also like many of your maps, and I hope you won't let a few inconsiderate people to discourage you from continuing their development.

Thanks for that.

If you created the inner shadow on the molecules in a different fashion than using the global light, then you can always flip the molecule image vertically and if you want, horizontally as well. Then just fit in the text the way that you want, and rearrange the text if need be.

I just gotta say. When I first saw this map, I liked very much the theme, but did not really like the graphics at all. This is a prime example of how a first draft can be improved with the help of talented people out there, that really try to help, instead of ripping it apart, and all the while think that, by doing that, it lifts them up above the rest of us mortals. It is ironic that in reality, ...it is only doing the opposite.

[WidowMakers]

2 quick things.

1) Is the molecule supposed to be drawn on the caulk board? If so, then there should be no drop shadow.
2) If it is a 3d module in front of the caulk board, the drop shadow for G3 is chopped off.

[natty dread]

Thanks for that.

If you created the inner shadow on the molecules in a different fashion than using the global light, then you can always flip the molecule image vertically and if you want, horizontally as well. Then just fit in the text the way that you want, and rearrange the text if need be.

Hmm. Well, I'll let it be for now, and we can talk about this again when the map gets to the graphics stage - between gameplay & graphics stamps, that is. Right now I've been told to concentrate on the gameplay, so I won't be doing too much to the graphics yet, since they very probably will be changed quite thoroughly at the main foundry.

2 quick things.

1) Is the molecule supposed to be drawn on the caulk board? If so, then there should be no drop shadow.
2) If it is a 3d module in front of the caulk board, the drop shadow for G3 is chopped off.

Option 2 is correct, and you're right. I'll need to create a new drop shadow... this happened when I had to enlarge the canvas & background to fit the new gameplay features (which btw, are not necessarily going to be implemented, I'm still waiting to hear the public opinion on these changes).

I'll fix it, but only if it is decided that the new gameplay is better than the original, since in the original gameplay version this problem doesn't exist.

[natty dread]

Here's version 24, with the new gameplay for now - if it gets shot down, it's no big deal to move back to the old. I'm going to post this as a real update now so it gets more attention.

Also, the molecule contrast is adjusted a bit to give it some more depth.

Click image to enlarge.

[ender516]

Here is the lengthy response that I promised to natty_dread's post in this topic on the 17th:
Forgive me for taking out your blank lines, but this post is getting huge...

How's this? It was difficult to accomplish, and I had to make some compromises, but I managed to move them away from the shadows somewhat. It's hard because they need to be close enough to the atoms so you can tell which name belongs to which atom...
Rearranged the legend a bit, so it should fit better now. Some continent names rearranged as well.
Now that I think of it, this update is actually nothing but a big rearrangement... it shouldn't even have a whole new version number! Oh well, what's done is done...

Click image to enlarge.

I haven't checked, but did you move any atoms (meaning I need to fix the XML coordinates), or just labels?

oh, btw, about the idea of bombardment between amide nitrogens, I'll probably discard that idea. Now that I've thought of it, it would seem out of place, just a gimmick that was glued on the map for no other purpose than to have a gimmick on the gameplay.

Fair enough, I never put that in, so no change to the XML, there.

btw2: with the starting positions & neutrals, the starting territories would go as follows:
(54 territories, out of which 5 blue nitrogens (neutral) and 8 oxygens (starting pos.) = 41 normal territories)
2 players: 13 normal territories each, 15 neutral normal territories, 4 oxygens each, 5 neutral blue nitrogens = 20 neutrals, 17 territories each
3 players: 13 normal territories each, 2 neutral normal territories, 2 oxygens each, 2 neutral oxygens, 5 neutral blue n:s = 9 neutrals, 15 territories each
4 players: 10 normal territories each, 1 neutral normal territory, 2 oxygens each, 5 neutral blue n:s = 6 neutrals, 12 territories each
5 players: 8 normal territories each, 1 neutral normal, 1 oxygen each, 3 neutral oxygens, 5 neutral blue n:s = 9 neutrals, 9 territories each
6 players: 6 normal territories each, 5 neutral normals, 1 oxygen each, 2 neutral oxygens, 5 neutral blues = 12 neutrals, 7 territories each
7 players: 5 normal territories each, 6 neutral normals, 1 oxygen each, 1 neutral oxygen, 5 neutral blues = 12 neutrals, 6 territories each
8 players: 5 normal territories each, 1 neutral normal, 1 oxygen each, 5 neutral blues = 6 neutrals, 6 territories each
How's that?

Well, with the XML as it is, I don't think that is what you get, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. There has been much discussion of how these things work in places like XML Starting Positions. Here is a particularly succinct and pertinent post from that thread:

My understanding of how the start positions work is as follows:

• Each <position> can contain single or multiple territories.
• The <position> groups are divided equally amongst the players, with each player getting all of the territories in the <position(s)> they have been allocated. Any remaining territories in left-over <position> tags are divided equally (with 1/3 neutral in 2-player games).
• Territories in <position> tags can be dealt to players even when the underlying territory has a <neutral> tag
• Any territories not in <position> tags, and that do not have <neutral> starts, are divided equally amongst players (with 1/3 neutral in 2-player games)
• If there are more players than starting positions, the <position> tags are ignored
• It is not possible to specify which player will get which <position>
• It is not possible to specify a <position> that will be dealt out in every game
• It is not possible to limit the number of positions to the number of players (ie. the game engine will distribute 8 positions evenly amongst 4 players, rather than allocate 1 each and have 4 positions starting neutral)

and another, pointing out that the neutral "player" in a 1v1 does not get a share of the starting positions:

Note - Starting positions are equally distributed in 1v1 (no neutral player).

So with 5 starting positions in a 1v1, 2 each would be allocated to players, with the third being added to the pot for distribution unless it was a designated neutral.
I think I've got it now

Correct.
C.

For further confirmation of my understanding of the way things work, I posted a question to that same topic and got an answer from thenobodies80 which agrees with yeti_c.
I have not coded the oxygens as neutrals, so any leftovers after the distribution of starting positions go back in the pot for random distribution.
So, with the current XML, I think the starting territories would go as follows:
54 territories, out of which 5 blue nitrogens are neutral, meaning 49 territories to divide, but with 8 starting positions consisting of 1 oxygen territory each, leaving 41 "free-range" territories.
2 players: 4 starting positions each, 41 / 3 = 13 normal territories for each player, and 2 leftovers added to the 13 for the "neutral player" and the 5 neutral blue nitrogens = 20 neutrals, 17 territories each real player.
3 players: 2 starting positions each, plus (41 + 2 unused starts) / 3 = 14 more territories each, leaving 1 leftover to add to the 5 neutral blue nitrogens = 6 neutrals, 16 territories each.
4 players: 2 starting positions each, plus 41 / 4 = 10 more territories each, leaving 1 leftover to add to the 5 neutral blue nitrogens = 6 neutrals, 12 territories each
5 players: 1 starting position each, plus (41 + 3 unused starts) / 5 = 8 more territories each, leaving 4 leftovers to add to the 5 neutral blue nitrogens = 9 neutrals, 9 territories each
6 players: 1 starting position each, (41 + 2 unused starts) / 6 = 7 more territories each, leaving 1 leftover to add to the 5 neutral blue nitrogens = 6 neutrals, 8 territories each
7 players: 1 starting position each, (41 + 1 unused starts) / 7 = 6 more territories each, leaving 0 leftovers to add to the 5 neutral blue nitrogens = 5 neutrals, 7 territories each
8 players: 1 starting position each, 41 / 8 = 5 more territories each, leaving 1 leftover to add to the 5 neutral blue nitrogens = 6 neutrals, 6 territories each

Note the following as far as where those leftover starts go:

• 3 players: 2 time in 43, 1 goes neutral, while the other goes to one of the players who is given a three to two to two advantage in oxygens over the other two players. 41 times in 43, neither is neutral. In those cases, one third of the time one player gets both for a four to two to two advantage, and two thirds of the time are split, giving a three to three to two situation.
• 7 players: The extra oxygen always goes to some lucky player.
• 5 players: This case is fairly complicated.
  
  • We have 41 free-range territories and 3 unused starts to split 5 ways, leaving 4 neutrals.
  • There are a total of 135751 ways to pick the 4 out of the 44.
  • If all 3 unused starts are picked to be neutral, there are 41 ways to pick the fourth neutral, so in 41 out of 135751 or 1 out of 3311 drops (~= 0.0302%), no one gets an extra oxygen. In this small number of cases, everything stays fair.
  • There are 3 ways to pick 2 unused starts and 820 ways to pick 2 others, so that makes 2460 out of 135751 or 60 out of 3311 drops (~= 1.812%) in which one extra oxygen gets handed to a player.
  • There are 3 ways to pick 1 unused starts and 10660 ways to pick 3 others, so that makes 31980 of 135751 or 780 out of 3311 drops (~=23.558%) in which two extra oxygens go into the pot for the players. There is then a 1 in 5 chance of them both going to one player, and obviously a 4 in 5 chance of them being split. That means 156 out of 3311 drops (~= 4.712%) give a two oxygen advantage to one player and 624 out of 3311 drops (~= 18.846%) where two players get one extra oxygen each.
  • Finally there are 101270 of 135751 or 2470 out of 3311 drops (~= 74.600%) where all three unused starts go into the pot. There are 125 different ways they can be distributed to the five players: 5 where they all go to one player, 60 where they are split two to one player and one to another, and 60 where they are spread among three different players. So 5 out of 125 times or 4% of the time when three are in the pot or in roughly 2.984% of the drops, one lucky player gets three extra oxygens (and consequently a starting bonus of two), while 60 out of 125 times or 48% of the time when three are in the pot or in roughly 35.808% of the drops either: a) one player gets two extra oxygens and another gets one (no bonus for anyone , or b) three players get one each (again no bonus).

I had this mostly figured out before the idea of the nitrogen connectors came up. If that is accepted, I can rework this whole shebang. We may also want to look at what happens if the starting position oxygens are coded to be neutrals when they are left over (so they never go unevenly to players).

[natty dread]

I haven't checked, but did you move any atoms (meaning I need to fix the XML coordinates), or just labels?

Well, if the nitrogen connector idea goes through, then you'll need to a) make new coords for the connectors and b) move all other coords down 100 pixels (y=y+100), since I had to enlargen the image to fit the connectors. The atoms weren't moved except for the image resizing.

As for the starting positions and nitrogens starting neutral... I think it would be best to code the oxygen starting positions as neutrals, so that no one would get more oxygens than others. Although... since you need 4 of them to get a bonus, you would only get a bonus at the drop in 1v1 games. So maybe it's not such a big deal, and maybe it's better to minimize the neutrals on the map. But we can discuss this more after the draft stamp... if that ever comes...

[MeanestBossEver]

OK -- it's been more than 10 years since I took a science class, so forgive a potentially silly question. Do the nitrogen connectors actually represent anything real?

[natty dread]

OK -- it's been more than 10 years since I took a science class, so forgive a potentially silly question. Do the nitrogen connectors actually represent anything real?

No... not as such. It's purely a gameplay feature. However, if the idea goes through I can try to come up with something that fits the theme...

Alternatively, the nitrogen connectors as territories can be scrapped, but used as a small flowchart to show how the nitrogens connect. So all nitrogens wouldn't connect to each other, but each nitrogen would connect to two other nitrogens...

[Evil DIMwit]

Alternatively, the nitrogen connectors as territories can be scrapped, but used as a small flowchart to show how the nitrogens connect. So all nitrogens wouldn't connect to each other, but each nitrogen would connect to two other nitrogens...

That seems to me a more intuitive way to go about it than the extra connector territories. I think it'd be better than having every nitrogen connect to every other nitrogen, as well, since those territories also give a collection bonus, so you may want to make it more difficult for one player to reach all of them.

Is there a scientific rationale behind the fact that holding 4 nitrogens yields a lower bonus than holding only 3? It's a pretty interesting element gameplay-wise. In fact, perhaps you should bring the bonus for having 3 up by one, or the bonus for having 4 down by one, to make that difference a bit more significant.

[natty dread]

That seems to me a more intuitive way to go about it than the extra connector territories. I think it'd be better than having every nitrogen connect to every other nitrogen, as well, since those territories also give a collection bonus, so you may want to make it more difficult for one player to reach all of them.

Yeah, well. I think it will be one or the other: either we keep the nitrogen connectors, or we make them not territories and only indicators of the connections between nitrogens. For now, let's wait and see what the public opinion says about the whole nitrogen connector issue...

Is there a scientific rationale behind the fact that holding 4 nitrogens yields a lower bonus than holding only 3?

Hmm... how about the fact that nitrogens are trivalent? This means a nitrogen can bond easily to 3 other atoms. If you add a fourth, it will give a positive charge to the nitrogen, thus making it less stable...

It's a bit far-fetched, but I just pulled it out of my hat, I can think of something else...

n fact, perhaps you should bring the bonus for having 3 up by one, or the bonus for having 4 down by one, to make that difference a bit more significant.

Well I can't lower the bonus for 4, since it only gives +1. Unless you suggest that holding 4 would give no bonus... I think it would be a bit too harsh, don't you? Increasing the bonus for holding 3, though... It could be done. +3 for 3 nitrogens, well, there's 3 borders to guard to keep that bonus. But then you'd have to increase the bonus for 5, since nobody would want to go for the 5 nitrogens just to get 1 additional bonus, especially when it's likely that some other players is holding those two and is probably keen on keeping them to maintain his +1 bonus... Or they might be a part of someone's histidine bonus.

This is quite a pickle, and demands some thought...

[MrBenn]

This is quite a pickle, and demands some thought...

Things are moving along a bit, although part of me would really like to see you pushing your effort into something that will give you an easier ride through the foundry. You obviously have commitment and enthusiasm - right now though, the scope and appeal of this map may be too limited for a first-time mapmaker.

Let's see if we can think of a killer idea for something that will help you to hit the ground running... I can't help but think that this idea might be best put to one side for now - although there's nothing to say that once you've got more experience under your belt you couldn't come back to it

I'll catch up with you in due course

[mibi]

I didn't look at the gamepley, but the graphics and theme are solid. Nice work.