Conquer Club

Ok this idea is just so fun I have to post it even though I'm not sure if it will ever go anywhere...

I got the idea from paulk's hypercube & cube maps. So we have CC:s first 3d map in development, nice, but why settle for 3 dimensions?

Why not a 4-dimensional cube? ie. instead of a 3-dimensional 4x4x4 cube, we could have a 4-dimensional 3x3x3x3 cube. In practice, since 4-dimensional monitors are yet to be invented, we would represent it with three 3x3x3 cubes, which connect to each other in the 4th dimension.

This means that each vertex in each 3d cube connects to the same vertex in the adjacent 3d cubes.

Think of the mindfuck this would provide.

What about the bonus system? The cube has an ingenious system of holding either squares or cubes within the larger cube. How do we implement this to a 4-dimensional cube?

Well, I have a few ideas... one of them is awarding each non-diagonal line of 3 - but the catch is, you can form this line in any dimension... x,y,z axles, or within the 4th dimension - so that you hold the same vertex within each 3d cube - and you can use the same vertex for multiple lines to get many bonuses... While borrowing inspiration from the cube, we could make each central vertex give an extra bonus if held as part of a line.

Alternatively, if the map is too open like this, we could make it so that only the central vertex in each 3d cube connects through the 4th dimension.

The map would have 3x3x3x3 = 81 territories. I don't even want to begin to count the possible bonus combinations, lol... (hope it's not too heavy for the xml.)

So, any opinions?

I think it's the worst idea you've ever come up with, there's no call for it, and you'd have to be stupid to play once and crazy to play twice.

Also, having 3 3x3x3 cubes is unnecessarily complicated when you can just use a 3x3 grid of 3x3 grids. Each vertex connects to the vertices next to it according to the small grid, and connects to the corresponding vertex in the adjacent grids according to the super-grid.

Also, 216 connections. Which isn't so many, and at any rate for a map this regular you could put together a simple script that can generate every connection and bonus automatically.

Also, having only the central vertex connect would make chokepoints that are just too easy to defend. Besides, it gets rid of the 4-dimensional thinking, which is the entire point of this map.

Also, did I mention just how awful an idea this is? Because it's awful.

I barely like the cube map, any more cubes would just be too much for me.

Got it... just forget I ever posted anything

Ok so a recent thread in GD led me to an old joke map by coleman from where I found this gameplay sketch by widowmakers...



Now before you all shoot it down, widowmakers at the time thought it could actually work, and I kinda agree with him. Just up the starting points to 8 to accommodate 8 players...

Paraphrasing WM, the strategy would be knowing when to attack the objective.

And yeah we have st.pats, but this is different. In a way.

I think, with some development, something could be made of this.


I guess the point here is to make an extremely simple conquest/objective map. Pushing the envelope on small maps...

So, since no one can attack or bombard the camps, the only way to win is by the objective?

The problem that i see here is that from a risk management perspective... no one should ever attack

What if there is a much bigger bonus on the siege points than the camps? There would be significant motivation to hold a siege point (or multiple siege points), but those are at risk of being bombarded by everyone else.

Hm, yeah. Also... we could up the starting camps & siege points to 12 or 16. This way the map would be ready for 12 player games if they ever come, and there would be enough territories...

Evil DIMwit wrote:you'd have to be stupid to play once and crazy to play twice.

Then call me super crazy, I would play it, it seems very funny.... the Cube 3D seems interesting, but 4D is awesome And also the game style would be very different

Can we split this thread? These are two very different map ideas, with a somewhat absurd hypercube idea (no offense), and a very simple map with tons of potential.

I like both ideas, but both ideas need work. I think the siege camp map has more potential, as no one seems overly negative toward it *cough* *cough* and it's a simpler start. The more camps and siege points seems like a great idea, as well as the siege point bonuses. Coming up with colors for the other camps could get difficult after a certain point, though. Here's a few:
Orange
Grey
Violet
Indigo
White (assuming it's not used for the castle)
Black (assuming it's not used for the castle)
Brown