Conquer Club

i'm starting this thread to show the idea of a new gameplay i've been thinking about. i don't have a draft and i don't even have a detailed description of what i'm going to do but i want to see if people are interested in this and if they are then graphics details and other stuff will surely come.
it's also worth mentioning the map is not possible with the current xml but lack told me it will be with the next xml update.

i'm thinking of a small map with 24 terits. it goes well with all settings except 7 and 5 players but i think those are the least played.
anyway back to the idea. the map will have an objective terit that must be held for a given amount of rounds in order to win. 3 rounds 5 rounds, i don't know yet. this is not possible now but will be.
the fun part is that in each game somebody will start with that terit. so he is tagged. the point of the game is to prevent the guy that starts with that terit to win and at the same time get a hold of that terit for yourself. the fact that the objective terit is distributed at start should make for a pretty fast paced attacking game and avoid all build-ups.

of course careful thinking of bonuses has to be made to avoid overpowering the guy that starts with the objective and at the same time allow the other players to actually have a chance of taking the objective.

also one important aspect is the fact that obviously the guy that starts with the objective is going to be targeted right away so he needs some other terits to ensure his survival and give hm a chance to come back in the game if he loses the objective.

That actually sounds rather cool. One thing I'm confused on is will it be one centrally-located territory, or several territories spread out around the map? It'd be an interesting mix on King of the Hill as you present it, though I wouldn't mind having some Circus Maximus one-way gameplay mixed in.

Variable round objectives should make for some interesting gameplay all their own, and should increase the variety of objectives seen in maps, so kudos to coming up with one of the first concepts.

interesting concept, but it will be very tricky to do

edit: to make it more interesting, u could have a 'base' bonus

also maybe the person who is 'It' could bombard all territories but the 'base'?

and maybe this could be set up as either at a playground, park, or outdoors?

and maybe some bonus for players?

and that just gave me an interesting idea for in the xml ideas/suggestions, im gonna go post it

Sounds interesting and knoiwing you, you can pull it off.

Currently with the deployment engine this wouldn't be possible...

Lack coded the engine to replace territories if 1 person held the objective - this was to stop people holding the objective - then getting to go first - and winning the game straight up.

C>

yeti_c wrote:Currently with the deployment engine this wouldn't be possible...

Lack coded the engine to replace territories if 1 person held the objective - this was to stop people holding the objective - then getting to go first - and winning the game straight up.

C>

what if it were set so u could only play this sequentially?

TaCktiX wrote:That actually sounds rather cool. One thing I'm confused on is will it be one centrally-located territory, or several territories spread out around the map? It'd be an interesting mix on King of the Hill as you present it, though I wouldn't mind having some Circus Maximus one-way gameplay mixed in.

Variable round objectives should make for some interesting gameplay all their own, and should increase the variety of objectives seen in maps, so kudos to coming up with one of the first concepts.

the objective terit will be easily accessible, either by placing it in the middle or by making several connections to it.

bryguy wrote:interesting concept, but it will be very tricky to do

edit: to make it more interesting, u could have a 'base' bonus

also maybe the person who is 'It' could bombard all territories but the 'base'?

and maybe this could be set up as either at a playground, park, or outdoors?

and maybe some bonus for players?

and that just gave me an interesting idea for in the xml ideas/suggestions, im gonna go post it

i don't know how i'm gonna set it up. it could be a kids game in the park, it could be a battlefield where heroes struggle to hold a mana pool, i don't know.

fireedud wrote:Sounds interesting and knoiwing you, you can pull it off.

glad you like it and that you have faith in me. and i o have faith in the foundry to help me pull it off. it needs a lot of balancing.

DiM wrote:

bryguy wrote:interesting concept, but it will be very tricky to do

edit: to make it more interesting, u could have a 'base' bonus

also maybe the person who is 'It' could bombard all territories but the 'base'?

and maybe this could be set up as either at a playground, park, or outdoors?

and maybe some bonus for players?

and that just gave me an interesting idea for in the xml ideas/suggestions, im gonna go post it

i don't know how i'm gonna set it up. it could be a kids game in the park, it could be a battlefield where heroes struggle to hold a mana pool, i don't know.

well if its title

Tag-you're it!!!

then it should be kids in a park

i like the idea, sounds complicated and it seems that a LOT of thought needs to go into this to make it fair,

i.e if the person starts with the objective, it wouldnt be fair if he had some starting terits that are chained, as he could just fort them all into the objective terit,

i know there is a way of making neutrals start with a certain amount of armies, however is there a way of making a player start with a certain amount,

i.e if the people who controlled the terits around the objective terit could start with say 6 armies? - (that number was random)

if this was played with infected neutrals - they could make the game unfair, if they attacked the terits around the objective terit,

and what if one player starts a long way away from the starting terit?
or maybe you could have designated starting positions like everyone must have one terit ajacent to the objective terit


i like this concept, hope it goes well,

--tom

DiM wrote:

fireedud wrote:Sounds interesting and knoiwing you, you can pull it off.

glad you like it and that you have faith in me. and i o have faith in the foundry to help me pull it off. it needs a lot of balancing.

yea it does, it needs to be so that u can take the person who is 'it' yet that person still be able to hold it.

edit: that gives me another good idea, if you do it like Freeze-Tag, the person who is 'it' could bombard the 'players' and the players could get changed to killer neutrals, but reverted back to normal if u hold something to go with it. (it would need something for xml of course)

yeti_c wrote:Currently with the deployment engine this wouldn't be possible...

Lack coded the engine to replace territories if 1 person held the objective - this was to stop people holding the objective - then getting to go first - and winning the game straight up.

C>

and now you tell me?? crap this sucks.

then i guess the objective can be made to start neutral and have just 1 army on it. everybody will be tempted

also i plan on using set locations. to ensure each player has a shot at this objective.

DiM wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Currently with the deployment engine this wouldn't be possible...

Lack coded the engine to replace territories if 1 person held the objective - this was to stop people holding the objective - then getting to go first - and winning the game straight up.

C>

and now you tell me?? crap this sucks.

then i guess the objective can be made to start neutral and have just 1 army on it. everybody will be tempted

also i plan on using set locations. to ensure each player has a shot at this objective.

how about a 'base' as a set location if its set up as a kids Tag game?

t-o-m wrote:i like the idea, sounds complicated and it seems that a LOT of thought needs to go into this to make it fair,

i.e if the person starts with the objective, it wouldnt be fair if he had some starting terits that are chained, as he could just fort them all into the objective terit,

i know there is a way of making neutrals start with a certain amount of armies, however is there a way of making a player start with a certain amount,

i.e if the people who controlled the terits around the objective terit could start with say 6 armies? - (that number was random)

if this was played with infected neutrals - they could make the game unfair, if they attacked the terits around the objective terit,

and what if one player starts a long way away from the starting terit?
or maybe you could have designated starting positions like everyone must have one terit ajacent to the objective terit


i like this concept, hope it goes well,

--tom

yes balancing will be the most important aspect of this map. as yeti_c said it seems a player can't start by holding the objective so unless that can be coded by lack i'l have to put starting locations in such a manner that ensures a fair shot at the objective terit for al players.

bryguy wrote:

DiM wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Currently with the deployment engine this wouldn't be possible...

Lack coded the engine to replace territories if 1 person held the objective - this was to stop people holding the objective - then getting to go first - and winning the game straight up.

C>

and now you tell me?? crap this sucks.

then i guess the objective can be made to start neutral and have just 1 army on it. everybody will be tempted

also i plan on using set locations. to ensure each player has a shot at this objective.

how about a 'base' as a set location if its set up as a kids Tag game?

i don't know if it's a kids tag game. haven't thought of that yet.

actually i'm thinking right now of a complicated mechanism something out of steam-punk fantasy. where 8 players struggle to activate it.

DiM wrote:

bryguy wrote:

DiM wrote:and now you tell me?? crap this sucks.

then i guess the objective can be made to start neutral and have just 1 army on it. everybody will be tempted

also i plan on using set locations. to ensure each player has a shot at this objective.

how about a 'base' as a set location if its set up as a kids Tag game?

i don't know if it's a kids tag game. haven't thought of that yet.

actually i'm thinking right now of a complicated mechanism something out of steam-punk fantasy. where 8 players struggle to activate it.

sounds cool

DiM wrote:yes balancing will be the most important aspect of this map. as yeti_c said it seems a player can't start by holding the objective so unless that can be coded by lack i'l have to put starting locations in such a manner that ensures a fair shot at the objective terit for al players.

i think that it would be quite good as a sort of radial design, the closer you get to the middle, the more armies there are (starting armies) so then a player feels that they have enough armies to take the terit however the other players will just batter him!

would there be any conts...


sorry if this has been asked, this thread is taking off so fast, its already on 1.5 pages, my london map took forever (like 3days) to do that!!

t-o-m wrote:

DiM wrote:yes balancing will be the most important aspect of this map. as yeti_c said it seems a player can't start by holding the objective so unless that can be coded by lack i'l have to put starting locations in such a manner that ensures a fair shot at the objective terit for al players.

i think that it would be quite good as a sort of radial design, the closer you get to the middle, the more armies there are (starting armies) so then a player feels that they have enough armies to take the terit however the other players will just batter him!

would there be any conts...


sorry if this has been asked, this thread is taking off so fast, its already on 1.5 pages, my london map took forever (like 3days) to do that!!

usually only takes DiMs thread 1-2 days to reach 10 pages

and yea would there be any continents?

t-o-m wrote:

DiM wrote:yes balancing will be the most important aspect of this map. as yeti_c said it seems a player can't start by holding the objective so unless that can be coded by lack i'l have to put starting locations in such a manner that ensures a fair shot at the objective terit for al players.

i think that it would be quite good as a sort of radial design, the closer you get to the middle, the more armies there are (starting armies) so then a player feels that they have enough armies to take the terit however the other players will just batter him!

would there be any conts...


sorry if this has been asked, this thread is taking off so fast, its already on 1.5 pages, my london map took forever (like 3days) to do that!!

continents in the classical meaning, no.
but there will be bonuses.
and yes the radial design sounds good as it fits the steam punk idea.

DiM wrote:

t-o-m wrote:

DiM wrote:yes balancing will be the most important aspect of this map. as yeti_c said it seems a player can't start by holding the objective so unless that can be coded by lack i'l have to put starting locations in such a manner that ensures a fair shot at the objective terit for al players.

i think that it would be quite good as a sort of radial design, the closer you get to the middle, the more armies there are (starting armies) so then a player feels that they have enough armies to take the terit however the other players will just batter him!

would there be any conts...


sorry if this has been asked, this thread is taking off so fast, its already on 1.5 pages, my london map took forever (like 3days) to do that!!

continents in the classical meaning, no.
but there will be bonuses.
and yes the radial design sounds good as it fits the steam punk idea.

bonus', continents, not much difference

they both get u extra armies

bryguy wrote:
bonus', continents, not much difference

they both get u extra armies

true. i will have to ponder tonight at work and i think i'll post something rough to get the discussion started on the gameplay.

DiM wrote:

bryguy wrote:
bonus', continents, not much difference

they both get u extra armies

true. i will have to ponder tonight at work and i think i'll post something rough to get the discussion started on the gameplay.

cool cant wait

DiM wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Currently with the deployment engine this wouldn't be possible...

Lack coded the engine to replace territories if 1 person held the objective - this was to stop people holding the objective - then getting to go first - and winning the game straight up.

C>

and now you tell me?? crap this sucks.

then i guess the objective can be made to start neutral and have just 1 army on it. everybody will be tempted

also i plan on using set locations. to ensure each player has a shot at this objective.

You didn't ask me before...

However what it does mean - is that you can create the map now...

If you have an easily accessible win territory - with 1 neutral... then let people try to win with it... I guess though - it's seq only...

C.

yeti_c wrote:

DiM wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Currently with the deployment engine this wouldn't be possible...

Lack coded the engine to replace territories if 1 person held the objective - this was to stop people holding the objective - then getting to go first - and winning the game straight up.

C>

and now you tell me?? crap this sucks.

then i guess the objective can be made to start neutral and have just 1 army on it. everybody will be tempted

also i plan on using set locations. to ensure each player has a shot at this objective.

You didn't ask me before...

However what it does mean - is that you can create the map now...

If you have an easily accessible win territory - with 1 neutral... then let people try to win with it... I guess though - it's seq only...

C.

nope i don't want to create it now with the 1 round objective. it would mean tons of abuse for freestyle games.

i will pm lack to see if he can implement something to allow players to start with an objective.