XML Starting Positions

by **thenobodies80** on Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:03 am

If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.

by **The Neon Peon** on Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:29 am

thenobodies80 wrote:If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.

Um... no. Each player would have 2 starting positions because it would be the same as in a 3 player game, with the third player being replaced by more neutrals.

Disagree.
Starting positions are equally distributed in 1v1 (no neutral player)
What you said is true only if the starting tag isn't used.
Ask to yeti_c if you want

by **The Neon Peon** on Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:00 am

thenobodies80 wrote:If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.

Don't edit my post to reply to it. It looks as if I'm bipolar and I changed my mind halfway through typing it.

by **thenobodies80** on Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:02 am

The Neon Peon wrote:
thenobodies80 wrote:If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.

Don't edit my post to reply to it. It looks as if I'm bipolar and I changed my mind halfway through typing it.

sorry

by **The Neon Peon** on Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:10 am

thenobodies80 wrote:
The Neon Peon wrote:
thenobodies80 wrote:If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.

Don't edit my post to reply to it. It looks as if I'm bipolar and I changed my mind halfway through typing it.

sorry

no problem.

by **thenobodies80** on Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:47 am

Merged 'Starting Positions' into 'XML Starting Positions' thread

by **Industrial Helix** on Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:58 am

Ok... it separates the 8 starting positions into 4 each.... is there any way out of this?

by **The Neon Peon** on Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:23 pm

Industrial Helix wrote:Ok... it separates the 8 starting positions into 4 each.... is there any way out of this?

Same as they did in Feudal and AoRs to keep 1v1s from having 3 starting points, but having 2 instead. I don't know how, but you could always take a look at the xml of those maps.

by **MrBenn** on Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:48 pm

Feudal and AOR don;t use starting positions... all of the territories are coded neutral except for the castles.

by **The Neon Peon** on Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:32 pm

MrBenn wrote:Feudal and AOR don;t use starting positions... all of the territories are coded neutral except for the castles.

Then that is how you do it.

by **AndrewB** on Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:31 pm

Another questions about starting positions.

As I understand multiple territories can be included into one starting position:

MrBenn wrote:Each <position> can contain single or multiple territories.

So first question:

If one starting position has Terr A and Terr B in it and another starting position has Terr B and Terr C in it, what will happen?

Second question:

If one starting position has Terr A and Terr B in it and another starting position has Terr B in it, what will happen?

My guess is that last dealt starting position will override any previous allocations.

It might create some pretty interesting sets of the starting positions, possibly covering the whole map...

by **MrBenn** on Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:09 am

To answer AndrewB's question, the same territory is not allowed to be part of more than 1 start position.

by **yeti_c** on Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:18 am

thenobodies80 wrote:If you have 8 starting positions, these positions will be splitted (randomly) among the players.
So both players will have 4 starting positions.

Correct

MrBenn wrote:To answer AndrewB's question, the same territory is not allowed to be part of more than 1 start position.

Correct

C.

by **Teflon Kris** on Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:39 pm

Proposed Change A
Part 1
Ideally, it would be great to code starting positions to particular players, as opposed to them being randomly handed-out. (If I understand things correctly)

Currently, as MrBenn states: "It is not possible to specify which player will get which <position>"

show: The Tricky Bit

Why
An example of this change would be that it would be possible to set one triples team up as the Germans in D-Day (i.e. 6-player coding) then we have another set of coding for quads (8-players). (I'm not suggesting a change to that map by the way.)

This could make a lot of maps more meaningful (e.g. war / sports maps where players / teams start with territories all on one side) and enable more creative freedom in terms of gameplay.

Part 2
Ideally, it would be great have different sets of coding for different numbers of players,

Why?
The above suggestion is great for designing maps with team-starts, however, this second change would create even more creative freedom for mapmakers.

However, let's say a map is fine with 4+ players with no coding, but coded start positions are a potential way of ensuring players don't drop bonuses in 1v1 (& 3-player games). It may be that a whole load of coding would involve neutrals which would mess-up the gameplay for the 4+-player scenario which was previously fine ("if a Starting position isn't used - and it is set to Neutral - then it will be neutral"). Currently, maps have to amend their gameplay to fit all numbers of players - which can mean compromising innovative gameplay which would have worked very well for most games.

The slow progress of the England map in achieving its Gameplay Stamp is a classic example of how this change would be of benefit in bringing more creative gameplay freedom for mapmakers.

Effect of Both Changes

The combination of these 2 changes would both give more possibilities for mapmakers to create start positions (relatively equal sets of unequal starting territories) and to use start positions to prevent gameplay issues which arise with certain game types.

by **MrBenn** on Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:57 pm

DJ Teflon wrote:Proposed Change
Ideally, it would be great to code starting positions to particular players..

Currently, as MrBenn states: "It is not possible to specify which player will get which <position>"

Why
An example of this change would be that it would be possible to set one triples team up as the Germans in D-Day (i.e. 6-player coding) then we have another set of coding for quads (8-players). I'm not suggesting a change to that map by the way.

show: The Tricky Bit

This could make a lot of maps more meaningful (e.g. war / sports maps where players / teams start with territories all on one side) and enable more gameplay creativity. Take, for example, Cairns' Galipoli (as it stands currently) - if different sets of coded start positions were possible according to different numbers of players, it would be possible to ensure each player has a fair share of the nice and horrible start positions. Currently, the xml wont allow this, which may be a problem. Similarly, the progress of the England map would have been much quicker if different coding were possible for different numbers of players.

As it stands currently, maps with limited starting territories (whether coded or not) inevitably go through the gameplay process of checking that each starting territory is relatively equal strategically. Enabling different coding for different numbers of starts would create more possibilities for mapmakers to create start positions (relatively equal sets of unequal starting territories). And, of course, it would enable starting positions to work for different types of team games.

While a change like this would be welcome, lackattack specifically avoided coding the starting positions as "allottable", and it seems unlikely that this will be changed in the immediate future - for now let's try and focus on what Is available/possible :lol:

by **Teflon Kris** on Sun Aug 23, 2009 5:44 pm

Bah - you fast-posted my edit :lol:

And, yes, I should have posted elsewhere.

I have an Option B proposal which would be miles easier for the turtle perhaps?

show: Proposed Change B

In the meantime - any ideas how this (enabling 'team starting positions' to be coded) may be done with the xml we have?

by **ender516** on Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:33 pm

Here's a new request for clarification on the distribution of territories when start positions are in play:

Imagine a map with 24 territories. Twelve start positions of one territory each have been defined, leaving 12 other ("free-range") territories. In a 3 player game, each player gets 4 starting positions. There are no leftovers, so the 12 free-range are divided three ways, meaning each player starts with 8 territories, half of which are start positions.

But what about the 1v1 game with its imaginary neutral player? The starts are split in half with no share to the neutral player (so said yeti_c earlier, and I have no cause to doubt this). When we get to the free-range territories, are these split three ways, leaving the neutral player with 4 and the two real players with a total of 10 each, or does the system try to balance things by giving the neutral player 8 of the free-range and splitting the other 4 between the two real players, getting us back to a count of 8 territories for each player, including the neutral (but keeping the start positions out of its hands)?

by **natty dread** on Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:40 pm

I believe starting positions are divided by 2 in 1v1 games. So it would go:

12 starting points, 12 normal = each player gets 6 starting points and 4 normal in 1v1 game.

However I'm not sure about this, let's wait for someone who knows for sure.

by **thenobodies80** on Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:05 pm

Yes.
Starting positions are always splitted equally and randomly among the players.

with your example

10 regions for each player (6sp + 4) and 4 neutrals. -1vs1 game-

by **cairnswk** on Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:45 am

In Salem's Switch....

Required 16 Starting positions.

I have two groups of starting positions.

First group is the accussed and the accusers (8)

Second group is the landowners who are not part of the first group (8)

All other territories will be coded neutral.

So that each group gets a completely randomised drop where one from each group is given to player 1, another random pair (one from each group) is given to player 2 etc etc, is it possible to code this in xml?

by **the.killing.44** on Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:58 am

I think so, if I'm understanding what you mean correctly. It would only be semi-random, however.

Basically, you'd have to set a pair of positions, one from the two groups. Ex:

Code: Select all: <positions> <position> <territory>Accuser A</territory> <territory>Landowner A</territory> </position> <position> <territory>Accuser B</territory> <territory>Landowner B</territory> </position> …

And so on and so forth. I'm pretty sure that's as random as you can get it, because you have to specify each pair to be handed out.

by **Evil DIMwit** on Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:18 pm

What I proposed was something like

Code: Select all:  <territory> <name>William Shaw</name> ... <neutral>3</neutral> </territory> <territory> <name>Joseph Buxton</name> ... <neutral>3</neutral> </territory>   <positions> <position> <territory>William Shaw<territory> </position> <position> <territory>Joseph Buxton</territory> </position>

But only for the green starting positions. The bonus starting positions are the only other territories left non-neutral, but they're not designated as starting positions. What would happen (if I understand correctly) is that the Starting Positions tag overrides the initial neutral coding of the green territories, so those are divided evenly, with the remainder being turned neutral. Then the eight remaining, bonus, starting positions are all that's left, and those get divided evenly, with any remainder becoming neutral.

You could switch it around and make the eight bonus SPs coded and the eight green positions uncoded. There's not much difference except that in 2-player game for the coded octet each player gets 4, and for the uncoded octet the "neutral player" gets taken into account, so each actual player gets 2.

by **oaktown** on Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:38 pm

maybe I'm not reading you right, but it sound like you want each players to have an equal number of territories from group A (Accused/accusers) and an equal number from group L (Landowners) - and for every A that a player has he also has a L. And you want them to be assigned at random. And i assume you want it to work for 2-8 players. That's a lot to ask from a very limited XML feature.

44's solution of coding pairs is close and will work for some game sizes. In a five player game (for example) each player will get one pair, but then I believe that the remaining six territories will be distributed randomly, each player receiving one extra territory. In a two or three player game each player would also get one odd, unpaired territory. And the A-L pairs would be pre-set, not random as you wish.

Another imperfect solution would be to code each A territory as a start, so you have eight starts of one territory each. Those eight would be distributed first, so everybody will get at least one A. The A's that are left over would be thrown into the mix with the L's, which would also be distributed at random. Unlike 44's idea the territories are distributed randomly, but there is a chance that somebody won't get an L territory. (Like 44's solution it will work perfectly for 4, 6, 7, and 8 player games, but everything else will be off.)

Evil DIMwit's idea of coding territories both neutral and as starting positions would eliminate this problem in that the left-over coded territories would go neutral, not back into the random mix, but I'm skeptical that the site will recognize both... I'd call in yeti before trying that out, but if it works it is the way to go.

by **yeti_c** on Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:03 pm

Consult the City Mogul XML for starting positions with more than 1 item.

C.

by **the.killing.44** on Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:59 pm

yeti_c wrote:Consult the City Mogul XML for starting positions with more than 1 item.

C.

Heh? I already posted that.

What's the answer?

XML Starting Positions

Re: Starting positions

Re: Starting positions

Re: Starting positions

Re: Starting positions

Re: Starting positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

Re: Starting positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

Re: XML Starting Positions

XML ?? for Starting Positions

Re: XML ?? for Starting Positions

Re: XML ?? for Starting Positions

Re: XML ?? for Starting Positions

Re: XML ?? for Starting Positions

Re: XML ?? for Starting Positions

Who is online