The King's Court [Quenched]

by **Jim1086** on Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:24 pm

it's still too easy to conquer adjoining castles. I played against a first-timer and he ransacked my castles within 3 rounds. Maybe if the neutrals 2 spaces out from the castles were increased to 3 rather than 1; this would cause players to try for their knights or archers more, and allow for players to gain a defense with the catapults (now that they're lowered).

...just a thought.

by **b00060** on Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:45 am

Live changes means no more playing for me, that blows, hope you can get enough people to play to get feedback when you are changing the rules mid game.

by **Kabanellas** on Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:29 pm

b00060 wrote:Live changes means no more playing for me, that blows, hope you can get enough people to play to get feedback when you are changing the rules mid game.

Could you be a bit more constructive and specific? Is there anything you don't like in the last update?

by **TalynStarburst** on Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:32 pm

b00060 wrote:Live changes means no more playing for me, that blows, hope you can get enough people to play to get feedback when you are changing the rules mid game.

ummm.. that's way it's in beta! the creator isn't just going to stop and wait for everyone's games to complete to make the changes.. it's going to continue to change until it's out of beta. don't like that then i suggest not playing any beta map until they are out.

by **beersurfer** on Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:52 pm

i still think that 1v1 games should only start with 2 castles each rather than 4 ... allows for misreads on conquering and stops the round 2 castle sieges ... other details sound great so far ...

the auto deploy on Nobles is a great change

and contrary to others beliefs, i actually think the neutral 1s should be made neutral 2s between castles in order to slow down the game ... the way it is now ... if you have bad dice for 2 rounds ... the game is over if your opponent doesnt have bad dice because round 2 is when they attack and round 3 your starting with only one castle .... even the aor games take longer than that to conquer ...

balance is what everyone is looking for 8-)

by **TalynStarburst** on Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:03 pm

beersurfer wrote:i still think that 1v1 games should only start with 2 castles each rather than 4 ... allows for misreads on conquering and stops the round 2 castle sieges ... other details sound great so far ...

the auto deploy on Nobles is a great change

and contrary to others beliefs, i actually think the neutral 1s should be made neutral 2s between castles in order to slow down the game ... the way it is now ... if you have bad dice for 2 rounds ... the game is over if your opponent doesnt have bad dice because round 2 is when they attack and round 3 your starting with only one castle .... even the aor games take longer than that to conquer ...

balance is what everyone is looking for

even though i haven't played 1v1 yet, i can agree with starting with 2 castles as well. and putting neutral 2s in between castles makes sense when comparing it to other maps like feudal war and the AOR maps to slow down the fast attacks from the start.

but a pretty sweet map so far! i feel that i will play it often.

by **subliminali** on Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:30 am

First off, well done. I really enjoy this map.

My one comment or correction to this map has to do with the placements of the A6 archer and the H3 archer. These are the only two starting archers on the map that can attack each other so if I start in either location i'm forced into a conflict much sooner than any other starting location. If you just switched the archer position on 'H' from 3 to 4 it would eliminate this problem. Thanks!

by **Kabanellas** on Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:46 am

subliminali wrote:First off, well done. I really enjoy this map.

My one comment or correction to this map has to do with the placements of the A6 archer and the H3 archer. These are the only two starting archers on the map that can attack each other so if I start in either location i'm forced into a conflict much sooner than any other starting location. If you just switched the archer position on 'H' from 3 to 4 it would eliminate this problem. Thanks!

Thanks for the feedback. That error in the archers placement has already been noticed and will be corrected in the next update.

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:02 am

Will the territory bonus problem also be fixed in the next update? I noticed it got missed in the last one.

by **b00060** on Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:16 pm

TalynStarburst wrote:
b00060 wrote:Live changes means no more playing for me, that blows, hope you can get enough people to play to get feedback when you are changing the rules mid game.

ummm.. that's way it's in beta! the creator isn't just going to stop and wait for everyone's games to complete to make the changes.. it's going to continue to change until it's out of beta. don't like that then i suggest not playing any beta map until they are out.

Nice suggestion on what I already said I was going to do dumbass.

by **MrBenn** on Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:02 pm

beersurfer wrote:i still think that 1v1 games should only start with 2 castles each rather than 4 ...

Sadly this isn't possible, as the castles need to have the corresponding nobles...

by **Kabanellas** on Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:08 pm

-=- Tanarri -=- wrote:Will the territory bonus problem also be fixed in the next update? I noticed it got missed in the last one.

Chip and I were talking about it..... and for the sake of game-play, to avoid exponential bonus, we think that there should be no bonus per region number. We will of course add that piece of info in the Notes area

by **nikola_milicki** on Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:04 pm

are we supposed to get +1 for 2 knights + each castle and then additional +2 for 4 knights + each castle without losing +1 bonus? doesnt seem right to collect two bonuses by using same knights..

by **Ukey** on Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:36 pm

Whatever the final decision, at the moment it is inconsistently applied, I think. I finished a game earlier today where several of castles the knights' bonus was exponential, but for Castle A it was flat (+4 for

.

by **chipv** on Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:03 pm

Ukey wrote:Whatever the final decision, at the moment it is inconsistently applied, I think. I finished a game earlier today where several of castles the knights' bonus was exponential, but for Castle A it was flat (+4 for .

Game number, please, I can't see any problem in the XML.

by **Jippd** on Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:14 pm

8080182 - could not hit archer s4 from v6 n59 n58...went to archer s5 to get to him...that is not normal right

by **chipv** on Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:26 pm

Thanks, Ukey , you have just pointed out a huge mistake which explains why games have been one-sided.
The problem is in the XMl Wizard which appears to have stripped the overrides from all castles but A.

They should all be like Castle A as you may see from the game log. (bonuses were ok beforehand)

Many apologies, once this is fixed, game should be as designed, thanks very much Ukey for the hint.

kab, let's get this out asap

by **chipv** on Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:26 pm

Jippd wrote:8080182 - could not hit archer s4 from v6 n59 n58...went to archer s5 to get to him...that is not normal right

S4 is an impassable, villages and N territories cannot hit impassables.

by **ViperOverLord** on Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:24 am

Yea - I also noticed that I was getting like say:

+1 for 2 knights plus castle A
+2 for 4 knights plus castle A
+3 for 6 knights plus castle A

when I assume that it was only supposed to be a +3 total and not +6 total. That is definitely adding troops faster than I think was intended or stated really in the key. Am I right about this assumption and is it being fixed?

by **ViperOverLord** on Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:30 am

My first impression of the map is that it's freaking awesome. I have two concepts for you. One concept is a concept that I think will make the map better and the second concept is more of a personal preference.

1. Why not put the Nobles chart at the top or bottom of the map (Or on the side). You could run the nobles/keys along two sides and make it so that there is not an awkward space in the middle of the map. I think it would just be more natural of a map that way. It'd make it easier (and funner) to be able to attack from more directions angles.

2. My second concept is to consider making the spaces smaller so that you can fit more castles/objects/spaces on to the map. That could be a concept for a sequel map though instead.

by **chipv** on Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:37 am

ViperOverLord wrote:Yea - I also noticed that I was getting like say:

+1 for 2 knights plus castle A
+2 for 4 knights plus castle A
+3 for 6 knights plus castle A

when I assume that it was only supposed to be a +3 total and not +6 total. That is definitely adding troops faster than I think was intended or stated really in the key. Am I right about this assumption and is it being fixed?

Correct I made a mistake in the latest update (some side effect of using another tool), will be fixed asap

by **tokle** on Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:55 am

In the code the terit name for N02 is spelled with the letter o rather than the number.

by **Kabanellas** on Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:23 pm

Latest changes and corrections

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

by **-=- Tanarri -=-** on Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:31 pm

chipv wrote:Thanks, Ukey , you have just pointed out a huge mistake which explains why games have been one-sided.
The problem is in the XMl Wizard which appears to have stripped the overrides from all castles but A.

They should all be like Castle A as you may see from the game log. (bonuses were ok beforehand)

Many apologies, once this is fixed, game should be as designed, thanks very much Ukey for the hint.

kab, let's get this out asap

A few games ago near the end of the game I noticed someone going from around 30 troops up to 70 something within one round of taking and holding a couple castles and a bunch of other spots in between. I had thought it was a bit odd that the troop count jumped so much, but didn't think anything major of it. I'm glad this one got caught. Hopefully it will fix the lopsidedness of the map.

by **MrBenn** on Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:14 pm

When there's updated images and XML, I'll forward the files to lack (or chip could do it - as long as he copies me in)...

The King's Court [Quenched]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Re: The King's Court [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

Who is online