Rorke's Drift. [QUENCHED]

rekaj · Post by **rekaj** » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:49 pm

Is it possible to stop the decay territories from cluttering the logs? Once a territory has decayed to 1 troop, the message need not be displayed every turn right?

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:40 am

Sorry, cannot be done. It would be nice as there are quite a few there.

Post by **Dukasaur** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:07 am

SaviorShot wrote:Good looking map and the gameplay is ez for newer players to pick up on unlike some of these maps that still confuse me even with all the info on the map =) good job koontz

+1

This has become one of my favourite new maps.

perchorin · Post by **perchorin** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:34 am

Well koontz, it's begun:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=239&t=159294
There may be nothing you can do about it, there may be nothing you want to do about it. It's certainly not your fault but I thought you should know while this map is still in beta it has now become a notorious farmer's map :cry:

Check out waiting speed games if you don't believe me, and it's only going to get worse. Unfortunately by the current definition of "farming" if you don't have a "?" by your name then anything goes.

natty dread · Post by **natty dread** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:06 am

Why does it matter if some people "farm" non-NR:s? It's not like the scores matter anyway, and whoever gets "farmed" will learn to not join games they don't know how to play. I don't think CC needs any more restrictions regarding who's allowed to play against who on which map.

perchorin · Post by **perchorin** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:16 am

natty_dread wrote:Why does it matter if some people "farm" non-NR:s? It's not like the scores matter anyway, and whoever gets "farmed" will learn to not join games they don't know how to play. I don't think CC needs any more restrictions regarding who's allowed to play against who on which map.

You're right, I just thought the mapmaker might like to know is all.

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:05 pm

perchorin wrote:
natty_dread wrote:Why does it matter if some people "farm" non-NR:s? It's not like the scores matter anyway, and whoever gets "farmed" will learn to not join games they don't know how to play. I don't think CC needs any more restrictions regarding who's allowed to play against who on which map.

You're right, I just thought the mapmaker might like to know is all.

Some people get there jollies this way. Nothing anyone can do about it.

thenobodies80 · Post by **thenobodies80** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:11 am

Is it possible to highlight the objective in the legend a bit more in some way? For example using bold letters.....(Not saying is a solution)

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:52 am

thenobodies80 wrote:Is it possible to highlight the objective in the legend a bit more in some way? For example using bold letters.....(Not saying is a solution)

If I did that, then I would get everyone from natty to Dim to cairnswk asking why the legend has different fonts/styles again. It should be the first thing anyone reads on the legend as it is top left.

thenobodies80 · Post by **thenobodies80** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:13 am

koontz1973 wrote:
thenobodies80 wrote:Is it possible to highlight the objective in the legend a bit more in some way? For example using bold letters.....(Not saying is a solution)

If I did that, then I would get everyone from natty to Dim to cairnswk asking why the legend has different fonts/styles again. It should be the first thing anyone reads on the legend as it is top left.

Really? Let me say it would be insane thing. :mrgreen:

isaiah had to make the bombardment in red and you can't highlight an objective? mmmm there's something wrong here :-s

Personally i think that use bold or coloured letters to highlight an objective is worth the different "style", just use the same font.

But up to you, my first rule when i draw a map is always: "if people is too lazy to read, then it is their problem, not mine". Said that, make it more noticeable (considering you are using a very simple/standard font) would be nice.

Nobodies

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:38 am

Not sure if it really is needed. But done it for now and will leave it up to you if it is worth updating the map.
[bigimg]http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/4204/funnyq.jpg[/bigimg]

That may of been a bit of fun but here are the files if you want to upload them.
[bigimg]http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/4397/sdriftlargem.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/8757/sdriftsmall.png[/bigimg]
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/4397/sdriftlargem.png
http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/8757/sdriftsmall.png

ender516 · Post by **ender516** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:07 pm

The bold text is entirely appropriate.

Post by **IcePack** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:23 pm

ender516 wrote:The bold text is entirely appropriate.

agreed

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:15 pm

thenobodies80 wrote:isaiah had to make the bombardment in red and you can't highlight an objective? mmmm there's something wrong here

Never said I would not do it, and it is now done. My only argument for not doing it is why should a map be dumbed down because a few players did not read the legend first. Comparing what isaiah did to this is not really the same. He managed to keep the legend looking relatively the same, where as I now have this block of text that looks out of place.

OH, and do not upload the file with the huge red lettering on it by mistake. That would be funny to try and play on. :lol:

isaiah40 · Post by **isaiah40** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:05 pm

koontz1973 wrote:OH, and do not upload the file with the huge red lettering on it by mistake. That would be funny to try and play on.

Hmmm ..... An April Fool's joke?

QoH · Post by **QoH** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:04 pm

Is there a reason why the loss of an army per turn on the terts inside the 150 line counts towards the actual deploy?

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:22 am

QoH wrote:Is there a reason why the loss of an army per turn on the terts inside the 150 line counts towards the actual deploy?

Yes. This was discussed right at the beginning of the maps life and at the end when the xml was written.
At the start, my reason for having the territs losing 1 army per turn was for the British rifle fire.
When the xml was written, they where put into the positions so everyone gets the same amount (in large games (5-8 players). As some positions are not handed out, in small games, some players get a couple more then the other (2-4 players). To stop neutrals being dominant in small games, I placed normal troops there. Most players ignore neutrals in small games.

QoH · Post by **QoH** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:14 am

Sorry, I think you misunderstand me?

2011-12-11 09:05:54 - QoH got bonus of -1 troops added to Mmeli
2011-12-11 09:05:54 - QoH got bonus of -1 troops added to Thulani
2011-12-11 09:05:54 - QoH got bonus of -1 troops added to Vusumuzi
2011-12-11 09:05:54 - QoH got bonus of -1 troops added to S'phamandla
2011-12-11 09:05:54 - QoH got bonus of -1 troops added to Kwanele
2011-12-11 09:05:54 - QoH got bonus of -1 troops added to Dingane
2011-12-11 09:05:54 - QoH got bonus of -1 troops added to Sakhile
2011-12-11 09:05:54 - QoH got bonus of -1 troops added to Sanele
2011-12-11 09:05:54 - QoH received 6 troops for 25 regions

Shouldn't I be getting 8 troops at the beginning?

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:55 am

QoH wrote:Sorry, I think you misunderstand me?

2011-12-11 09:05:54 - QoH received 6 troops for 25 regions

Shouldn't I be getting 8 troops at the beginning?

No, the troop deployment is 1 for every 4 territs. It is in the legend, bottom left.

QoH · Post by **QoH** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:45 pm

koontz1973 wrote:
QoH wrote:Sorry, I think you misunderstand me?

2011-12-11 09:05:54 - QoH received 6 troops for 25 regions

Shouldn't I be getting 8 troops at the beginning?

No, the troop deployment is 1 for every 4 territs. It is in the legend, bottom left.

Whoops

thenobodies80 · Post by **thenobodies80** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 5:15 am

koontz1973 wrote:http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/4397/sdriftlargem.png
http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/8757/sdriftsmall.png

Files sent to the turtle

Nobodies

thenobodies80 · Post by **thenobodies80** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 8:02 am

And updated.

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:50 pm

Looks bad.

but thanks.

nàme · Post by **nàme** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 2:24 am

quick suggestion, from a brilliant strategy i saw (couldnt quite stop it, noticed about 20 seconds too late). make it so that in 1vs1 games the game cannot be won through the british commanders. makes it too easy and is easily abused (see king_herpes)

koontz1973 · Post by **koontz1973** » Sun Jan 01, 2012 2:57 am

Cannot be done. The xml will not allow it.

king_herpes was accused and cleared. If you still want to play a guy that is better, then so be it, the map cannot be blamed for that.

Rorke's Drift. [QUENCHED]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]

Re: Rorke's Drift. [BETA]