Conquer Club

CURRENT UPDATE INFO-2011-11-08:
- Well the 200th map is in beta, we hope everyone is enjoying it. I know we are.
- XML - Fixed the Bow & Arrow auto-deploy mistake to the corrected +2 bonus that it should have been. Also fixed the Shell Mound misspelling, and some other cosmetic changes.
- Made some minor graphical updates to fix some stray pixels, and one of the territory lines on the small map.
- I would like some feedback on lowering the bonuses of the Choctaw and Creek bonuses to +2. I know they can be attacked by multiple territs but they seem to be weighed a little heavy even given that.
- We would also like to make CH-C be able to attack AP-3 and CR-1, to open that area up a bit. If we do that it might be better to make the Creek bonus +3 instead of +2, but still would like to lower Choctaw to +2.

Thoughts?

CURRENT MAP VERSION:

v13.1 - Large (840x800)
[bigimg]http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/9611/floridaccmaptribalwarv5.png[/bigimg]

v13.1 - Small (630x600)
[bigimg]http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9611/floridaccmaptribalwarv5.png[/bigimg]

Must say this one did grow on me a bit after a few games. Well done!

CURRENT UPDATE INFO-2011-11-11:

show

XML
http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/30/3202881//finalxml-v7.xml

CURRENT MAP VERSION:

v13.1 - Large (840x800)
[bigimg]http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9611/floridaccmaptribalwarv5.png[/bigimg]

v13.1 - Small (630x600)
[bigimg]http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/9611/floridaccmaptribalwarv5.png[/bigimg]

ender516 wrote:My only suggestion right now is to make some cosmetic changes to the names in the XML: use the hyphens in the territory names to match what is seen on the map, avoid all caps on the tribe continent names, and spell out "ConqRuins" as, say, "Conquistadors and Ruins" or even "Conquistadors and Shell Mound Ruins".

Did this get missed? I didn't see any reply. Having played a game on this (and won, yay!), I still find the lack of hyphens a distraction, and the other spelling issues just make the log (and the BOB overviews and summaries) look less pretty.

If you like, in a day or so, I could take half an hour or less and make all these changes for you.

The above files were sent to lackattack.
Sorry for the delay, I had a couple of busy days.

Thanks TNB80.

by ender516 on Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:48 am

ender516 wrote:My only suggestion right now is to make some cosmetic changes to the names in the XML: use the hyphens in the territory names to match what is seen on the map, avoid all caps on the tribe continent names, and spell out "ConqRuins" as, say, "Conquistadors and Ruins" or even "Conquistadors and Shell Mound Ruins".


Did this get missed? I didn't see any reply. Having played a game on this (and won, yay!), I still find the lack of hyphens a distraction, and the other spelling issues just make the log (and the BOB overviews and summaries) look less pretty.

If you like, in a day or so, I could take half an hour or less and make all these changes for you.

That would be awesome. Most of them were fixed in this last update, but the one before that didn't work I thought might be because I added the hyphens in, but I think I messed something else up in the process. I hate to put that work on you, but anything you can do is much appreciated.

Not sure if this is the right place for this but Shell Mound is misspelled on the new beta Tribal War Florida.

by MGSteve on Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:08 pm
Not sure if this is the right place for this but Shell Mound is misspelled on the new beta Tribal War Florida.

Yup, yup. This is the right place, and has been changed in the above update. Thanks for playing the map and taking the time to post your feedback.

ender516 wrote:

ender516 wrote:Having played a game on this (and won, yay!),

Only because I couldn't take Helix out first!

Dim has also made some good points about lowering the bonus for the Miccosukee region (AP-3), Castillo de San Marcos, and the bow and arrows and tomahawks to +1 each. Any thoughts on this? Personally the one I think could be lowered is the Castillo, but not sure about the others and would love to hear some feedback from the group.

I have only played it a few times-but I really like it. Makes you think a lot and you have to pay attention. Good Job.

The latest xml is NOT valid. Probably it's because you used UPPERCASE LETTERS instead of lowercase letters for territories.

Be sure to validate the xml using the tool at the top of this page before submitting

If something is wrong you'll see something like this:

then just scroll the page and you'll see a list of things that need to be fixed.
Instead, when you see this image at the top of the page:


it means you're ready to post your xml here again

Nobodies

Sorry TNB80. Thought I had it all done correctly. VJ will fix it up and repost tomorrow. Sorry for the time you took sending that incorrect file.

Sorry about that.

Here is the valid XML that goes with those most recent graphics: http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/30/3202881//finalxml-v8.xml

Hopefully there were no issues with the last XML. Let us know when they have been uploaded so we can get some new games going. Thanks.

Seamus76 wrote:Sorry TNB80. Thought I had it all done correctly. VJ will fix it up and repost tomorrow. Sorry for the time you took sending that incorrect file.

np, sometimes it happens.

These files were sent to lackattack:

Large Version http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9611 ... lwarv5.png

Small Version http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/9611 ... lwarv5.png

Xml http://www.fileden.com/files/2011/9/30/ ... xml-v8.xml

Now just we're here, I tested both the images with 888 and I would suggest some minor changes to the placement of coordinates:

Large map:
CA-3 could be moved a bit to left
AI-3 could be moved a bit to left and down
TM-2 could be moved a bit to left and down
JE-4 could be moved a bit to left
CH-C could be moved a bit up
TQ-4 could be moved a bit up
CR-3 could be moved a bit to left
AP-1 could be moved a bit to left
CR-2 could be moved a bit to left
MI-3 could be moved a bit to left

Small map:
CH-3 a bit to left
CA-3 moved a bit to left
AI-3 moved a bit to left
JE-4 a bit to left
AP-3 a bit to left, but probably it's better/easier to move also the symbol
CR-3 a bit to left
Sheld Mound ruins it's strange to see (confused)
Je-3 to left
AI-1 a bit to left


Maybe there're some others that can be adjusted but for now i noticed those. In general, after writing your coordinates, it's always a good thing to test them using 888 with this tool http://www.conquerclub.com/mapmaker/index.php
Copy paste your xml and images into the appropriate fields then click on the "Only test coordinates" button
When the image appears, be sure that all your coords with 3 digits don't overlap your symbols or borders. If you don't have space, just let me know and we will find an optimal solution for them.

Nobodies

Thanks for taking the time to point all of those out. We're going to work on all of those.

Any word on the latest upload?

Seamus76 wrote:Any word on the latest upload?

It was uploaded 2 or 3 days ago, sorry I forgot to post here.

For some reason V.J. can't get the xml to support the below starting positions. Can anyone help him with this?

2 = 8 territories
3 = 8 territories
4 = 5 territories
5 = 5 territories
6 = 5 territories
7 = 5 territories
8 = 5 territories

I think you are out of luck on that one. If you have 44 starting positions, each with one territory, then when the game engine divides them up, you get

2 players: = 22 territories
3 players: = 14 territories
4 players: = 11 territories
5 players: = 8 territories
6 players: = 7 territories
7 players: = 6 territories
8 players: = 5 territories

The only correction you can make to that currently is to put an upper limit on the number of starting positions given to any player. You could then set this to, say, 8 and get

2 players: = 8 territories
3 players: = 8 territories
4 players: = 8 territories
5 players: = 8 territories
6 players: = 7 territories
7 players: = 6 territories
8 players: = 5 territories

Another approach would be to group the starting territories into eleven starting position groups of four territories each. Then you could have

2 players: = 5 groups, 20 territories
3 players: = 3 groups, 12 territories
4 players: = 2 groups, 8 territories
5 players: = 2 groups, 8 territories
6 players: = 1 group, 4 territories
7 players: = 1 group, 4 territories
8 players: = 1 group, 4 territories

Then you could set the limit to two groups and get

2 players: = 2 groups, 8 territories
3 players: = 2 groups, 8 territories
4 players: = 2 groups, 8 territories
5 players: = 2 groups, 8 territories
6 players: = 1 group, 4 territories
7 players: = 1 group, 4 territories
8 players: = 1 group, 4 territories

If you can change that basic number, 44, to something else, like 42, then you could use fourteen groups of three and get

2 players: = 7 groups, 21 territories
3 players: = 4 groups, 12 territories
4 players: = 3 groups, 9 territories
5 players: = 2 groups, 6 territories
6 players: = 2 groups, 6 territories
7 players: = 2 groups, 6 territories
8 players: = 1 group, 3 territories

which perhaps could be limited to a maximum of 3 groups.

A base number of 40 territories could be divided into eight groups of five, giving

2 players: = 4 groups, 20 territories
3 players: = 2 groups, 10 territories
4 players: = 2 groups, 10 territories
5 players: = 1 group, 5 territories
6 players: = 1 group, 5 territories
7 players: = 1 group, 5 territories
8 players: = 1 group, 5 territories

which perhaps could be limited to a maximum of 2 groups.

You would have to arrange the groups with some care to keep them equally valuable on the drop.

I'm sorry I'm a little out of touch with the discussion here, so I don't know how critical your proposed numbers are to the desired gameplay. I hope my suggestions help.

Thanks for taking the time to work that all out for us.

I really like your first suggestion, and I thought this was how he had it set up, but it doesn't seem to be limiting the number:

The only correction you can make to that currently is to put an upper limit on the number of starting positions given to any player. You could then set this to, say, 8 and get:
2 players: = 8 territories
3 players: = 8 territories
4 players: = 8 territories
5 players: = 8 territories
6 players: = 7 territories
7 players: = 6 territories
8 players: = 5 territories

This seams more simple, and accomplishes what we're going for, which is to keep the possible bonuses on the drop down when too many starting terits are given, and also by giving enough terits in 8 player games so that someone has a fighting chance to play a turn if they are going last or something.

Is it possible for you to take a look at the last posted XML to see where we went wrong? Also, am I under the correct impression that adding a dash to each terit name shouldn't effect the XML? I tried to do that early on to clean it up a bit and got an invalid file, so I must have messed something else up.

Thanks again.

My comments unfortunately did not take into account any other territories that you have on the map which are not starting positions and which may or may not start neutral. I realised this when I search for some running games and saw that players were starting with seventeen territories.

A quick answer to why that is so is that each player starts with a share of the starting positions, plus a share of those territories which are not marked as neutral and which were not distributed through the starting positions. So any non-neutral territory in a starting position that is not used, either because the number of starting positions does not divide evenly by the number of players or because of the limit on the number of starting positions per player, ends up in the pot of the other non-neutral territories to be divided among the players (with that extra "neutral player" getting a 1/3 share in 1v1 games).

I will try to take a close look at the whole thing some time this week.

So how do we make this happen? We really need to limit the 1v1 to 8 territories each. A bonus on the drop is happening way too much.

I will have some free time next week. I'll look at the numbers to see what we can do

I find it unclear that Canoe 2 is connected only via the Shell Mound Ruins.

It looks like it connects to the entire War Zone. Please consider making this clearer. The line should run directly to the territory it connects. Currently, the line ends at the blue War Zone, which is frustratingly confusing.