Conquer Club

qwert wrote:

MrBenn suggests the changes go live right away, without having to lock the map for some time. They can change the map and XML at any moment if they want.
But they only want to avoid uploading a faulty XML when games are being played at that time.

I check XMl, and checker say OK,ofcourse if someon want to check xml,he can very easy to check.
I belive that its not good to upload right away,because new gameplay objectives can change very drasticaly some games.

I've been out of town all week, so this is my first look at the proposed changes. Since you're the mapmaker and you have probably put more thought into this than anybody else, I will trust your judgement on the changes you've made to the XML qwert. No need to run this past Forza for another official check.

More importantly, I do NOT think that you want to have lack lock this map for new games. It could be months or years before all current games are completed - just look at Das Schlos - and I know you don't like to wait, qwert. The games that users are currently playing have the BETA tag to let people know that the map may change mid-game. I will bring this issue up with Andy and get back to you on the best course of action, and how to make this change as painlessly as possible.

Finally, please stop bringing up how MrBenn, I, or anybody else slowed this map down. If you look at the maps currently in BETA, this was the fastest map to go from beginning to live play. Yes, the fastest. I won't mind locking this topic if it turns into another foundry moderator hate-fest.

Finally, please stop bringing up how MrBenn, I, or anybody else slowed this map down. If you look at the maps currently in BETA, this was the fastest map to go from beginning to live play. Yes, the fastest. I won't mind locking this topic if it turns into another foundry moderator hate-fest.

Please just waith to map go of beta,and then you can lock all mine Map topic,because these will be best.

Any way,if these new changes be update in live,then some games will be finish imediatly,because someon will all ready have achive new objectives.

qwert wrote:

Finally, please stop bringing up how MrBenn, I, or anybody else slowed this map down. If you look at the maps currently in BETA, this was the fastest map to go from beginning to live play. Yes, the fastest. I won't mind locking this topic if it turns into another foundry moderator hate-fest.

Please just waith to map go of beta,and then you can lock all mine Map topic,because these will be best.

Any way,if these new changes be update in live,then some games will be finish imediatly,because someon will all ready have achive new objectives.

I think the following label:

Warning: Maps designated as "Beta" might have unbalanced gameplay and undergo changes mid-game. Play at your own risk!

is adequate warning that some games might be affected by random changes. The map is unlikely to be shelved until all games are finished; the Das Schloss incident is the exact reason that the Beta Phase was introduced

Agreed with everything in MrBenn's post.


--Andy

is adequate warning that some games might be affected by random changes. The map is unlikely to be shelved until all games are finished; the Das Schloss incident is the exact reason that the Beta Phase was introduced

Ok,who i need to contact to start these changes?
Hmm i read many game logs,and i think that maybe i will not change gameplay. Present Objectives is almost not possible to achive, but its look that people dont have problem with this. Lets stay these for now,and if i get some complaining abouth shield,then i can activate these idea for objective change.

I won a game via the objective!

by Ogrecrusher » Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:24 pm

I won a game via the objective!

Hey qwert!

First off, I really like the new map, it seems like a lot of fun and I'm enjoying playing on it.

I just wanted to bring something to your attention. I think there might be a slight glitch in the programing, as I am not receiving as many troops as I should be.

[bigimg]http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/3166/pelof.jpg[/bigimg]'

As you can see from this image. I am currently holding three swords, but am only getting men for two. Just wanted to let you know.

The bonus legend says:
2x'swords' : +2.

It doesn't say anything about three swords. So you're getting bonus for two swords, as described in the legend.

by saaimen » Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:29 am

The bonus legend says:
2x'swords' : +2.

It doesn't say anything about three swords. So you're getting bonus for two swords, as described in the legend.

Yes legend say very clear,if you hold 2 sword you will get 2 army,these go in pair,so if you take another sword you will get new 2 army.Every 2 sword give you two army
2 sword-2 army
4 sword-4 army
6 sword-6 army
if you take 3 sword then you will get 2 sword.

qwert wrote:if you take 3 sword then you will get 2 sword.

He means armies

by saaimen » Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:24 pm

qwert wrote:
if you take 3 sword then you will get 2 sword.
He means armies

hmm yes,i become insane here,
i need to get from these place imediately.

Ah, totally misread that, my apologies!

there's I thing I'm curious about:
shouldn't "Lesbians" be called "Lesbos"?

Don't think so...
The island is called Lesbos, but the map is based on the peoples who live around ancient Greece. The people from Lesbos are called Lesbians...
Right?

by saaimen » Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:17 pm

Don't think so...
The island is called Lesbos, but the map is based on the peoples who live around ancient Greece. The people from Lesbos are called Lesbians...
Right?

Yes i belive that these is correct,ofcourse some people only think on some other stuff,like in WTF in WEstern Front map.

Origin and transformation of the term

Sappho of Lesbos, depicted in an 1904 painting by John William Godward gave the term Lesbian the connotation of erotic desire between women.The word "lesbian" is derived from the Greek island of Lesbos, home to the 6th century BCE poet Sappho.[1] From various ancient writings, historians have gathered that a group of young women were left in Sappho's charge for their instruction or cultural edification.[3] Not much of Sappho's poetry remains, but that which does demonstrates the topics she wrote about: women's daily lives, their relationships, and rituals. She focused on the beauty of women and proclaimed her love for girls.[4] Before the late 19th century, the word "Lesbian" referred to any derivative or aspect of Lesbos, including a type of wine.[note 1]from wikipedia

i think that these map can go out of beta,its play nice and gameplay is complete aceptabile for majority of CC players.

qwert wrote:i think that these map can go out of beta,its play nice and gameplay is complete aceptabile for majority of CC players.

yes, there doesn't seem to be much discussion about changes. Since there was some concern about the objectives let's give it a few more days - the worst scenario would be to take it out of BETA and then have to change something.

Most of the wins I've seen (including my own) have been without holding the objective. It's much simpler to just find and kill all opponents than go chasing shields, though in my victory in a 5p I held half of the shields and had direct access to 2 others.

by TaCktiX » Mon Apr 20, 2009 4:58 am

Most of the wins I've seen (including my own) have been without holding the objective. It's much simpler to just find and kill all opponents than go chasing shields, though in my victory in a 5p I held half of the shields and had direct access to 2 others.

well i had idea to change these,but people want to stay like now,and i abandoned these idea, if people like gameplay then its no need to change something what is not broken,actualy gameplay is acepted,and i dont have any problems with these, and these gameplay objectives not afected any player in game.
Most game whas im seen is 1vs1 and people play fog,so its quite normal that in these games people no need to achive objectives to win a game. Any changes of objectives will ruin game balance.because game statistic show these:
totaly finished games 1570
2 player game 1019(over 60%) of these 506 is fog(almost 50%).
These mean that change shields objectives will directly give some side advantage..
I must say that um very supprised that 60% of all games are 2 player games, and i never expected these for so big map (87territry).

I know there was some discussion about making the victory objective "Hold Troadians and 3 other shields", which I thought was a nice, elegant way of handling the objective, but if that's been tabled...

I do like the idea of making the sword bonus 3 for +2 (or even +3), since in a 1v1 game, the drop can gift 2 swords to one player. This way the only way to get that bonus is to strike out beyond the safe zones.

by Incandenza » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:12 pm

I know there was some discussion about making the victory objective "Hold Troadians and 3 other shields", which I thought was a nice, elegant way of handling the objective, but if that's been tabled...

I do like the idea of making the sword bonus 3 for +2 (or even +3), since in a 1v1 game, the drop can gift 2 swords to one player. This way the only way to get that bonus is to strike out beyond the safe zones.

yes,these is mine idea,but i put on hold,because people dont want to change present gameplay.
Swords is all ready to big-6swords 6 army,no need to be biger.

I'm not saying more swords should be added, but the swords are really the one aspect of gameplay where the drop really really matters. If I'm playing a 1v1, and the other guy drops pntus and romans, I'm screwed, 'cause he can get both swords and only have to go thru 2 neutrals apiece and he doesn't have to expand beyond his starting points' safe zones.

But if you had to hold 3 swords to get a bonus (either +2 or +3), then that would force even someone who got pontus and romans on the drop to break through a 6 to get another sword terit and complete the bonus.

by Incandenza » Mon Apr 20, 2009 11:22 pm

I'm not saying more swords should be added, but the swords are really the one aspect of gameplay where the drop really really matters. If I'm playing a 1v1, and the other guy drops pntus and romans, I'm screwed, 'cause he can get both swords and only have to go thru 2 neutrals apiece and he doesn't have to expand beyond his starting points' safe zones.

But if you had to hold 3 swords to get a bonus (either +2 or +3), then that would force even someone who got pontus and romans on the drop to break through a 6 to get another sword terit and complete the bonus.

these is what im say, if you remember im all ready have these discusion in proces stage, and if i put 3swords 2 army,then these will lose any walue in 4-5-6-7-8 player games,and only will have walue in 2-3 player games.
1vs1 is al way depend on luck,and on dices,belive me im play several 1vs1 games,and when dices kick me for 4 consecutive round then sword will not help me in any way.

Fair enough, but how about bumping up any sword terit (Dorian Cycladians, Ambraciotes, and Thracian Odyrsi) to 4 neutrals? Less of a cakewalk that way.