Conquer Club

oaktown wrote:

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:You could of course, change the winning condition and leave the map the same

actually he can't - CC requires a hold.

Putting the tounge in chhek laughter to one side, do you mean that the "hold" condition has been programmed before (e.g Oasis) and.....

the "capture" condition has never been programmed?

....or the "capture" condition is impossible to programme? [Because, and I'm guessing here, the code has "only" checks condition at the beginning of a turn. In which case, could the subroutines that run at the beginning of a turn also be run at the end of a turn for this map (with patch to get around the end of turn bonus)?].

In game 4880008 I held Lyncestians, but got no bonus.

The map says:
2 swords = +2
you have 1 sword. No bonus.

.44

GenuineEarlGrey wrote:could the subroutines that run at the beginning of a turn also be run at the end of a turn for this map (with patch to get around the end of turn bonus)?.

That would be a CC issue, not a map issue... I'm no programmer, but I don't see why CC couldn't do this. They already have other actions that happen at the end of a turn, such as giving armies for missed rounds.

A major problem with allowing victory conditions to occur at the end of a turn is that it could be exploited in freestyle games - I take a territory, hit end turn, game over. Nobody has a chance to counter. So you can go ahead and bring this up in Sugs and Bugs, but I'm guessing this will be the response.

It still say "capture" not hold. Iam not good in english and I cant understand way it say "capture" not hold.

qwert, are you going to respond to anything here? The map isn't technically finished until it's out of Beta...

MrBenn wrote:qwert, are you going to respond to anything here? The map isn't technically finished until it's out of Beta...

I suspect he's not. He responded to my input by sort of flying off the handle and acting like he was "on his way out". Which is really unfortunate, because he's a great mapmaker.

He just took a lot of things too personally. Don't think anyone ever actually intended to offend him...
Indeed, he makes great maps.

Come back if you read this, qwert
No one hates you, even though you think we do!

I did not intended to offend any one.
I like the map, its my favorit

Lelle67 wrote:I did not intended to offend any one.

Don't worry, you didn't.

Well, looks like I pounced onto a conflict.

So.. I am NOT going to go and read back through all the arguments. I have played this map a lot and generally like it. However, it does seem that some starting points have more of an advantage than others, which seems a big distinction from other maps here in CC.

Is there a way to fix this? That is, so every starting point has equal access to swords? (They all seem about equal when it comes to sheilds).

LIke the map. Hope whatever "personal" problems there were get fixed. I like playing you quirt and I like your maps.

Just my 2 cents .. take it or leave it!

I just joined a game on this map for the first time, and it looks like a great map! It's different from the basic maps (so it's not boring), but not too complicated either; it's just the way I like it

Just dropped in to say I love this map
Please make more Qwert

I've read through the last couple of pages, and think that there are the following concerns about the map:

1. Wording of the objective - Capture vs Hold
2. Elimiotes coordinate needs to be moved 1 pixel to the left.
3. Boeotians becomes a 2 neutral instead of a 6 neutral
4. There was some talk about making the objective require any 4/5 shields rather than all 8
5. Possibly bumping up the sword territories to 4 neutrals
6. The area surrounding the Samotkrace/Imbrians area is not clear enough. An easy and very quick solution would be to move the second line of greek text below the first, and off-set to the right a bit, then move "Imbrians" up and to the right a few pixels.
7. Is there a way to fix this? That is, so every starting point has equal access to swords?

What is popular opinion on these issues?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report glitches in the map, but here goes:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=5048096

On my turn, I had Lyncestians, but I never got the +2 bonus for it. Is it just an isolated case, or what?

you need 2 swords for the bonus theres a small 2 before the swords icon in the legend

ive been asked to post this in name of qwert.

by qwert on Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:28 pm
answer to woodruff
Well from begining,i check almost 50 random games,and from game chat i must say that im not find any comfirmacion who will say that people get confused with imbrians or samothrace,well even mine opponents(play 24 games over 50 opponents),dont say any words that have problems with Samothrace or Imbrians positions.
These second-well i dont know how many people will play when map go out of beta,but now you have over 300 active game,and i doubt that these can go high(only Eastern Front have over 700 active games in begining),so i realy think that samothrace and imbrian area is very nice clear for people.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
euboeans answer to woodryff
Woodryff i give you normal valid answer,that these not create any problems in games,and nobody complain abouth that. And you also just gues that these can be problem, but these is not problem,and these show many game logs in these map,also 5 month in development not show any issue abouth that. If you not satisfy with these answer,then i dont know what answer you want to provide you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
answer to sammien -capture
i must say that i get very few complaining abouth that,because people learn that map who have objectives need to waith one turn,to achive these objective,and i belive that they all ready know that. I use war terminology,because sound much better then-"HOld 8 shield for one turn to win a game" i hope that you understand that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well i hope that mine explanation is clear,otherwise Andy tell me that Map will be remove from Game,and i will lost medal. I will be sad,but if you want that,then i can not change yours views.Im retire from Map Foundry,and if you think,that all explanation above is not valid,then probably map need to be removed from game.

Thanks to MrBeen for compiling the above list, and thanks to qwert for addressing some of them. Sorting out these issues would be considerably easier if we still had access to the image files in this thread displaying starts, neutrals, etc, but whatever. Let's just knock these out.

MrBenn wrote:1. Wording of the objective - Capture vs Hold

This is an extremely simple fix that would clear up the most common complaint that I have heard about this map. Users don't go back and read the CC rules - they depend on the legend to set the ground rules for that particular map, so more clarity the better. Another option other than "Hold" would be "Control" - it has the same # of characters as the current "Capture." I say make this change.

MrBenn wrote:2. Elimiotes coordinate needs to be moved 1 pixel to the left.

I disagree. I'm looking at it in-game with color codes and it is lined up just like the other coordinates. I vote no.

MrBenn wrote:3. Boeotians becomes a 2 neutral instead of a 6 neutral

Hmm... when this was suggested way back in April qwert's response was "oh i see consider done." But I can see from current games that it wasn't. Since the mapmaker seems to have agreed to this change AND since it would not affect games already underway (changes to starting neutrals will only affect new games) I say make this simple change to the code.

MrBenn wrote:4. There was some talk about making the objective require any 4/5 shields rather than all 8

Objectives should be difficult... better too hard than too easy. Once we start reducing the number of shields to win we have to rethink every connection on the map to make sure nobody has an advantage. I vote no.

MrBenn wrote:5. Possibly bumping up the sword territories to 4 neutrals

Again, it means reviewing everything on the map. I vote no.

MrBenn wrote:6. The area surrounding the Samotkrace/Imbrians area is not clear enough. An easy and very quick solution would be to move the second line of greek text below the first, and off-set to the right a bit, then move "Imbrians" up and to the right a few pixels.

This issue has been discussed by the mapmaker, and I agree that the connections and title are clear. I vote no.

MrBenn wrote:7. Is there a way to fix this? That is, so every starting point has equal access to swords?

Each start has equal access to a +1 mask. The swords are scattered across the map in such a way that it will be a challenge for any player to pick up two swords, and it will require a committed strategy and some difficult choices by a player. I don't see that any one start has a particularly easy road to gathering two swords, and the only way that a player would really have an advantage is if there are an odd number of players and the nearest coded start isn't given to anyone (which can't be addressed by the mapmaker). I vote no.

So, the only changes I would advocate for are "Capture" changing to "Hold" or "Control" and changing the starting neutrals on Boeotians to 2.

again, by qwert:

The Neon Peon on Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:10 pm

Neutrals between Persians and Skyros:
2,2,2,2,6,6,2,2,2,2,2 = 30 total
Neutrals between Persians and Icaria:
2,2,2,2,6,3,2 = 19 total

I am proposing that Boeotians becomes a 2 neutral instead of a 6 neutral, so that there are less neutrals between Persians and Skyros.
------------------------------------
qwert-i belive that i have these discusion before,and i realised that this is not possible,because Scyros will be much closer to peninsula,and will have only one 6 neutral on corinthians.In present situation bouth have equal 6 neutral to peninsula-Boeotians+Corinthians<>Athenians+Corinthians.

Hi freakns, thanks for being the go-between on this.

In response to qwert's last comment, I've looked back through the last month of this thread and the only discussion around changing Boeotians is this:

qwert wrote:

by The Neon Peon » Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:10 pm

Neutrals between Persians and Skyros:
2,2,2,2,6,6,2,2,2,2,2 = 30 total
Neutrals between Persians and Icaria:
2,2,2,2,6,3,2 = 19 total

I am proposing that Boeotians becomes a 2 neutral instead of a 6 neutral, so that there are less neutrals between Persians and Skyros.

oh i see consider done,

That suggests to me that he was going to make that change. If he now thinks that the change would be bad for gameplay I'll bow to his greater level of knowledge concerning this map. Please thank him for his response.

MrBenn wrote:I've read through the last couple of pages, and think that there are the following concerns about the map:

1. Wording of the objective - Capture vs Hold
2. Elimiotes coordinate needs to be moved 1 pixel to the left.
3. Boeotians becomes a 2 neutral instead of a 6 neutral
4. There was some talk about making the objective require any 4/5 shields rather than all 8
5. Possibly bumping up the sword territories to 4 neutrals
6. The area surrounding the Samotkrace/Imbrians area is not clear enough. An easy and very quick solution would be to move the second line of greek text below the first, and off-set to the right a bit, then move "Imbrians" up and to the right a few pixels.
7. Is there a way to fix this? That is, so every starting point has equal access to swords?
What is popular opinion on these issues?

Here are my thoughts (on the ones that I think my input is worthwhile):

1. Seems an obvious change that can only be for the better. Clarity is good.
4. I do think a lowering of the shield-hold requirement would be FAR better for gameplay. Quite honestly, if someone holds 8 shields, the game IS already effectively over. I agree that the objective should be difficult, but the objective should also not be possible only under the circumstances that the game is already won, otherwise nobody will EVER bother (for a good example of this, see the City Mogul map objective). So I think a lowering of this would be a significant positive.
6. I do still believe this is a problem, and that's after having played the map a fair number of times.

I'm also a bit confused as to why qwert is speaking to us only through freakns...I mean, if he's going to do that (and I'm glad he is), why not just go ahead and post here himself? It would be a quicker means of the same level communication, after all. I understand he's "retired", but he's still responding. What's the difference?

I think 4,5, and 7 are more preference choices, and not really problems. The others, however, seem more like issues.


--Andy

oaktown wrote:Hi freakns, thanks for being the go-between on this.

no problem

oaktown wrote:Please thank him for his response.

i believe he is reading the thread, just decided not to respond directly...

Woodruff wrote:I'm also a bit confused as to why qwert is speaking to us only through freakns...I mean, if he's going to do that (and I'm glad he is), why not just go ahead and post here himself?

well... i think he feels his work isnt appreciated. and he is hard headed

Woodruff wrote:What's the difference?

my english is better?
the difference is that once "we"(and by we i mean most of people from Serbia) start something that usually makes no sense, the more we get into it the more stubborn we become... you guys got into some kind of argument or disagreement, and while talking through your differences makes sense qwert somehow saw that while you guys are listening each other, you aint hearing each other and thus decide not to talk to you directly(with you, i dont mean only Woodruff )...

i really didnt read whole thread, and im not taking stand to anyones point, just trying to clarify qwerts position

freakns wrote:

Woodruff wrote:What's the difference?

my english is better?
the difference is that once "we"(and by we i mean most of people from Serbia) start something that usually makes no sense, the more we get into it the more stubborn we become... you guys got into some kind of argument or disagreement, and while talking through your differences makes sense qwert somehow saw that while you guys are listening each other, you aint hearing each other and thus decide not to talk to you directly(with you, i dont mean only Woodruff )...
i really didnt read whole thread, and im not taking stand to anyones point, just trying to clarify qwerts position

I can understand the language aspect of your speaking for him, but qwert has generally done a pretty good job of being able to make himself clear. I've never really thought it was a problem for him.

But that aside, I don't believe we were ever in an argument, though we did disagree on a point. He's stubborn...I'm stubborn...well, you see. <grin>

Truthfully, I think we're all in agreement that we have the utmost respect for qwert's mapmaking abilities. I don't think there's anyone here who isn't very appreciative. Sometimes, he may come across as taking things a bit too personally, though...and this may be a case of that. Our criticism is in no way meant personally toward him, but meant only to help make the map better (a goal I believe we all share).

as i said, its a question of pride as he sees it.
and woodruff, trust me, you are the least of the problems here. i spoke with qwert about the subject, and he explained me why is he so mad and i have to say that i understand his position. if all that he said to me is true, then id probably do the same thing as he did. and his stand point in this is actually his will to make CC better place, not some personal gain or interest, not even personal differences between him and anyone else.
just please dont ask me whats the core of the problem. if you are that curious, ask qwert through PM, he might give you or anyone else an answer. or if he ever again decide to come here and speak about it, he will do it himself, not through me, as im not the man from this story, im here just to play a game. i tried once to be constructive in balkan peninsula project, but my observation that Kosovo in anyway can not be separate bonus didnt even taken into consideration, so i saw there is just too much politics for my liking and decide to give my benefit to this place only as fair and honest player