Conquer Club

WidowMakers wrote:Well how to starting positions work?

I mean don't we set them individually for each game type?

The best place to get your head around them is in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=466&t=68154

Essentially, you code groups of starting positions; those starting positions are then randomly (and equally) assigned to however many players are taking part in the game. The territories in any position groups that are not allocated to players (ie where 6 groups shared between 4 players) are divided out to players in the usual way.

So, if you use 3 starting position groups, these would only be used in 2 or 3 player games. In a 2p game, each player would receive all of the territories in one starting position group. The remainder in the third group would be added to all the other territories, which would then be divided into thirds in the usual way (1/3 neutral). In a 3p game, each player would receive all the territories in one starting position group - all the other territories on the map are dealt out in the usual way. The starting positions would be ignored in 4/5/6/7/8player games.

I was trying to see if there was a way to divide the hexes into 6 starting positions, to help ensure a fairer start in 2/3/4/5/6p games. The hexes in the 3-clusters can be split into 6 groups in such a way to ensure that nobody starts with a 3-hex-cluster in 3/6 player games, and minimal chance of getting them in 4/5p games. The side-effect is that it pretty much ensures (80%) that somebody will start with one 3-hex-cluster - although the groupings mean that nobody would start with more than one 3-hex-cluster. I couldn't decide how much of a problem this really was

MrBenn wrote:I was trying to see if there was a way to divide the hexes into 6 starting positions, to help ensure a fairer start in 2/3/4/5/6p games. The hexes in the 3-clusters can be split into 6 groups in such a way to ensure that nobody starts with a 3-hex-cluster in 3/6 player games, and minimal chance of getting them in 4/5p games. The side-effect is that it pretty much ensures (80%) that somebody will start with one 3-hex-cluster - although the groupings mean that nobody would start with more than one 3-hex-cluster. I couldn't decide how much of a problem this really was

There are 16 clusters. Pair up the clusters so that for each pair, the six hexes each belong to a different starting position.
For example (numbers in brackets are the starting positions to which the hexes in the given cluster belong):

C01 [1] [2] [3] . . . . C09 [1] [5] [6]
C02 [4] [5] [6] . . . . C10 [2] [3] [4]

C03 [1] [4] [5] . . . . C11 [1] [2] [5]
C04 [2] [3] [6] . . . . C12 [3] [4] [6]

C05 [1] [2] [6] . . . . C13 [1] [3] [4]
C06 [3] [4] [5] . . . . C14 [2] [5] [6]

C07 [1] [2] [4] . . . . C15 [1] [4] [6]
C08 [3] [5] [6] . . . . C16 [2] [3] [5]

Note that each pair of starting positions occurs together in one cell at most 4 times (and, less usefully, at least 2)

For 2-player games, where each player is assigned 3 starting groups, if one player starts with one cluster then so does the other player, and the combinations are all different so that it is impossible for a player to start with more than one entire cluster. 32% of games will include each player starting with a whole cluster.

For 3-player games, each player is only assigned 2 groups, which makes for a maximum of two groups per cell, so it's impossible to start with an entire cluster.

For 6-player games, each player is only assigned 1 group, so it's impossible to start with an entire cluster.

For 5-player games, each player is assigned 1 group and 1 is left over. That means every pair of clusters has exactly one hex randomly assigned; therefore there are at least two differently-assigned hexes in each cluster so it's impossible to start with an entire cluster.

For 4-player game, there will be 2 starting positions left over. The most that they can co-occur is in four cells, meaning there are 4 chances for both leftover hexes to be assigned to whichever player happens to own the third hex in a given cluster. Note also that the third starting group in such a case is never the same (because that would mean three starting groups co-occur more than once, which is impossible) which means that each player gets at most one shot at this. That means that for any given player there is at most a 1/16 (6.25%) chance of starting with a complete cluster (in practice the chance is probably more like 5%) and each player will only have at most one complete cluster. About 19% of games will start with at least one player owning a complete cluster; it is impossible for one player to start with more than one.

Edit: My math was wrong the first time around; as Benn said, 80% of 1v1 games will start with each player having one full cluster.

Looks good to me. Especially since the starting bonus will be 12. Having 13 or 14 will not matter with so many territories at the beginning.
While we could optimize the system for 2 player games, I do think a more broad optimization as described above is better suited.

I will let killer know that we need to code for the 6 starting positions.

Thanks

I am adding Part of the XML that i have done so far for the map
XML

Maybe change the font for the cell names or soften. They look too pixely.

skeletonboy wrote:Maybe change the font for the cell names or soften. They look too pixely.

What map size are you talking about?

Final Forge

---The Hive Map has reached the ‘Final Forge’ Stage. The map has passed rigorous gameplay and graphics examinations, and major concerns have been addressed. If you have any other concerns, please make your voice heard. If after a reasonable amount of time there has not been any objection or protest, the map will be deemed finished with the 'Foundry Brand' of approval and will be submitted for live play. As long as there is still discussion or posts that have yet to be commented on, the map will remain in Final Forge until said discussion has reached the conclusion that the map has reached its final and polished version.

Post questions and concerns if any.

Congrats WM.
I hope everyone enjoys this one!

cairnswk wrote:Congrats WM.
I hope everyone enjoys this one!

Thanks Cairn

killerpit4e wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Congrats WM.
I hope everyone enjoys this one!

Thanks Cairn

Sorry killerpit4e, congrats you too.

awesome job, guys, i can't wait to play it. First map I've watched all the way through the foundry...

I almost feel a little sentimental... and a little... old!??

*sniff*

anyway.... looks great!

Well it's about time!

Well we will need everyone eyes wide open when the XML is done to make sure centering and borders are all correct. With 350 terts and TONS of borders, I am sure we will miss a few.

Thanks to Evil DIMwit for helping out Killer with the XML as well.

Oh, and on the off chance anyone cares, the perl script I used to generate the XML file is here: http://dimagic.webs.com/ConquerClub/hugexmlgen.pl

Evil DIMwit wrote:Oh, and on the off chance anyone cares, the perl script I used to generate the XML file is here: http://dimagic.webs.com/ConquerClub/hugexmlgen.pl

Very nice script Evil DIMwit.

ustus wrote:awesome job, guys, i can't wait to play it. First map I've watched all the way through the foundry...

I almost feel a little sentimental... and a little... old!??

*sniff*

anyway.... looks great!

*gives ustus a tissue

Thank you Killerpit4e.

but seriously, good job getting this one to this point so fast.

ustus wrote:awesome job, guys, i can't wait to play it. First map I've watched all the way through the foundry...

I almost feel a little sentimental... and a little... old!??

*sniff*

anyway.... looks great!

Hopefully it won't be the last. I think the more a user follows the entirety of a Map through the Foundry, the more likely they are to comeback and have an enjoyable experienced with another map in development.

Plus it is always fun to say that you helped craft this map, and got to see it evolve.


--Andy

Andy - last year I wanted to make a map. The process looks fun, and I enjoy playing around with Photoshop. And i'd like to learn the XML. This year, i realized I don't have the time. Perhaps over the summer. The other problem is i don't have an idea. If I get an idea, I'll go for it. For now, I enjoy browsing the draft forum, though, and this is possibly my favorite idea as far as gameplay, so I'm excited that it's this far along.

Got The Xml Approved By Forza AZ

Well here are the 88's using the XML killer posted
XML:
http://dimagic.webs.com/ConquerClub/the_hive.xml

XML changes:

1) Bottom edge of Large is cut off. XML need to be adjusted for a height of 789
2) Honey Storage should not be 10. They should be set to 3.
3) I also did not see starting positions setup for teh 3-hex group [1-6 player games]

SMALL V20 with 88
[bigimg]http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/5256/bhsv2088.png[/bigimg]
LARGE v5 with 88
[bigimg]http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/5144/bhlv0588.png[/bigimg]

For the naming, I think it's more confusing in the legend than it needs to be. If you, instead of saying "number of hexes in each color group + name of hex with these symbols," reworded it to "number of hexes in group + letter of hex marked by › ‹" it would be clearer and more compact.

I only have one tiny nitpick on the large: the honey slide on the top left creates an illusion that the left side is not a straight corner, but a diagonal. If you remember on Route 66, oak originally placed the postcard so that it was nearly parallel to the edge of the map on the left side, but on the right it was definitely not looking parallel. So, while it was definitely a rectangle, it created an illusion of a trapezoidal postcard.

If you could straighten out the honey slide it would look much better. It's really just on the large, because on the small you get a larger grasp of the perspective of the entire map, which shows that the edge is perfectly straight.

Other than that, I don't really see any issues. Well done I love "FOR KLOBBER"

the.killing.44 wrote:For the naming, I think it's more confusing in the legend than it needs to be. If you, instead of saying "number of hexes in each color group + name of hex with these symbols," reworded it to "number of hexes in group + letter of hex marked by › ‹" it would be clearer and more compact.

Sure that makes sense. Any issue anyone?

the.killing.44 wrote:I only have one tiny nitpick on the large: the honey slide on the top left creates an illusion that the left side is not a straight corner, but a diagonal. If you remember on Route 66, oak originally placed the postcard so that it was nearly parallel to the edge of the map on the left side, but on the right it was definitely not looking parallel. So, while it was definitely a rectangle, it created an illusion of a trapezoidal postcard.
If you could straighten out the honey slide it would look much better. It's really just on the large, because on the small you get a larger grasp of the perspective of the entire map, which shows that the edge is perfectly straight.

I have no idea what you mean. I have been looking over this for a while and can't figure out what you mean by diagonal.

WidowMakers wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:I only have one tiny nitpick on the large: the honey slide on the top left creates an illusion that the left side is not a straight corner, but a diagonal. If you remember on Route 66, oak originally placed the postcard so that it was nearly parallel to the edge of the map on the left side, but on the right it was definitely not looking parallel. So, while it was definitely a rectangle, it created an illusion of a trapezoidal postcard.
If you could straighten out the honey slide it would look much better. It's really just on the large, because on the small you get a larger grasp of the perspective of the entire map, which shows that the edge is perfectly straight.

I have no idea what you mean. I have been looking over this for a while and can't figure out what you mean by diagonal.

The honey slide on the top left corner.

the.killing.44 wrote:I only have one tiny nitpick on the large: the honey slide on the top left creates an illusion that the left side is not a straight corner, but a diagonal. If you remember on Route 66, oak originally placed the postcard so that it was nearly parallel to the edge of the map on the left side, but on the right it was definitely not looking parallel. So, while it was definitely a rectangle, it created an illusion of a trapezoidal postcard.
If you could straighten out the honey slide it would look much better. It's really just on the large, because on the small you get a larger grasp of the perspective of the entire map, which shows that the edge is perfectly straight.

I have no idea what you mean. I have been looking over this for a while and can't figure out what you mean by diagonal.[/quote]

If you look at the honey drip at the top then follow it down it ends up with half the drip off the map. It goes from going over A1, A2 with the left sides of the hexes being clear to the honey drip (run) just barely touching the A10 hex. I hope I explained this good enough.

Below is what .44 saw



Hope this helps.