XML Suggestions and Modifications II

[TaCktiX]

It's a cynicism born of long experience, the worst kind.

[OliverFA]

Maybe we can abandon hope... just to look for A New Hope

[zimmah]

Abandon all hope ye who enter here...

there's so many great suggestions here. but don't think most of them will ever get updated into the website, unfortunatly.

a few years ago at least SOME updates got through.

[OliverFA]

Abandon all hope ye who enter here...

there's so many great suggestions here. but don't think most of them will ever get updated into the website, unfortunatly.

a few years ago at least SOME updates got through.

As I just said in the Research & Conquer thread... I have Hope that some important investor will bring a lot of cash to CC so the site can hire a legion of web programmers. Why not? could happen!

[DiM]

Abandon all hope ye who enter here...

there's so many great suggestions here. but don't think most of them will ever get updated into the website, unfortunatly.

a few years ago at least SOME updates got through.

As I just said in the Research & Conquer thread... I have Hope that some important investor will bring a lot of cash to CC so the site can hire a legion of web programmers. Why not? could happen!

look there. over there... it's a pig. and it's flying!!!

[Teflon Kris]

Here's another good reason for group / team starting positions:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3451098#p3451098

[Oneyed]

there are some great ideas which would bring new possibilities to map makers. when I´ve read "XML Modifications and Variations" I saw that many of ideas are quite old. how works adding new things to XML?
I ask because I work on map where Conditional Autodeploys and Conditional Borders are what would a little help me to make map more interesting and also for historic accuracy.

Oneyed

[natty dread]

XML updates come when they come, ie. not very often. In fact every time the XML gets even a minor update is considered a major event of celebration and feasting.

Do what you can with the current XML. If you start waiting for XML updates, it can become a long wait.

[ender516]

Sadly, natty is correct. XML updates can only be made by the owner of the site, known to us as lackattack. We all hope that in the near future, he will hire an assistant programmer to speed up changes of this type.

[Oneyed]

thanks for replays, guys.

happy new year and all the best

Oneyed

[Oneyed]

this post is out off XML theme, so sorry for posting it here

why is necessary to have two sizes of map? I think the biggest problem is to have enough clear space in regions for numbers. so when there would be only one size (840x800) there will be enough place, because the numbers have the same size for small map and for large one too.
also on the large map is more place for everything, for map makers it would be also more easy to do only on one map where everything is fit. now if map maker work on large version, everything looks fine and then he make small map sometimes he must reduce things.
and at least maybe there will be less supersizes appeals.

Oneyed

[natty dread]

All mapmakers have to make 2 sizes of their maps, and no one has had a problem with it so far.

People have different sized monitors. Some like playing on small maps, some on large. We mapmakers provide a service for the players, so we have to consider their interests first.

[zimmah]

One of the reasons for starting a new thread, was that I spent a long time reading through the old ones, before forwarding the best of the suggestions to lackattack.

I'll copy those here for reference - none of these features are currently available, and there is no guarantee that any of these will be implemented. The example XML that has been cited is for reference only, and is only there to give an indication for possible implementation of the suggestion. It should not be confused with anything that is currently available.

Conditional Autodeploys
The tag for autodeploy is currently a <bonus> tag within the <territory> collection. It would make more sense (and add more versatility) to add a conditional autodeploy to the <continent> collection.

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>Oceania</name>
   <bonus>0</bonus>
   <components>
      <territory>Indonesia</territory>
      <territory>New Guinea</territory>
      <territory>Western Australia</territory>
      <territory>Eastern Australia</territory>
   </components>
   <autodeploy=”2”>Indonesia</autodeploy>
   <autodeploy=”-1”>Eastern Australia</autodeploy>
</continent>


Killer Neutral Tweak
**NOTE: There is a known bug when players are eliminated by a killer neutral – it may be worth resolving this!

There have been requests to update the killer neutral code to allow for the neutral to respawn/reset to a different value.

Description: At the moment you can have
<neutral>2</neutral>
or
<neutral killer="yes">5</neutral>

The Maze Craze map requires this to be tweaked slightly... could we change to?
<neutral killer="5">2</neutral>
So the neutral initialises with 2 but when captured it returns to 5.

Alternatively add a separate <neutral reset> tag, which could be used with the neutral killer, or proposed decay?

Decay to Neutral
Negative autodeploy currently stops when a territory has a single army on it. With killer neutrals, a precedent has been set for territories to revert to neutral, and so it would be logical to extend the behaviour of decaying territories. However, in order to maintain backwards-compatibility, I would suggest the addition of a <decay> tag:

Code: Select all

<territory>
   <name>No Mans Land</name>
   <borders>
      <border>Dalhart</border>
      <border>Clayton</border>
      <border>Boise City</border>
   </borders>
   <coordinates>
      <smallx>90</smallx>
      <smally>90</smally>
      <largex>200</largex>
      <largey>111</largey>
   </coordinates>
   <bonus>-1</bonus>
</territory>

<territory>
   <name>No Mans Land</name>
   <borders>
      <border>Dalhart</border>
      <border>Clayton</border>
      <border>Boise City</border>
   </borders>
   <coordinates>
      <smallx>90</smallx>
      <smally>90</smally>
      <largex>200</largex>
      <largey>111</largey>
   </coordinates>
   <decay>1</decay>
</territory>


Conditional Borders
Previously (and frequently) referred to as Dynamic Borders, conditional borders have been mentioned a number of times under various guises. Their addition would open up Conquer Club to a whole new level of strategy, and further differentiate from the well-known Hasbro clone
Previous suggestions have incorporated multiple map images, although this could initially be done within a single static image: a 'green key territory' could be used to open attack routes through 'green doors'... hold a ladder/rope to climb/descend... etc. etc.
The below example is an idea of how it could be implemented - continents have been included for versatility.

Code: Select all

   <territory>
      <name>Door</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Hallway</border>
         <conditionalborder>
            <required territory>Key</required territory>
            <required continent>Guardhouse</required continent>
            <border>Drawbridge</border>
            <bombardment>Moat</bombardment>
         </conditionalborder>
      </borders>
   </territory>


Permanent Visibles
There have been murmurs of approval for some sort of sentry/scout/lookout post territories for use in foggy games – territories that can see through the fog, without the ability to attack.
Note: Visibles could theoretically be included in conditional borders (above)

Code: Select all

   <territory>
      <name>Lookout Post</name>
      <borders>
         <border>Inner Wall</border>
         <border>Outer Wall</border>
         <visible>Over The Hill</visible>
         <visible>Far Away</visible>
   </territory>


Perma-fog
The antithesis to the lookout post/permanent visibles, would be permanent fog (for non-adjacent territories)

Code: Select all

<territory>
   <name>No Mans Land</name>
   <borders>
      <border>Dalhart</border>
      <border>Clayton</border>
      <border>Boise City</border>
   </borders>
   <coordinates>
      <smallx>90</smallx>
      <smally>90</smally>
      <largex>200</largex>
      <largey>111</largey>
   </coordinates>
   <bonus>-1</bonus>
   <permafog>True</permafog>
</territory>


Grouped Starting Positions
If there was any way of assigning starting positions to teams, then that would be a very welcome addition. Rather than specifiying positions for particular players, is there any way that the starting positions could be grouped so that groups of positions will be given to the same team… The maximum number of teams in a game is 4 (4x doubles), so perhaps <group> tags could be added each position – and then each player will be assigned positions corresponding with their teammates – but you could keep it randomised so that team 1 would not necessarily be allocated group 1...
If there are more teams than groups, then the start positions should be ignored. Equally, if there are less teams than groups, then each team could be given two positions (ie if there are 4 coded groups in a quads game, then Team 1 (red, green, blue, yellow) would receive two groups, with team 2 receiving the other.

Code: Select all

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory>Britain</territory>
      <group>1</group>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>France</territory>
      <group>1</group>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Holland</territory>
      <group>1</group>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Spain</territory>
      <group>1</group>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Portugal</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Inuit Homeland</territory>
      <group>2</group>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Comanche Homeland</territory>
      <group>2</group>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Aztec Homeland</territory>
      <group>2</group>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Mapuche Homeland</territory>
      <group>2</group>
   </position>
</positions>


Default Starting Position
It would be nice if you could select a single starting position that would always be allocated – ie. In a Humans v Aliens map, with 7 different species of alien, you could ensure that somebody would represent Humans in every game…

Code: Select all

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory>Humans</territory>
      <default>True</team>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Ewoks</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory>Vulcans</territory>
   </position>
</positions>


Objectives Tweak
Amend objectives to include <continent> tags as well as <territory> tags. This would allow for more flexibility of objectives (such as “Control 60% of the board.”)

Starting Bonus Override/Delay
One of the things that we have become semi-obsessional over with maps, is to reduce the probability of the first player receiving (large) bonuses. In order to help mitigate the luck of the drop – and to try and add more balance to the game, it would be nice to be able to specify bonuses to be ignored during round 1 (or possibly to be reshuffled in the same way as when an objective is held on the drop)

Code: Select all

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<map>
   <title>Classic</title>
   <smallwidth>600</smallwidth>
   <smallheight>325</smallheight>
   <largewidth>800</largewidth>
   <largeheight>433</largeheight>
   <filetype>jpg</filetype>

   <delaybonus>
      <continent>South America</continent>
      <continent>Oceania</continent>
   </delaybonus>
 

Game Start Message
Just a simple xml tag to define a message posted to chat or the game log at the start of every game on that map.

Mostly for storytelling or "setting the mood"

Would need standards set - under x number of characters, yes/no to "map created by", "Beware the prison of Alcatraz for you shall never escape it" is a gameplay tip but in character so to speak where "Alcatraz has no outward borders" is just an explanation - which, if either is acceptable, etc etc etc.

Code: Select all

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<map>
   <title>Classic</title>
   <smallwidth>600</smallwidth>
   <smallheight>325</smallheight>
   <largewidth>800</largewidth>
   <largeheight>433</largeheight>
   <filetype>jpg</filetype>

   <startmessage>”"Beware the prison of Alcatraz for you shall never escape it."</startmessage>

</map>


this post was made in 2009 and most of those suggestions may be even older, all of there suggestions (and some more) are very good suggestions that will increase the ability to make great maps. yet none of them have been implemented yet. when will those things be implemented?

[Oneyed]

All mapmakers have to make 2 sizes of their maps, and no one has had a problem with it so far.

it´s fine, just it would be easier a little...

People have different sized monitors.

never thought about it from this view

Oneyed

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

this post was made in 2009 and most of those suggestions may be even older, all of there suggestions (and some more) are very good suggestions that will increase the ability to make great maps. yet none of them have been implemented yet. when will those things be implemented?

That depends if we're lucky or not. If we are, then one may be added by Christmas 2013. If we're not, then perhaps by Christmas 2020 we might have one added.

Personally I'm still holding up hope the "end of the world" that was foretold by the Mayans(?) is the date that the site gets all of the quoted suggestions added on the same day

[Mr_Adams]

How about an XML code to change the effects depending on the number of troops on a territory? Probably been suggested, right? oh well, just a thought.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

How about an XML code to change the effects depending on the number of troops on a territory? Probably been suggested, right? oh well, just a thought.

I don't believe that it's been suggested. It's something that would be nice to see added once the list on the front page is taken care of.

[Mr_Adams]

How about having a territory be represented twice on one map? Like when there is a pop out piece in a map, the territory connecting the cut out to the rest of the map could be on the regular map and the cut out? or is this already possible?

It could be written:

Code: Select all

<territory>
...
<coordinates>
<smallx>a</smallx>
<smally>b</smally>
</coordinates>
<coordinates>
<smallx>c</smallx>
<smally>d</smally>
</coordinates>
...
</territory>

and the same number would show up at (a,b) and (c,d)

[thenobodies80]

About the above suggestion, I don't think it's possible to do....

In addition, I'm happy that people is posting here suggestions for xml modifications, but please don't forget to post here using the form we have in the first post.

On the same way....If you're wondering about when lackattack will implement one of the xml modifications listed or something that is not suggest a new xml feature or comment a suggestion who someone else has posted here, please refrain to post in this thread.

Thanks

Nobodies

[DiM]

How about an XML code to change the effects depending on the number of troops on a territory? Probably been suggested, right? oh well, just a thought.

I don't believe that it's been suggested. It's something that would be nice to see added once the list on the front page is taken care of.

i asked for this as a part of a more ellaborate suggestion.

what i wanted was "trigger terits"

if i remember correctly i needed them for my prison map. once you earned enough money or respect depending on what part of the map you wanted to access, certain borders would unlock or new bonuses would come into play.

in simpler terms you needed to have X number of troops on a certain terit to trigger something else (a new bonus or a new border)

[zimmah]

How about having a territory be represented twice on one map? Like when there is a pop out piece in a map, the territory connecting the cut out to the rest of the map could be on the regular map and the cut out? or is this already possible?

It could be written:

Code: Select all

<territory>
...
<coordinates>
<smallx>a</smallx>
<smally>b</smally>
</coordinates>
<coordinates>
<smallx>c</smallx>
<smally>d</smally>
</coordinates>
...
</territory>

and the same number would show up at (a,b) and (c,d)

no, you can only show the actual troop number on 1 place, and i would not want it any other way. it would be too confusing to have the same troops showing up on 2 or more places.

[ender516]

How about having a territory be represented twice on one map? Like when there is a pop out piece in a map, the territory connecting the cut out to the rest of the map could be on the regular map and the cut out? or is this already possible?

It could be written:

Code: Select all

<territory>
...
<coordinates>
<smallx>a</smallx>
<smally>b</smally>
</coordinates>
<coordinates>
<smallx>c</smallx>
<smally>d</smally>
</coordinates>
...
</territory>

and the same number would show up at (a,b) and (c,d)

no, you can only show the actual troop number on 1 place, and i would not want it any other way. it would be too confusing to have the same troops showing up on 2 or more places.

I'm not privy to the inner workings of the game engine, but I don't see why it couldn't be modified to loop through multiple coordinates while displaying the same value. That said, I agree that it could be confusing, at least until an elaborate version of Map Inspect from BOB was built into the site.

[koontz1973]

Suggestion Idea: Decaying Neutrals /Killer Decaying Neutrals

Description: Allow neutrals to decay. This would allow pathways to be blocked for a certain amount of rounds / once decayed to 0, resets.

Why It Should Be Considered: As above, it would allow the games to change through out the game. The neutral could start at 30 with a decay of 5. So by round 5, it is only a 5 neutral which can be broken through but would then carry on like the normal decaying troops we have now.
This would allow winning conditions to be blocked from players till round?
New pathways could be added to games that come into effect later in the games - Cape Town to Perth in classic map - round 6 using the above example.
Once a pathway as opened up, to can be blocked again giving players a limited time to get through.

[Ogrecrusher]

Suggestion Idea: Conditional Borders

Description: Allow the existance of a border between 2 territories to depend on the ownership of a third, unrelated one.

Why It Should Be Considered: It would allow interesting possibilities for sea or bridge crossings. One example I had in mind was from the Eastern Hemisphere map, if you owned the "naval superiority" territory, then all your colonies could border each other.
Another vague idea I had involved a vertical view of a building where you had to own all "scaffolds" to create a border to the next floor.
I have no idea how possible it would be to add this feature, but I feel that it has a lot of potential.

[natty dread]

Already been suggested numerous times... maybe we'll get it in 2020.