Conquer Club

Does anyone think that maps which don't have to accommodate 8 players have any place on CC?

I mean, think of all the possibilities there could be if we were allowed to make a two player map. American's versus British, Soviets versus Nazi's, French against English, ect.

I think there's a serious potential for an explosion of new maps if such approaches were allowed. I'm not just talking about a map able to be played with just two players but rather a map designed only for two players.

(and by no means do I mean to suggest such a change is down the pike... just making conversation is all).

It might be nice to allow a couple of maps which are made for a specific number of players-especially for scenario maps. It also may be an idea to have maps which are only for team games (for instance a world war map where one team starts with the allies and the other with the axis.)

I think this would be a good idea. It would bring more variation to maps. We have enough maps that allow for 8 players, I don't think it would hurt to have a few maps that would only be playable for 2-6 people.

I think that all kinds of maps should be allowed. From small to large.

If a map has a GP issue that makes it not good for a certain setting or whatever, just lock those settings from being chosen on that map. How hard is that ?

Well, i dunno that it should extend towards increasing the size of maps or anything. But rather allow for the making of maps which are made for two players, or perhaps four. And obviously, if an extension should occur, it shouldn't allow for players to make whatever the hell they want. It should be approved carefully. Most maps should continue to accommodate 8 but there ought to be a few maps out there made for less people.

Industrial Helix wrote:Well, i dunno that it should extend towards increasing the size of maps or anything. But rather allow for the making of maps which are made for two players, or perhaps four. And obviously, if an extension should occur, it shouldn't allow for players to make whatever the hell they want. It should be approved carefully. Most maps should continue to accommodate 8 but there ought to be a few maps out there made for less people.

I was not referring to pixels, but rather territ count. My point is that, there should not be any mandates whatsoever, as to all maps needing to work on all settings or number of players.

If a map does NOT work well on any particular setting, no matter what it is, all you need to do is simply lock out those settings on that map. Again, -what is so hard about that ?

There is plenty of room on the road for sports cars, and SUV's alike.

To say that ALL maps MUST be playable with 8 players, is like saying, you must drive a SUV all the time, even if there is only two people in the vehicle.

Very shortsighted thinking, If you ask me.

This is kind of being done already... lack is planning to lock certain maps from manual games, because those maps don't allow any choice where to deploy even if you play manual...

Sorry if this is off topic, but I have a question about manual. What happens if a player misses his first turn to deploy ?
If he is not kicked, does he still get to deploy his deferred troops ?

porkenbeans wrote:Sorry if this is off topic, but I have a question about manual. What happens if a player misses his first turn to deploy ?
If he is not kicked, does he still get to deploy his deferred troops ?

no, those troops are lost forever.

natty_dread wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:Sorry if this is off topic, but I have a question about manual. What happens if a player misses his first turn to deploy ?
If he is not kicked, does he still get to deploy his deferred troops ?

no, those troops are lost forever.

That is good. I am glad that someone thought of that scenario.

I really really like this idea and I see a lot of potential with this. I like fewer player games much more and I would love to see this idea implemented. 2-6 player maps would add a different way of enjoy CC that would diversify the experience so much more.

Well, the key thing, if this suggestion we're ever to go through, was to avoid it from getting out of hand. I think by making a bunch of maps that have all sorts of limits would be counter productive to the success of the site. I think as a general rule, all maps should have the options for cards, fog and team settings.

But I think there ought to be more maps that specialize in certain player number scenarios, ie 1v1 as mentioned before.

And I think in implementing such a new rule, maps mods would have to be very careful in allowing the exception to the 8 player rule. Research and Conquer is a great example, it simply cannot function with 8 players as there isn't enough room.

But if someone made, say, a standard Korea map and said you can only have 4 players on it, then the map ought to be dismissed as there is no reason 8 players can't fit on it.

To make this idea more pallatable - they should be two-team maps - so they work with either 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 - it woulkd need a new xml feature - tean starting positions

Well, yeah. Or at least a way in the XML to designate which player starts where.

Industrial Helix wrote:Well, the key thing, if this suggestion we're ever to go through, was to avoid it from getting out of hand. I think by making a bunch of maps that have all sorts of limits would be counter productive to the success of the site. I think as a general rule, all maps should have the options for cards, fog and team settings.

But I think there ought to be more maps that specialize in certain player number scenarios, ie 1v1 as mentioned before.

And I think in implementing such a new rule, maps mods would have to be very careful in allowing the exception to the 8 player rule. Research and Conquer is a great example, it simply cannot function with 8 players as there isn't enough room.

But if someone made, say, a standard Korea map and said you can only have 4 players on it, then the map ought to be dismissed as there is no reason 8 players can't fit on it.

It would not really be that big of a deal. Say you wanted to start a game, all of the available options will be click-able, and the ones that have been deemed unavailable, would simply be made non-click-able.

DJ Teflon wrote:To make this idea more pallatable - they should be two-team maps - so they work with either 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 - it woulkd need a new xml feature - tean starting positions

I've wondered about this actually. Why aren't some of the map scenerios set this way? As many WWII, etc. maps as there are it only makes sense to have some scenerio where you have Axis vs. Allies/ Athens vs. Sparta (or Troy or Persians...)/ whatever.

I agree that it shouldn't be every map that's that way, because you lose the challenge of having to adjust your strategy of random placement. However, "re-enacting" battles would also be a fun feature if it could be implemented.

Why aren't some of the map scenerios set this way?

Because it's not possible with the current XML.

GSP JR wrote:

DJ Teflon wrote:To make this idea more pallatable - they should be two-team maps - so they work with either 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 - it woulkd need a new xml feature - tean starting positions

I've wondered about this actually. Why aren't some of the map scenerios set this way? As many WWII, etc. maps as there are it only makes sense to have some scenerio where you have Axis vs. Allies/ Athens vs. Sparta (or Troy or Persians...)/ whatever.

I agree that it shouldn't be every map that's that way, because you lose the challenge of having to adjust your strategy of random placement. However, "re-enacting" battles would also be a fun feature if it could be implemented.

Yeah, I generally agree. The map does well to take its share of influence from Risk but not so well in taking influence from more complex games like Axis and Allies. Of all the XML features that should be easy to write, set player starting positions has got to be one of them.

I guess I misrepresented my thoughts there, sorry. What I meant was I don't see why this concept hasn't been implemented in the past, meaning why the XML options haven't been altered to accomodate this. I read that the current XML profile did not contain the provisions for doing this, and that is the real issue (well, I guess that, and whether or not people actually want to play with this concept). I think it could add an interesting dimension to the game, and could very well add some interesting tournament ideas as well. I'm sure it takes more work than simply adding another option to the XML, so it's not something that could happen overnight, but it would be fun once it was an option.

I'd like to see it happen. I think to be fair it would need to be set up to work in pairs, 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4, and not left simply as a 1v1 concept. Other than that I think it has real potential.

I love the idea of maps specifically designed for 2 or even 3 players. A Mexican stand off map would be very cool. I've grown to really like 1v1, but many of my favorite maps just don't work with just 2 people.

Just like how there's a conversation in GD about not allowing manual for some maps, there is definitely room to design maps that can only be played with other settings, such as number of players.

The question strikes as moot. Allow me to explain: 98% or so of my games are 1v1 and I play on a very large variety of maps, mostly large (by not huge) ones. Looking from my perspective, i don't see a shortage of maps to play 1v1 - rather, there are lots of maps not specifically made for 1v1 that are very well suited for this kind of play.

So, it seems to me that there is nor paramount need for a special development mode. Thus, I don't think we need one - let's just try keep the processes as simple as possible.

eigenvector wrote:The question strikes as moot. Allow me to explain: 98% or so of my games are 1v1 and I play on a very large variety of maps, mostly large (by not huge) ones. Looking from my perspective, i don't see a shortage of maps to play 1v1 - rather, there are lots of maps not specifically made for 1v1 that are very well suited for this kind of play.

So, it seems to me that there is nor paramount need for a special development mode. Thus, I don't think we need one - let's just try keep the processes as simple as possible.

If you reread IH's original post, he was speaking more along the lines of one side versus another, as opposed to random original placement.

The XML would need to be configured to player 1 starting on (to use IH's original concept) America's starting points, player 2 starting on Britain's starting points. Essentially putting one side versus the other, as opposed to random map placement.

The problem with the concept in this form as Natty pointed out is the XML would need to be configured for the map makers to code this into the file. Currently it is not possible to do this.

Ok, I see the point now. Personally, I actually like the random placement much more and can wax lyrical about it, but - hey, it's just me.

Anyway, I rescind my objections, for what it's worth...

Theoretically, it would be possible to develop a map with two "sides" using two starting positions (with a number of territories in each grouped position).

In general, I'd encourage people to consider a variety of game-settings... I'm sure it would be possible to develop a map specifically designed for 1v1 games that would work reasonably well for other settings too.

MrBenn wrote:Theoretically, it would be possible to develop a map with two "sides" using two starting positions (with a number of territories in each grouped position).

Yeah but that only applies to 1v1. If the same was possible for team games...

In general, I'd encourage people to consider a variety of game-settings... I'm sure it would be possible to develop a map specifically designed for 1v1 games that would work reasonably well for other settings too.

Sure it would. But I think people here are asking for an XML update so that we could have maps where you could play 4p dubs, trips or quads so that one team starts from one place and the other team starts from another place. That'd be kinda fun.