Moderator: Cartographers
edbeard wrote:Game 2485221
looks like there's a problem in the starting areas coding.
Some players are getting 2 of the parachute territories to start.
BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:Congratz on another wonderful map (although I still haven't figured out if I can win from 2nd in seq 1v1s).
One small xml bug though (so far):
Markt can be attacked by, but cannot attack Wache dim
kletka wrote:Game 2485913 is listed as assassin. This map should not allow assassin as the game will last forever
AndyDufresne wrote:Terminator and Assassin games just become regular "objective" games. Lack didn't want to specifically hard code those variations not playable at this time.
--Andy
BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:Congratz on another wonderful map (although I still haven't figured out if I can win from 2nd in seq 1v1s).
lackattack wrote:cairnswk wrote:Thanks lackattack.
Howver, we have a bigger challenge in this map.cairnswk wrote:edbeard wrote:Game 2485221
looks like there's a problem in the starting areas coding.
Some players are getting 2 of the parachute territories to start.
Agreed edbeard...what the xml has done is take 4 starting areas of 8 starting positions each and allocated 6 players 5 places each with two neutrals.
I believe this might have something to do with the way the starting positions are written, contacting lackattack now.
Do you know of any solutions to this?
The 8 positions that start on the bottom right of the map need to be only allocated to 1 player each.
Would it work if those territories were removed from the starting positions code?
Unfortunately i have to get to RL work, so will have to attend to this later.
Thanks guys.
Didn't anyone read the XML tutorial!?XML Tutorial wrote:So in the above example we have 12 start positions. In a game players will get one or more of these depending on how many people are playing and the rest of the territories are distributed normally.
I'm not sure how to limit it to 1 position each. But the engine should either allocate 1 each or 2 each or 3 each, never 2 to some people and only 1 to others. So it should be fair at least
kletka wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:Terminator and Assassin games just become regular "objective" games. Lack didn't want to specifically hard code those variations not playable at this time.
--Andy
I guess it is all right with terminator but this becomes dodgy in assassin
yeti_c wrote:Hang on here Cairns - I think we've got a misunderstanding...
C.
cairnswk wrote:yeti_c wrote:Hang on here Cairns - I think we've got a misunderstanding...
C.
yes seems so.
There is also a misunderstanding from my part.
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.
But there is an error on starting in the parahcute area.
yeti_c wrote:cairnswk wrote:yeti_c wrote:Hang on here Cairns - I think we've got a misunderstanding...
C.
yes seems so.
There is also a misunderstanding from my part.
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.
But there is an error on starting in the parahcute area.
We are reading from the same page now... see my PM for a fix.
C.
kletka wrote:I am in bdsm love with this map. I love the gameplay but I hate how much imbalanced it is!!
In sequential 1v1 it is 100% win for the starting player!! One really has to put huge stacks (30 I reckon) on AA, AB and AC to give non-starting player any chance...
And I am afraid of trying it with more players as it has STALEMATE written all over it
Incandenza wrote:Seems like one thing that could potentially be done to alleviate stalemate issues would be to have the X1 and X2 terits in the southwest respawn as 3's instead of 1's if they're bombarded (dunno if this is possible in the xml tho). Otherwise it's like night of the living dead down there, you think you've got your opponent on the run but he just keeps coming with fresh numbers.
cairnswk wrote:and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.
cairnswk wrote:There is also a misunderstanding from my part.
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.
cairnswk wrote:XML challenges should be fixed on this one now.
and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.
edbeard wrote:why is there no one on the castle? didn't the gameplay get stamped with guys on the castle?
Incandenza wrote:I'll be VERY curious to see how that big 8p game goes...
AndyDufresne wrote:cairnswk wrote:There is also a misunderstanding from my part.
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.cairnswk wrote:XML challenges should be fixed on this one now.
and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.
It looks like Cairnswk took them out...
--Andy
yeti_c wrote:cairnswk wrote:and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.
Hmmm - why did you do this Cairns?
C.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users