[XML] Delayed/Bonus Conditional Borders and Bombardments

[degaston]

Concise description:

• Allow coding of conditional borders and bombardments that only work if you hold them at the start of your turn.

Specifics/Details:

• Right now, conditional borders activate as soon as the required territories are captured, but bonuses and win conditions must be held at the start of your turn. But some conditional borders may be too powerful/important to allow them to be used without giving the opponents a chance to take it away.
• My suggestion is to allow them to be coded so that they do not activate until the start of your next turn. If you hold the requirements at the start of your turn, then the conditional borders will be available to you during that round.
• I would propose that the border be immediately closed if the required conditions are lost in the middle of a turn, as can happen in freestyle play. Though this could be open to discussion.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• This would add another strategic dimension to some maps.

[koontz1973]

This can already be done with transformations I believe. As you can place the transformation anywhere in the xml you can set it to activate for the next round.

[degaston]

This can already be done with transformations I believe. As you can place the transformation anywhere in the xml you can set it to activate for the next round.

Tranformation Process

Tranformation is the very first thing to execute on a Begin Turn action.

Go through each territory:

- Set Quantity = Initial value of armies on this territory

For the territory, execute the following process for each applicable Tranform in turn:
- Apply filters. If Tranform does not apply do nothing and skip to next tranform for this terit.
- Calulate Amount by choosing random number if range or setting as fixed amount
- if % is set, multiply Amount by Quantity/100
- If INC = "-" negate Amount
- If INC is set add Quantity to Amount
- set Quantity to Amount

After all Tranforms have executed for a territory:
- Quantity is rounded to the closest integer and set to a minimum of 1
- If Quantity has changed, set new army count and send log to game log.

Go to next Territory

I don't see anything in there that talks about enabling borders - it only talks about setting quantities. My last post in this thread, where I asked some questions about transformations went unanswered. Do you know how to code my suggestion using transformations? (The border between A and B is only open when you hold C at the start of your turn.)

Also, it's my understanding that we still don't even have conditional bombardments, so I wouldn't expect this suggestion to happen before that, but maybe they could be done together.

Thanks

[degaston]

Someone just posted a rough map idea that could use this capability. Is there any way to do what he wants using transformations?

[thenobodies80]

Do you know how to code my suggestion using transformations? (The border between A and B is only open when you hold C at the start of your turn.)

No, you can't.
Conditional borders (and everything related to them) are checked and activated in the exact moment you hold it.
Instead you want it works like objectives (winning conditions)... honestly this scared me a lot considering that after so much time winning conditions appear to many people something that should happen in the exact moment you hold it instead of the next turn. I would not have another thing to explain for the time being...
If it was for me I would change also them to be checked in that exact moment (it would make more sense), but this is another discussion.

Someone just posted a rough map idea that could use this capability. Is there any way to do what he wants using transformations?

If the point is only slow down a player, something like that could be done using conditions (see last trasformation example into the xml guide) and with small changes applied to mapmaker's idea, i think.

Anyway, about your suggestion, if you ask to me, conditional borders postponed to the next turn it's something I would not prefer to see happen...if I have the key why I should wait to open the door?

[degaston]

...Conditional borders (and everything related to them) are checked and activated in the exact moment you hold it.
Instead you want it works like objectives (winning conditions)... honestly this scared me a lot considering that after so much time winning conditions appear to many people something that should happen in the exact moment you hold it instead of the next turn. I would not have another thing to explain for the time being...

I think this is a problem of learning, rather than a problem with how the maps work. I doubt you have to explain winning conditions to people who have played a particular map several times. In my opinion, this is just one more reason to allow unrated games for everyone. But that's another discussion.

If it was for me I would change also them to be checked in that exact moment (it would make more sense), but this is another discussion.

Okay, I've started that discussion here.

Someone just posted a rough map idea that could use this capability. Is there any way to do what he wants using transformations?

If the point is only slow down a player, something like that could be done using conditions (see last trasformation example into the xml guide) and with small changes applied to mapmaker's idea, i think.

Anyway, about your suggestion, if you ask to me, conditional borders postponed to the next turn it's something I would not prefer to see happen...if I have the key why I should wait to open the door?

Yes, it may be a bit confusing to newer players that losing conditions and conditional borders act instantly, but objectives and bonuses must be held for a round. That's no reason to deny mapmakers tools they could use to make more interesting maps. How confusing do you think the transformation capabilities will be once mapmakers start using them? Obviously, these are advanced features, and would not be used on a beginner's map.

I've made suggestions before that related to maps that I might like to make, and the response has been "we can't make a change just for one map!" (even though my suggestion was not so specific that it couldn't be used any number of ways.) I had no map in mind when I made this suggestion, and it was a complete coincidence that the very next day, someone posted an idea that could use my suggestion. There is nothing so specific about this suggestion that it can only be used for a key/lock scenario. Give mapmakers more tools, and they will find creative ways to use them.

[thenobodies80]

I think this is a problem of learning

True. But from my point of view, as Foundry Foreman, it means a cost in time and effort on a long long period. It's up to you to convince me that the benefits are more than the cost.
That's why i said I'm scared if I compare the possible "uses/shades" of this feature and the mess that it could be create. Obviously the final solution for the learning issue should not fall on the mapmakers but, in the same time, I can't ignore it since it's something that happens.

the response has been "we can't make a change just for one map!"

mmmm....that's not my point of view when I have to share my opinion on possible changes. I can't speak for bigwham but I don't think that it reflects his vision as well.
The only point on which I always stress is to not change previous map, so new gameplay features should not change the way we play existing maps, just that.

Instead, if the map shows like a great addition for the site, if it has a compelling gameplay, if it is not just another map to add to the current rooster, well I'm pretty sure that the site is willing to change the code or add a new feature to allow it!
Obviously, while choosing what implement or not, we need to take into consideration and maybe give more importance to a suggestion which can be applied on a larger spectrum of maps.
If you got that answer, i think the meaning is: "in general, if you suggest to add or change something, please do it without have a specific map in mind". It makes sense, i think.

So if you have a clear plan in how your suggestion can be used and explained on maps and if it allow you to create, pass me the word, a "specialized" map....well I'm all for it!
The future of mapmaking, on this site, is all based on the specialization. It could be only in this way to not have maps that are nothing more than the copy of a previous one but with different graphics. Conquer Club has always been a special place, where maps were something great to play for their uniqueness (gameplay, graphics, objectives, etc)....if you ask to me if we have something to produce a bit less, well that is standard/classic gameplay maps that play all the same!

Note: sorry for the small digression Sugg Mods, i think it was important to state clear what is the position of the foundry and the blue guys with possible new suggestions.

Back on your current suggestion, if you find a way to make very very clear on the map that conditional borders and bombardments are postponed to next turn and if mapmakers are fine with this additional rule to follow (space is required to do that)...I see nothing to not allow it apart the possible confusion that your suggestion could create. Obviously the last word is always up to bigwham.

[degaston]

I think this is a problem of learning

True. But from my point of view, as Foundry Foreman, it means a cost in time and effort on a long long period. It's up to you to convince me that the benefits are more than the cost.
That's why i said I'm scared if I compare the possible "uses/shades" of this feature and the mess that it could be create. Obviously the final solution for the learning issue should not fall on the mapmakers but, in the same time, I can't ignore it since it's something that happens.

I'm not sure what kind of mess you think this would create. If someone plays a map and doesn't understand the rules, they complain to you? Were you also worried about transformations? Troop quantities that can change at various times throughout the game? Even when it's not your turn and no one attacked you? If anything has the potential to cause a mess, I think it will be that. There should be other ways of solving this than to say that new XML features can't be added because someone might not understand them. First, of course, would be to make sure that the map legend is as clear as possible. Other things that might help include:

• Allow maps to have a separate legend page, or at least a link to a text file, that explains everything in more detail than can be put on a standard map legend.
• Improve the map selection process, so that it's easy for people to see what features a map uses before they start to play it.
• Similar to the Guide Program, have a Help Chat Program that would allow experienced players to answer questions.
• As I said before, allow people to play unrated games so they're not complaining about losing points because of some feature they weren't aware of.

the response has been "we can't make a change just for one map!"

mmmm....that's not my point of view when I have to share my opinion on possible changes. I can't speak for bigwham but I don't think that it reflects his vision as well.
The only point on which I always stress is to not change previous map, so new gameplay features should not change the way we play existing maps, just that.

Instead, if the map shows like a great addition for the site, if it has a compelling gameplay, if it is not just another map to add to the current rooster, well I'm pretty sure that the site is willing to change the code or add a new feature to allow it!
Obviously, while choosing what implement or not, we need to take into consideration and maybe give more importance to a suggestion which can be applied on a larger spectrum of maps.
If you got that answer, i think the meaning is: "in general, if you suggest to add or change something, please do it without have a specific map in mind". It makes sense, i think.

So if you have a clear plan in how your suggestion can be used and explained on maps and if it allow you to create, pass me the word, a "specialized" map....well I'm all for it!

So I shouldn't have a specific map in mind when I make an XML suggestion, but I should have a clear plan for how it can be used and explained?
As I said, in this case I do not have map planned that would use this feature. I'm just suggesting things that I think might be useful to mapmakers in general. How they use them, and how they explain their use, is up to them.

The future of mapmaking, on this site, is all based on the specialization. It could be only in this way to not have maps that are nothing more than the copy of a previous one but with different graphics. Conquer Club has always been a special place, where maps were something great to play for their uniqueness (gameplay, graphics, objectives, etc)....if you ask to me if we have something to produce a bit less, well that is standard/classic gameplay maps that play all the same!

Note: sorry for the small digression Sugg Mods, i think it was important to state clear what is the position of the foundry and the blue guys with possible new suggestions.

Back on your current suggestion, if you find a way to make very very clear on the map that conditional borders and bombardments are postponed to next turn and if mapmakers are fine with this additional rule to follow (space is required to do that)...I see nothing to not allow it apart the possible confusion that your suggestion could create. Obviously the last word is always up to bigwham.

I agree that the site should encourage more specialized maps, and I think the way to do this is to provide more XML features that were not available before. But you can't start the maps until the features have already been implemented, because according to foundry policy, new maps must conform to the existing XML.