XML Modifications and Variations

[yeti_c]

Coleman? Do we want to group them?

Look at cairn's post. My understanding is that he wants grouping.

Cairns starting technique would be acheivable with my <start> tags...

i.e. the bottom left group are <start> tags...
the rest are just normal
and the other territories are all neutral.

C.

[yeti_c]

PS - I forgot to say - we love you Lack... great news that the XML is imminent...

This means we can release the shackles on Iraq & Supermax...

Also - we can rewrite Conquerman & AOM to be quicker...

Super sweet...

Can we have an approximate ETA on this - so I can shedule in time to

a) rewrite AOM
b) modify BOB

C.

[Coleman]

By tagging the starting position on each territory you lose the ability to group them.

If you want to be able to specify starting armies > 3 we could do something like this:

Code: Select all

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory strat="6">territ 1</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 2</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 3</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory strat="6">territ 4</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 5</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 6</territory>
   </position>
</positions>

That would work, I don't care about the start or 'strat' so much, but if other people want it and it isn't hard...

The tricky part is if we set one position to have like 5 territories and another to have say 2, we still need both players to have the same amount of territories in the end.

[yeti_c]

By tagging the starting position on each territory you lose the ability to group them.

If you want to be able to specify starting armies > 3 we could do something like this:

Code: Select all

<positions>
   <position>
      <territory strat="6">territ 1</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 2</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 3</territory>
   </position>
   <position>
      <territory strat="6">territ 4</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 5</territory>
      <territory strat="6">territ 6</territory>
   </position>
</positions>

That would work, I don't care about the start or 'strat' so much, but if other people want it and it isn't hard...

The tricky part is if we set one position to have like 5 territories and another to have say 2, we still need both players to have the same amount of territories in the end.

That will be upto Lack to sort out in the coding...

C.

[Coleman]

Also with positions could we do a <positions count="2"> where count is a tag for how many people are playing. So we can have it be different for each count or maybe not have a positions for some counts?

[yeti_c]

My only problem with "positions" like this is that we really have to get a handle on balance better...

AOM:Might was so unbalanced at the start - but we didn't realise - with this sort of stuff in then we'd be practically running the game ourselves... we have to get this right!!

C.

[DiM]

My only problem with "positions" like this is that we really have to get a handle on balance better...

2 words come in mind. testing facility

[yeti_c]

My only problem with "positions" like this is that we really have to get a handle on balance better...

2 words come in mind. testing facility

Testing facility won't work for this though...

Only huge amounts of playtesting would work... 2 or 3 games are good for checking the code is correct...

But gameplay balance like this would need much more work...

C.

[DiM]

My only problem with "positions" like this is that we really have to get a handle on balance better...

2 words come in mind. testing facility

Testing facility won't work for this though...

Only huge amounts of playtesting would work... 2 or 3 games are good for checking the code is correct...

But gameplay balance like this would need much more work...

C.

testing facility would be exactly for play testing the game in as many games as possible.
for AoM i played more than 50 games with my friends before it was released and i tried all kinds of games from teams to asassin.

but those 50 games took a lot of time. if i had the possibility to play on CC on a map as many times as i want i could iron out all the flaws in a gameplay. i would host games for my maps in all stages of development and after each update to make sure it's perfect.

that's what i want in a testing facility. the possibility to play unranked games whenever i want on a map that's still in production.

of course this requires lack to delete lots of games and upload images and xmls whenever it's needed.

[gimil]

My only problem with "positions" like this is that we really have to get a handle on balance better...

2 words come in mind. testing facility

Testing facility won't work for this though...

Only huge amounts of playtesting would work... 2 or 3 games are good for checking the code is correct...

But gameplay balance like this would need much more work...

C.

testing facility would be exactly for play testing the game in as many games as possible.
for AoM i played more than 50 games with my friends before it was released and i tried all kinds of games from teams to asassin.

but those 50 games took a lot of time. if i had the possibility to play on CC on a map as many times as i want i could iron out all the flaws in a gameplay. i would host games for my maps in all stages of development and after each update to make sure it's perfect.

that's what i want in a testing facility. the possibility to play unranked games whenever i want on a map that's still in production.

of course this requires lack to delete lots of games and upload images and xmls whenever it's needed.

unless CA where given some privlages

[Coleman]

We'd need harsh controls on it. I don't freemiums getting in and playing infinite games for no good reason. I can't say a testing area is to-do or not, but we've thrown the idea around and argued it a bit.

That isn't what this topic needs to be about though. So just waiting for lack to get back to our suggestions on positions I think.

[DiM]

We'd need harsh controls on it. I don't freemiums getting in and playing infinite games for no good reason. I can't say a testing area is to-do or not, but we've thrown the idea around and argued it a bit.

That isn't what this topic needs to be about though. So just waiting for lack to get back to our suggestions on positions I think.

the testing games would be private games available only for certain hand picked people. the map maker, and cartography CAs probably.

so only the right people would play.

plus since it will probably be about testing and stuff they'll probably be kinda nasty games.

like those i played with yeti to test bob. take those bonuses, attack that part, see if collection works. stuff like that. not much fun. i doubt anybody would abuse this feature to play free games.

[Coleman]

On that point it might be just as useful to let these test games have the same person be multiple players.

[DiM]

On that point it might be just as useful to let these test games have the same person be multiple players.

yes for testing purely the xml one person is enough but for gameplay testing more persons are needed to ensure more playing styles. plus if there are more persons experiencing live that game they can come up with better solutions than a paerson playng alone.

believe me i've tried playing as several players to test my maps at home and it was crappy.

[Coleman]

Well, that really needs to be it's own topic. Sorry for taking things off topic like this...

As far as xml goes is there anything more to say in response to the lack posts?

[cairnswk]

Coleman? Do we want to group them?

Look at cairn's post. My understanding is that he wants grouping.

Lack...sorry but have just woken up....

This is what i would like to be able to do....no i don't want grouping. This is simply a means of stipulating a territory as a starting position for each player, now that we have 8 player games.
I guess it would be like having 8 lanes on circus maximus, with one each starting position and all the others started as neutrals. I know this is possible doing it Dim's way in AoR:Magic, but that way doesn't allow for other terts to be started without getting that randomisation.

<territory>
<name>Smith</name>
<borders>
<border>Smith A</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
<smallx>83</smallx>
<smally>242</smally>
<largex>106</largex>
<largey>301</largey>
</coordinates>
<player = "1">3</player>
</territory>

<name>Jones</name>
<borders>
<border>Jones A</border>
</borders>
<coordinates>
<smallx>83</smallx>
<smally>252</smally>
<largex>106</largex>
<largey>311</largey>
</coordinates>
<player = "2">3</player>
</territory>
....
<player = "3">3</player>
.....

etc.... up to 8 players.

This will simply allow:
1. terts to be identified as a starting position for each player with the xml coder will be able to stipulate an even distribution (it doesn't matter if there is no-one playing on several of these starting terts in a two player game.
2. a continent of terts so that each tert would start as player 1, 2, 3 or 4 etc (if that were needed)

I hope that i explained that well.

[yeti_c]

That looks to be what I suggested - instead of actually specifying player A starts here - you can just have a two step random process...

Some terits have <start> tags - these are randomly assigned first.

Some terits are normal - these are assigned next

Some terits are <neutral> - these aren't assigned!

C.

[Coleman]

I think we were just talking about something just like that, but your way would be another way to implement it.

[yeti_c]

I think we were just talking about something just like that, but your way would be another way to implement it.

I think we either go for the more simpler <start> tags...

Or the more complex

Code: Select all

<position>
  <components>
    <component>A</component>
  </components>
</position>


Version...

Do we really need the extra? or do we just want the simple?

Leaving it simple means it will be easier to balance than if we have set starting positions... which might be what Lack is looking for.

C.

[cairnswk]

Make it simple as possible so that everyone can understand the xml and logic.

Sorry guys i gotta run off to work again.

[Night Strike]

I am definitely not an XML guru, but I'm trying to pick up on what's going on in order to work on it in the future. From my point of view, yeti's idea is the best for a new person to grasp. The logic of the <start>, (nothing), and <neutral> tags makes the most since to a lay person. Keep the XML codes as simple as possible because I doubt yeti and others will be around as long as this site is, but new maps will still need to be made.

[Coleman]

lanyards is younger then us (yeti and I).

[gimil]

lanyards is younger then us (yeti and I).

and the kid has heart and potential

[lanyards]

lanyards is younger then us (yeti and I).

and the kid has heart and potential

Thanks, I really appreciate your support. I'll probably be here for a few years, but then high school and collage will get in the way.

[Coleman]

but then high school and collage will get in the way.

That's what they try to teach you all the time it takes you to get there, and then you just discover you slack off even more.