Das Schloß [QUENCHED #2]

[cairnswk]

Still 31 games being player out.

It's moving....now down to 27.

[barterer2002]

Are they legitimate ends or are they "I'm sick of playing a game that will never end" endings.

[cairnswk]

Are they legitimate ends or are they "I'm sick of playing a game that will never end" endings.

Who cares. It's moving!

[max is gr8]

Das Schloss: you give a bonus for holding 18, but I count 19 territories. Intentional? Mistake? Heli-pad doesn't count? I'm miscounting?

Helipad returns neutral so bonuses can't be earned for it. 18 is correct. And do you have an obsession with adding hyphens in the wrong place

[cairnswk]

Das Schloss: you give a bonus for holding 18, but I count 19 territories. Intentional? Mistake? Heli-pad doesn't count? I'm miscounting?

Helipad returns neutral so bonuses can't be earned for it. 18 is correct. And do you have an obsession with adding hyphens in the wrong place

Dislexic fingers on the keyboard

[sam_levi_11]

your teling me

[max is gr8]

Lol, sam I'm hoping you saying teling instead of telling was on purpose

[blakebowling]

this thread has been moved back to the Main Foundry at the mapmaker's request.

Poll results:

Should this map be objective only; or objective but allow for terminator and assassin games?

Objective Only - No terminator or assassin games allowed: 57 votes, 61%

Objective but also allows terminator or assassin games: 35 votes, 38%

Assassin games are still possible to win without holding the objective, as your opponent won't necessarily have an un-conquerable territory.

[Blitzaholic]

Right now I'm against it, but with some work that opinion might change.

yeah, again too much thinking and reading involved for many cc players, keep em more simpler perhaps

[cairnswk]

Right now I'm against it, but with some work that opinion might change.

yeah, again too much thinking and reading involved for many cc players, keep em more simpler perhaps

Are you speaking on behalf of all CC players. I doubt it! Or is this simply a request coming from Blitzaholic.

[pamoa]

Should this map be objective only;
or objective but allow for terminator and assassin games?

Objective Only - No terminator or assassin games allowed: 57 votes, 61%
Objective but also allows terminator or assassin games: 35 votes, 38%

Assassin games are still possible to win without holding the objective, as your opponent won't necessarily have an un-conquerable territory.

That was the point as parachute droping point are now un-conquerable and would remain so as voters says!

[barterer2002]

So I guess my question at this point is in the end what has changed. There are a number of visual changes and some killer neutrals but in the end, if you've got an 8 player escalating game and you have to hold the the objectives for an entire turn through your opponents I'm not sure that there is anything that has really changed from a game play perspective. Its possible, of course, that I'm missing something

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

So I guess my question at this point is in the end what has changed. There are a number of visual changes and some killer neutrals but in the end, if you've got an 8 player escalating game and you have to hold the the objectives for an entire turn through your opponents I'm not sure that there is anything that has really changed from a game play perspective. Its possible, of course, that I'm missing something

I can't see how an escalating game would finish either (assuming a reasonable level of player competency)

[yeti_c]

So I guess my question at this point is in the end what has changed. There are a number of visual changes and some killer neutrals but in the end, if you've got an 8 player escalating game and you have to hold the the objectives for an entire turn through your opponents I'm not sure that there is anything that has really changed from a game play perspective. Its possible, of course, that I'm missing something

I can't see how an escalating game would finish either (assuming a reasonable level of player competency)

If you assume that then you could assume that people would realise that escalating = bad on this map?

C.

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

I can't see how an escalating game would finish either (assuming a reasonable level of player competency)

If you assume that then you could assume that people would realise that escalating = bad on this map?

C.

It's unfortunately not as simple as that - I joined my stalemated game as part of a tourney - so just blindly joined like the vast majority would. There is also a tendency to "play a quick esc" on each new map that comes out - as it has so far been assumed that a standard escalating game is (unlikely) to stalemate.

Most other settings that players "should have known better about" lead to lopsided quick wins... the opposite is the case here, where literally the only way for my current game (as well as any esc games on the revised map too) to end is either deadbeating or collusion.

[yeti_c]

I can't see how an escalating game would finish either (assuming a reasonable level of player competency)

If you assume that then you could assume that people would realise that escalating = bad on this map?

C.

It's unfortunately not as simple as that - I joined my stalemated game as part of a tourney - so just blindly joined like the vast majority would. There is also a tendency to "play a quick esc" on each new map that comes out - as it has so far been assumed that a standard escalating game is (unlikely) to stalemate.

Most other settings that players "should have known better about" lead to lopsided quick wins... the opposite is the case here, where literally the only way for my current game (as well as any esc games on the revised map too) to end is either deadbeating or collusion.

Whilst I agree - I also would hate to see the 1 unique selling point of this map ruined because it doesn't work with escalating cards.

C.

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

Whilst I agree - I also would hate to see the 1 unique selling point of this map ruined because it doesn't work with escalating cards.

C.

ditto - it's a real tough conundrum this one!

[yeti_c]

FWIW...

The original.xml had 2 "non neutral" territories - (Which is an error)
Haupstitz A
K5

Might want to check this got flowed through into the new XML.

C.

[barterer2002]

Its not really a tough conundrum. the solution is to make the map remain objective but to cause the game to end when the objectives are all held. Not until your next turn but held at all at the end of your turn (or the start of the next person's turn). The thing that makes the map unplayable in an escalating game (particularly with large numbers of players) is that objectives can't be held through 7 turns of opponents. They are possible to grab (although that can still be difficult) but at the moment there is no reason to try to make a mass run at a target because the only way for the game to end is for the other players to allow it. Instead, if the objective was to grab the territories it would still be objective based and would be playable in all formats.

[yeti_c]

Its not really a tough conundrum. the solution is to make the map remain objective but to cause the game to end when the objectives are all held. Not until your next turn but held at all at the end of your turn (or the start of the next person's turn). The thing that makes the map unplayable in an escalating game (particularly with large numbers of players) is that objectives can't be held through 7 turns of opponents. They are possible to grab (although that can still be difficult) but at the moment there is no reason to try to make a mass run at a target because the only way for the game to end is for the other players to allow it. Instead, if the objective was to grab the territories it would still be objective based and would be playable in all formats.

But that is not a viable solution at the moment - as it's not possible with the current game engine.

C.

[cairnswk]

Still 17 active games running.

[barterer2002]

Its not really a tough conundrum. the solution is to make the map remain objective but to cause the game to end when the objectives are all held. Not until your next turn but held at all at the end of your turn (or the start of the next person's turn). The thing that makes the map unplayable in an escalating game (particularly with large numbers of players) is that objectives can't be held through 7 turns of opponents. They are possible to grab (although that can still be difficult) but at the moment there is no reason to try to make a mass run at a target because the only way for the game to end is for the other players to allow it. Instead, if the objective was to grab the territories it would still be objective based and would be playable in all formats.

But that is not a viable solution at the moment - as it's not possible with the current game engine.

C.

Clearly I don't understand how the game engine works. I'm not trying to be stubborn, just trying to find a workable solution and since I don't fully understand this problem maybe I'll just pose my thoughts and you can explain how it won't work.

My understanding is that the game engine looks for circumstances at two times during a turn. 1). At the beginning of the turn it looks to see if Player A is holding certain bonuses etc. Presumably it is this part of the programming that objective based wins work off of and where we'd expect that the conditions of this map would also check. Similarly I am working on the assumption that you can not check to see if Player B, C, D or E has reached certain objectives at this time either. 2). Midturn-at this point the game engine check to determine whether a player who has just had a tert taken has any terts left or if they have been eliminated. Is it possible at this point to look, not at the opponent but at the territory. Or is it unable to be map specific on that and it would slow down the game throughout the site unnecessarily?

[Incandenza]

I also would hate to see the 1 unique selling point of this map ruined because it doesn't work with escalating cards.

C.

I don't think it's just an issue with escalating. Again, if we're going to assume a modicum of player competence, then I'm not convinced that ANY 6-8 player singles game will ever end save through collusion or deadbeating. This may also hold true for 6 and 8 player dubs games as well.

No map can be perfect for all settings, but this might be pushing it, which is why I haven't commented at all on new bonuses and map layout and what not. Once the vote went through to keep the core "players can't be killed" concept, I have to say that I kind of gave up on the map, despite my early support for it before its initial launch.

[yeti_c]

Clearly I don't understand how the game engine works. I'm not trying to be stubborn, just trying to find a workable solution and since I don't fully understand this problem maybe I'll just pose my thoughts and you can explain how it won't work.

My understanding is that the game engine looks for circumstances at two times during a turn. 1). At the beginning of the turn it looks to see if Player A is holding certain bonuses etc. Presumably it is this part of the programming that objective based wins work off of and where we'd expect that the conditions of this map would also check. Similarly I am working on the assumption that you can not check to see if Player B, C, D or E has reached certain objectives at this time either. 2). Midturn-at this point the game engine check to determine whether a player who has just had a tert taken has any terts left or if they have been eliminated. Is it possible at this point to look, not at the opponent but at the territory. Or is it unable to be map specific on that and it would slow down the game throughout the site unnecessarily?

You're not listening... Yes all of the above *could* be done - if Lack wrote some code... however - as Lack hasn't offered any changes of the like above - then it won't happen...

Also - you're missing the bigger picture - the Objectives win isn't just limited to this map - so your above changes would affect other maps - where the "hold for 1 turn" (Just like any continent bonus) is evaluated at the beginning of your turn.

It makes sense for the Objective to have to be held for a turn - in fact - this harks back to the board game - with Mission cards you had to hold the mission for a turn and at the beginning of your next turn - declare your win.

C.

[yeti_c]

I also would hate to see the 1 unique selling point of this map ruined because it doesn't work with escalating cards.

C.

I don't think it's just an issue with escalating. Again, if we're going to assume a modicum of player competence, then I'm not convinced that ANY 6-8 player singles game will ever end save through collusion or deadbeating. This may also hold true for 6 and 8 player dubs games as well.

No map can be perfect for all settings, but this might be pushing it, which is why I haven't commented at all on new bonuses and map layout and what not. Once the vote went through to keep the core "players can't be killed" concept, I have to say that I kind of gave up on the map, despite my early support for it before its initial launch.

You could be right here - perhaps limiting this map to less than 6 players might be the only way? -> However leave it open for Quads & Trips - as that's essentially like 1v1 - so a team would be able to win that.

C.