[Abandoned] - Chess

[john9blue]

Okay, a few minor changes:

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

-Changed the lighting on the title (I still don't know how the hell he noticed that)
-Made a small version

Any other changes?

[n00blet]

I think it looks great. *Stamp*

[samuelc812]

Without further Ado

wcaclimbing and i deem this map graphically ready, both large and small maps athetics are at a presentable foundry standard and have also satisfied the community at large.



Congratulations

[john9blue]

Awesome... so I guess I'll start the XML sometime soon.

[n00blet]

Awesome... so I guess I'll start the XML sometime soon.

Like, now

[WidowMakers]

Here are some of my thoughts.

• 1) GFX - They look very good and you managed to fit a lot of important text into a good space. The only think I can see is the red dots in the legend are hard to read. and the red and green will be hard for color blind people to differentiate. Maybe a black and white or Triangles and diamonds or other shapes instead.
  2) The legend is sort of hard to understand. I read it a couple times and don't know what PAWN - Go forward 1 or 2 if both are empty means. I mean none of the terts are going to be empty.
  3) Why hold both Kings to win? Why not just one color?

Very good looking map. Should be interesting to play.

WM

[Incandenza]

On the small map, the T in Knight looks a bit weird.

[sully800]

2) The legend is sort of hard to understand. I read it a couple times and don't know what PAWN - Go forward 1 or 2 if both are empty means. I mean none of the terts are going to be empty.

The empty spaces only refer to the pieces on the map, not the players. So if a player is on an empty space it is still empty. A7 can only move forward one space because it is blocked by a rook. F7 can move forward 1 or 2 spaces because F6 and F5 are empty (in terms of chess pieces).

3) Why hold both Kings to win? Why not just one color?

I think the idea is that in a chess game, you start with all of one side so it shouldn't really be the winning condition. Your goal is to capture the opposite king. I do think that holding all of the pieces plus both kings will be too hard, but it makes sense based on the chess theme. Simply holding both kings would also make sense to me but it would be way too easy.

And yeah, the T in Knight on the small map appears to be capitalized. Looking good though!

[john9blue]

Is there a tutorial on here regarding XML? I'm basing mine off the XML from some other maps (it looks easy enough) but do I just copy it into Notepad and save as .xml or what?

[cramill]

Is there a tutorial on here regarding XML? I'm basing mine off the XML from some other maps (it looks easy enough) but do I just copy it into Notepad and save as .xml or what?

That should probably work - if you save it as *.xml it will be an xml file (where * is your file name). There are some text editors out there that do syntax higlighting and stuff that could be usefull, but I don't know what the best editor to write xml in is though...

[samuelc812]

XML Tutorial

[Dexsting]

Could quick Chess questions...can the pieces attack thier same color? Can the pieces attack through other pieces?

[iancanton]

the legend beneath the board says that pieces do not attack other pieces of the same colour and that pieces cannot attack past pieces of either colour, so the answer is no in both cases.

glad to see that we're on the xml now!

ian.

[MrBenn]

2) The legend is sort of hard to understand. I read it a couple times and don't know what PAWN - Go forward 1 or 2 if both are empty means. I mean none of the terts are going to be empty.

Why not reword it to something like "Pawns can advance 1 or 2 spaces unless blocked ( by another piece )"

[n00blet]

2) The legend is sort of hard to understand. I read it a couple times and don't know what PAWN - Go forward 1 or 2 if both are empty means. I mean none of the terts are going to be empty.

Why not reword it to something like "Pawns can advance 1 or 2 spaces unless blocked ( by another piece )"

Because the pieces themselves can't move. I agree, though, that that portion of the legend is a bit hard to understand...One possible rewording:

Pawns can attack the 2 spaces ahead of them, unless blocked (by another piece)

In my understanding, the pawns can always attack the space immediately in front of them, and then one-way attack the space two ahead of them, but only if there is no piece there.

One final thing: are pieces restricted to *only* attacking in the patterns of chess? Or can a pawn, for example, also attack the spaces to either side?

[sully800]

2) The legend is sort of hard to understand. I read it a couple times and don't know what PAWN - Go forward 1 or 2 if both are empty means. I mean none of the terts are going to be empty.

Why not reword it to something like "Pawns can advance 1 or 2 spaces unless blocked ( by another piece )"

Because the pieces themselves can't move. I agree, though, that that portion of the legend is a bit hard to understand...One possible rewording:

Pawns can attack the 2 spaces ahead of them, unless blocked (by another piece)

In my understanding, the pawns can always attack the space immediately in front of them, and then one-way attack the space two ahead of them, but only if there is no piece there.

One final thing: are pieces restricted to *only* attacking in the patterns of chess? Or can a pawn, for example, also attack the spaces to either side?

Pieces are restricted to the attacking patterns of chess. Hence, pawns can only attack forward, not backward or sideways. I'm curious as to why they can't attack diagonally forward? Simply to avoid confusion?

I like n00blet's rewording of the pawn movement. It is definitely more clear in terms of what "unless both are empty" means.

Here's an idea for your bonus legend (feel free to reject it): Write the bonus value to the right of each piece name, for example "Pawn +1" or "Queen +2". The legend is already clear, but I think this change would put the bonus values in a place where it is more expected. It will also save you a line of text from the bottom. In either case I think you should move the text you have at the bottom of the legend to the top, because it gets kind of lost at the moment. So I think you should have Bonus and Movement, then below that "bonuses are autodeployed" and below that the descriptions of each piece.

Also, it seems weird to me that the rook description uses the word "travels" while all the other descriptions say "moves". I would switch the rook description to "moves vertically or horizontally" for uniformity's sake.

Why does the black knight in the legend have a red eye? It looks kind of cool, in a sinister way, but all of the other pieces are just white and black so it looks somewhat out of place.

This may seem like nit picking, but could you add periods to the end of the sentences below the board? Right now it is like a bulleted list, but without bullets or punctuation it seems more confusing than necessary.

Sorry for the big list, you've done a great job!

[captainwalrus]

ok, sorry for not suggesting this earlier and since this has already gotten a gameplay stamp it might be too late, but whatabout a negitive autodeploy on emplty spaces?

[sinctheassasin]

Should have said this earlier, but wouldet it make mire sense for pawns attacking one space diagonally forward? That's how it is in chess. I guess it would be reasonable fir pawns to bombard forward 1 or 2, since it is how
pawns move. Sorry if it's too late to change this now

[n00blet]

Should have said this earlier, but wouldet it make mire sense for pawns attacking one space diagonally forward? That's how it is in chess. I guess it would be reasonable fir pawns to bombard forward 1 or 2, since it is how
pawns move. Sorry if it's too late to change this now

I would agree with you and sully on this, but none of the pawns have opposing pieces in those squares. So, in a real chess game, they wouldn't be able to attack there anyways.

[sinctheassasin]

i guess, but wouldent only some of the pawns be able to attack forward too? it would just be more true to chess if they could bombard forward and attack diagonally...

i dont know, just my two cents

[sully800]

i guess, but wouldent only some of the pawns be able to attack forward too? it would just be more true to chess if they could bombard forward and attack diagonally...

i dont know, just my two cents

I don't think there is any reason to bring bombard into the map. It really doesn't apply to chess at all, because you can't attack something in chess without advancing to the spot. It would add some confusing elements with no real purpose.

I think it's fine that the pawns can only attack forward, especially because it makes things less confusing for non chess players. The gameplay all seems to work well right now, and translates fairly well to a real game of chess. And it's not too confusing!

[Jace22]

seems interesting, looking forward to it.

[sinctheassasin]

i guess, but wouldent only some of the pawns be able to attack forward too? it would just be more true to chess if they could bombard forward and attack diagonally...

i dont know, just my two cents

I don't think there is any reason to bring bombard into the map. It really doesn't apply to chess at all, because you can't attack something in chess without advancing to the spot. It would add some confusing elements with no real purpose.

I think it's fine that the pawns can only attack forward, especially because it makes things less confusing for non chess players. The gameplay all seems to work well right now, and translates fairly well to a real game of chess. And it's not too confusing!

Ok, I'll sit down now

[john9blue]

Sorry, I'm being really lazy with the XML. I'll get it done one of these days.

[MrBenn]

I think there are only a couple of minor amendments to the legend etc to be made - try and get them sorted before working on the XML