XML Suggestions and Modifications II

[Riskismy]

Time in the Foundry is a stretchy concept.

No, I meant for the implementation of the new XML tags. I'm not sure if anything else has been done over the past 2 years, but it seems like a long time with little progress to me.

[natty dread]

There have been several XML updates during the last year or so.

But in general, they are few and far between... they require a large amount of work to implement, so I wouldn't expect them to become more common any time soon.

[Riskismy]

There have been several XML updates during the last year or so.

Ah. I see the Losing Conditions / Requirements was added late last year. My sincerest apologies.

[TheSaxlad]

Ok,

This has come up in a game of wwII whatever it is that requires you to capture the capitals, but it would also apply to those other ones 3rd Crusade etc.

Could it be written into the XML that when a team game is on and the team has all win conditions captured then the game ends? Possibly the turn after the last one was captured. So.

Team 1:
A
B
C
D

Team 2:
E
F
G
H

EFGH all have one win condition each, but H was the last to get his win condition so as the turns go round C manages to wrestle a win condition off E, therefore Team 2 dont win.

E on his next turn gets it back, and all 4 team 2 players still have theirs when it gets back round to e's turn. Therefore team 2 win.

Plus its not as if it would be detrimental to singles because you would still have the singles play as 1st person to get the win condition as per usual.

Could it be done? Is it done?

Thanks

TSL

[natty dread]

Objectives are like bonuses, one person needs to hold them.

I for one don't see any reason why that should change. Implementing it would be problematic, it would require the game engine to "remember" whose turn the objectives were fulfilled on... it would also cause confusion to players, when they would not be sure which turn the objective kicks in... especially in fog games.

[MrBenn]

This would require a new change to the XML... I think it's been suggested before, but I will merge this in with the XML suggestions and modification thread in any case

[merged]

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

There have been several XML updates during the last year or so.

But in general, they are few and far between... they require a large amount of work to implement, so I wouldn't expect them to become more common any time soon.

Granted some may require a large amount of work to implement, such as Losing Conditions, but others I would be surprised if there's THAT much work to make happen. The best example I can think of would be the decay to neutral suggestion. I may be missing something with this one, but I wouldn't expect it to be a whole lot harder than copying and pasting the current autodeploy code, find and replacing the tag name, and making a tweak to the code to change it to neutral once it gets to <1. Sure, there'd be some beta testing to happen after that, but I'd think that's the kind of thing that could be slipped in when there's another update of some sort being tested.

I think the main problem is that Lack is just so overrun by everything he needs to do (here on CC and I suspect more so with other areas of Salamander Software) that he rarely gets the chance to make updates. I'll be quite happy when he finally gets around to finding a competent web developer that actually sticks around. Unfortunately, I realize that's a lot easier said than done.

[Teflon Kris]

Suggestion Idea: Map Specific Battle Terminology

Description: Tags that determine how in-game action is described in the log. This would be an optional feature - standard terms could be selected by players (to avoid newbie confusion) in the same way that map size can be selected.

Thus, on global, or WWII maps, the game log may state: "Dave deployed 12 units in India".
Similarly, on ancient maps: "Dave deployed 6 warriors in Pontus"
On Lunar War: "Dave deployed 5 astrotroops on ..."
On Poker Club: "Dave dropped 7 chips on ..."
On Haloween Hallows: "Dave summoned 4 ghouls and sent them forth on ..."
etc.

Why It Should Be Considered: This would add extra flavour and realism to players' experience and increase the uniqueness of many maps (e.g. madness / soports maps / board game maps).

[OliverFA]

Suggestion Idea: Limit settings for the map

Description: Instead of allowing any possible setting to be choosen for the map, limit it to the ones listed in the XML. If the tag does not appear, then any setting can be used.

Why It Should Be Considered: Some settings would make for a very interesting map, but the need to make the map playble with all settings make them impossible. A couple of examples:

- A map that revolved around the concept of FoW, designed to be played specifically with FoW would be ruined when the fog is lifted.
- An objective map is usually ruined when playing in assassin.
- Likewise, a map designed for the assassin setting would play really odd with standard settings.
- And so on.

The result would be to expand mapmakers creativity and have more unique maps

[Riskismy]

I love it! Would make it so much easier to have not just special maps, but special gameplay on otherwise bland maps as well!

[Evil DIMwit]

Suggestion Idea: Unnukable territories

Description: Let there be a set of territories that cannot be nuked by spoils.

Why It Should Be Considered: Some territories are so important that losing them randomly would be seriously devastating for the player who holds them. This wouldn't be too hard, would it?

[ender516]

Suggestion Idea: Unnukable territories

Description: Let there be a set of territories that cannot be nuked by spoils.

Why It Should Be Considered: Some territories are so important that losing them randomly would be seriously devastating for the player who holds them. This wouldn't be too hard, would it?

That could be important in games with losing conditions.

[TaCktiX]

That could be important in games with losing conditions.

By george you're right. R&C will be absolutely retarded in Nuclear, as people can nuke away researches.

[Victor Sullivan]

That could be important in games with losing conditions.

By george you're right. R&C will be absolutely retarded in Nuclear, as people can nuke away researches.

Haha, didn't think about that Anywho:



Suggestion: Triggers (essentially conditional everything)

Description: Basically, hold X to activate Y. This can account for autodeploys, killer neutrals, (maybe even winning/losing conditions) etc. Obviously territories can have multiple features, so the function being triggered would have to be specified in the XML as well as the territory.

Why It Should Be Considered: The possibilities are endless... My mouth is just watering from the thought...

[OliverFA]

Suggestion: Triggers (essentially conditional everything)

Description: Basically, hold X to activate Y. This can account for autodeploys, killer neutrals, (maybe even winning/losing conditions) etc. Obviously territories can have multiple features, so the function being triggered would have to be specified in the XML as well as the territory.

Why It Should Be Considered: The possibilities are endless... My mouth is just watering from the thought...

This suggestion is like the existing one about if...then statements, but I like yours more. if...then don't really fit the nature of the XML language. But triggers really fit well in XML and as you say, the possibilities would be endless.

If it's too difficult to implement, it could be implemented by phases. First implement trigger for bonus, second implement trigger for borders, etc. etc.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

That could be important in games with losing conditions.

By george you're right. R&C will be absolutely retarded in Nuclear, as people can nuke away researches.

I never thought about that. Heck, nevermind researches, people could just nuke the one capital someone owns in a 4-6 player game. I think unnukable territories would be a really good thing, but I doubt it's gonna be implemented in time for R&C. Hopefully it'll be around once the second R&C map is made, presuming it gets done.

[MrBenn]

nukes add a bit of variety to maps with losing conditions, that's for sure... I was playing a doubles nukes game with nobodies80 on Middle Ages, and had some very fortuitous cards while on a cashing-in extravaganza (which normally only happen in escalating)!

[natty dread]

Perhaps lack should just plain add a rule in the game engine that territories that are part of losing conditions don't get given out as cards in nuclear games...

[Riskismy]

Perhaps lack should just plain add a rule in the game engine that territories that are part of losing conditions don't get given out as cards in nuclear games...

Sounds like an easy fix. Got my vote.

[Victor Sullivan]

Suggestion: Neutral-Connected Bonus

Description: Basically, receive a bonus of X if Territory Y is neutral.

Why It Should Be Considered: Firstly, I thought of it to be a way of getting players to move outside of potentially "comfortable" starting positions. For example, the other players' bonuses could be connected to the territory (we'll call this "Territory W") just outside of your "comfort zone". Such as, if Territory W is neutral, than your opponents' bonuses are active.

In addition, this adds a fantastic ability to killer neutrals. Suppose Territory Z is killer neutral, and suppose your bonus is dependent on Territory Z's being neutral. An opponent can sweep in and take the neutral to break you - but only for a turn. This might be nice for easily defensible coastal bonus areas - have a connected (relatively high) killer neutral in the center.

I realize this is a rather odd suggestion but I nonetheless think it would be a great asset and open up many doors in CC mapmaking.

[random num2]

Perhaps we could create even more interesting maps by adding a possible "Defense bonus" tag to the territory. Theoretically, the territory would have a defense bonus due to natural defenses or height.
Just an idea.

[theBastard]

nothing new, it was in debate here, but how it looks with conditional autodeploys? this could be something what can balance gameplay - we have much conditions for manual deploy (also negative) but no one for autodeploy.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I'm not sure if conditional autodeploys are going to be part of the new XML updates that are coming as the next site update. I hope they are, as they would add a lot to the site and should be easy enough to code in. If they're not part of the XML update this time around, then I wouldnt' hold your breath as based on current track records it may be another 2-3 years before they have another shot at making it in.

I have hopes that all of the long awaited basic features that have been discussed for a while (Conditional AutoDeploys, Decay to Neutral, and the fog ones being the main ones with conditional borders being a hopeful) will be implemented, but I don't know that any of them will be for sure.

[MrBenn]

Abandon all hope ye who enter here...

[ender516]

Gee, he takes off the blue suede shoes and he gets all cynical.