Whodunnit? [19 Apr 2014] v10, p10 - Gameplay

[loutil]

Degaston, this is just a reminder to fix the glitch I found with Mr Orange on the Note Pad.

[degaston]

Thanks, I already submitted an updated XML file.

[loutil]

Having played many more games on this map my opinions have changed. It would seem the best path to victory is to control the mansion and basically ignore the police station and note pad. It is too easy to jump from room to room via the hallway. Once you break via the hallway you usually have full control of the game as your opponent now has to play catch up. I see 2 options to fix this if you desire to make the game play more diverse. 1: increase the hallway neutrals or 2: make them reset each round. Technically, in a very long game, one of the weapons could be allowed to stack and eventually go through the police car. But, if you are using the hallways to control your opponent the game is not likely to last long enough for that to matter. Further, it would be counter-productive to use deploy on a weapon when it can be used to launch on an opponents room bonus.

[iancanton]

Just played a complete game on that map and I found it somewhat tedious and very slow to develop. It seems you must conquer an entire room just to do any kind of advancement or growth. With a drop of only 3 this can take many turns even if uncontested.

The slow initial development of the map was somewhat intentional because I wanted to minimize the effect that luck (drop, dice, first move) had on the start of the game.

the initial development, although slow, allows formulation of a plan and does reduce the dependence of the result on first-turn dice. it seems to work rather well.

the notepad bonus of +1 for each suspect, weapon or location is fine, though i favour a sizeable +6 extra bonus (making +9), rather than only +2, for any one set. i want to see the notepad being used in most games and share koontz's concern that the objective will be ignored the vast majority of the time. any one set is logical and within the spirit of the board game.

I agree that having one big bonus for a single notepad set is more in the spirit of the board game, but for the game-play of this map, I think it works better to give out the notepad bonuses in smaller increments. Giving out such a large bonus for one set might make it a game winner by itself, and require opponents to break it or lose. With smaller bonuses, opponents may be able to coexist with each one having a set.

I can find almost no value for the notepad? The guard and police car require you to go through 10 neutrals just to pop out on the map when you can easily launch from a room at no cost.

It would seem the best path to victory is to control the mansion and basically ignore the police station and note pad. It is too easy to jump from room to room via the hallway. Once you break via the hallway you usually have full control of the game as your opponent now has to play catch up. I see 2 options to fix this if you desire to make the game play more diverse. 1: increase the hallway neutrals or 2: make them reset each round.

loutil makes some good points about ignoring the notepad. a +6 bonus for any one set, rather than the existing +2 for each set, creates a fear factor, so that breaking into the police station is a viable plan compared with trying to kill opponents room by room, yet +6 is not necessarily game-winning if u happen to lose all footholds in the mansion.

the basic deployment of 1 for every 6 regions is good. remove the upper limit of 12, since it serves little purpose and adds an unnecessary complication.

I can do that.

this is a minor tweak in the overall scheme of things and can be done easily when u next update the map, possibly at the same time as adding the secret passage killer neutrals, as mentioned below.

One change I would like to make is putting a killer neutral between each of the secret passage connections, so that it was not so common for one player to control opposite corner rooms

for the reason stated, i'm in favour, whether it's a single k3 killer neutral or, more likely for graphical reasons, a k2 for each corner room secret passage door, which gives a total of 4 killer neutral troops between corner rooms.

ian.

[degaston]

I've made an update with the following changes:

1. Suspects now autodeploy 2.
2. Notepad sets now worth 3 each.
3. Added killer 2 secret passage terits to the corners.
4. Increased hallway starting neutrals to 3's
5. Reinforcements are 1 for every 6 terits, min 3. This was already in the version that everyone has been using, but the legend was incorrect. I had intended to fix the legend, but it is still incorrect - I'll fix it later.
6. Note: The changes to the map graphics are quick & dirty, and are not intended to represent the finished map.

Large:

Click image to enlarge.

Small:

Click image to enlarge.

[degaston]

Sorry - this probably broke all of the games in progress.

[robellis00]

I was wondering what was going on! Now I know...
Have you run into any problems with the parachute reinforcements? One of my goals was to see if I could parachute reinforcements from the notepad and eventually got it to work.

[degaston]

I didn't try parachuting from the notepad, but I don't know of any reason why it wouldn't work. I'll check it the next time I play with parachute.

[iancanton]

my theory is that, when u added the 4 new killer regions, u didn't add them to the end of the xml file, but somewhere in the middle, so that the order of regions effectively changed, confusing the game engine. perhaps, if u restore the regions to their original order and move the killer regions to the end, then the existing games will become playable again; the alternative scenario is that, not only do the original games remain unplayable, but the newly-started ones also break.

ian.

[Fuchsia tude]

I just got "Fuchsia tude assaulted Game Room 2 from Bedroom 4 and conquered it from iancanton" in the game log. Is that an XML labelling error, or just a side effect of this XML update?

[degaston]

my theory is that, when u added the 4 new killer regions, u didn't add them to the end of the xml file, but somewhere in the middle, so that the order of regions effectively changed, confusing the game engine. perhaps, if u restore the regions to their original order and move the killer regions to the end, then the existing games will become playable again; the alternative scenario is that, not only do the original games remain unplayable, but the newly-started ones also break.

ian.

I think that's exactly what happened, but I don't think it's worth changing now. All the new games should be correct.

[degaston]

I just got "Fuchsia tude assaulted Game Room 2 from Bedroom 4 and conquered it from iancanton" in the game log. Is that an XML labelling error, or just a side effect of this XML update?

That's probably just a side effect. Let me know if it happens in a game created after the update .

[Fuchsia tude]

The trap door art seems out of perspective. I think it should be shaped

Code: Select all

|\
| \__
 \|__|


instead of

Code: Select all

 /_
|__|


They're roughly in the same relative position in each quadrant, so it could just be a matter of making one and then flipping the icon.

[degaston]

I'll work on improving them after the gameplay is more settled.

Speaking of which, I haven't played many manual, fog games on objective maps, but is it considered a problem if the objective can be taken on the first or second round? (Technically, the 2nd or 3rd because the first round is troop placement.) [Beta Site game 15862205] Does that make it too easy to farm inexperienced players, or is it just "live and learn".

I think I could prevent it by using the XML transformations to start with high neutral values, and then lower them gradually over a few rounds.

Any opinions on this?

[Fuchsia tude]

I'll work on improving them after the gameplay is more settled.

Speaking of which, I haven't played many manual, fog games on objective maps, but is it considered a problem if the objective can be taken on the first or second round? (Technically, the 2nd or 3rd because the first round is troop placement.) [Beta Site game 15862205] Does that make it too easy to farm inexperienced players, or is it just "live and learn".

I think I could prevent it by using the XML transformations to start with high neutral values, and then lower them gradually over a few rounds.

Any opinions on this?

I don't know, that might just be one of the risks of playing manual fog settings. I think it's not a particularly common combination for a reason.

In Game 15858965, I seem to have gotten it into an unplayable state. The last thing I did was try to attack from a room to its notepad line, but every number disappeared from the map and I couldn't select anything from the dropdown box or cancel. My turn just had to expire.

[iancanton]

the gameplay stamp cannot be given for manual if a player has a reasonable chance of taking and holding the objective before his opponent has had a chance to make his first attack. if this happens only because it's a manual fog game and the starting player doesn't have a clear advantage, then the possibility of an initial winning attack is part and parcel of playing manual fog games.

is it worth making it clear in the legend, for example, by stating book him to win!, that holding this region wins the game? it can be interpreted that book him! simply allows u to bombard all detectives. alternatively, we might consider that someone who fails to notice and understand the word objective, unless it's underlined and in bold, deserves to lose.

i have no explanation for the disappearing troop counts, except that the game is one of a number that has been affected by the change in region order in the new xml file; some games have become unplayable.

ian.

[degaston]

the gameplay stamp cannot be given for manual if a player has a reasonable chance of taking and holding the objective before his opponent has had a chance to make his first attack. if this happens only because it's a manual fog game and the starting player doesn't have a clear advantage, then the possibility of an initial winning attack is part and parcel of playing manual fog games.

is it worth making it clear in the legend, for example, by stating book him to win!, that holding this region wins the game? it can be interpreted that book him! simply allows u to bombard all detectives. alternatively, we might consider that someone who fails to notice and understand the word objective, unless it's underlined and in bold, deserves to lose.

i have no explanation for the disappearing troop counts, except that the game is one of a number that has been affected by the change in region order in the new xml file; some games have become unplayable.

ian.

It is theoretically possible to take the objective on the first move, though you would need a good drop and good dice. If you do not drop an entire room, then you'd have to kill some neutrals or opponents to take a room. Then you'd have to kill 37 neutrals, through 4 different paths, to take the 4 territories you'd need for the objective.

To prevent you from winning at the start of your next turn, your opponent would have to have deployed his troops in a way that he can take a room, then a detective, then kill any one of your 4 notepad territories. (probably "Book Him!", as most of your troops would probably be on the detective.) So that stops you from winning on that turn, but you'd still have a nice +5 bonus from the other notepad territories you hold, which, along with your room + 1 detective, and possible region bonus, might be enough to retake the objective, or possibly cripple your opponent and win in a few rounds. So while you may not be able to win on the first round, it is probably a strategy that usually wins, and would make this a very easy map to farm points from inexperienced players.

Increasing the number on neutrals on "Book Him" could make this strategy less successful, but might discourage use of the notepad and win condition in general.

I had initially wanted "Book Him" to be a killer neutral, as described in this thread, but despite this suggestion having been submitted almost 2 years ago, I haven't heard of any progress being made.

Another feature that could help is Conditional Bombardments, which was supposed to have been submitted 3 years ago. Again, no apparent progress.

Neither one of these changes should be difficult to code. Is there any way that they can be fast-tracked?

[ManBungalow]

I had initially wanted "Book Him" to be a killer neutral, as described in this thread, but despite this suggestion having been submitted almost 2 years ago, I haven't heard of any progress being made.

Another feature that could help is Conditional Bombardments, which was supposed to have been submitted 3 years ago. Again, no apparent progress.

Neither one of these changes should be difficult to code. Is there any way that they can be fast-tracked?

For the killer neutral idea, I don't think there's a way of doing that yet.

However, I think conditional bombardment can be done using Transformations - viewtopic.php?f=102&t=183876&start=15#p4397767

Would you have it so like "IF player controls region X, then region Y can bombard Z" ??

[degaston]

I had initially wanted "Book Him" to be a killer neutral, as described in this thread, but despite this suggestion having been submitted almost 2 years ago, I haven't heard of any progress being made.

Another feature that could help is Conditional Bombardments, which was supposed to have been submitted 3 years ago. Again, no apparent progress.

Neither one of these changes should be difficult to code. Is there any way that they can be fast-tracked?

For the killer neutral idea, I don't think there's a way of doing that yet.

However, I think conditional bombardment can be done using Transformations - viewtopic.php?f=102&t=183876&start=15#p4397767

Would you have it so like "IF player controls region X, then region Y can bombard Z" ??

I know there was concern that a change to killer neutrals might affect existing maps, but my XML Version tag suggestion would have allowed it without causing problems, and it makes sense to add versioning before any future xml changes.

Unless there are capabilities that aren't shown in the specification, then I don't see anything about transformations that could be used to control what territories can attack or bombard each other. It only seems to be for changing the number of troops on a territory.

Or were you talking about adding it as a part of transformations? If so, please don't. The implementation of transformations is awkward, confusing and doesn't match the style of the rest of the XML. It should be fixed before anyone uses it in a map.

Conditional bombardments should work exactly like conditional borders. If both are specified between the same two territories, then border conditions should take precedence over bombardment conditions.

[Fuchsia tude]

I mentioned this in another game, but might as well copy it here for public comment.

I've played a lot of games and I feel like it's excessively difficult to break the victory condition. Moreover, in Fog games, you can't even see Book Him unless you own a dectective of your own AND a full triad (one each of room, weapon, and suspect).

I propose making Detective -> Book Him a one-way attack, not conditional. Victory would still require possesion of Book Him + a full triad.

I don't think this would make victory any easier to achieve; taking Book Him before a triad A) telegraphs your plan and B) is no faster than the reverse. It just makes it easier to stop an objective holder, and makes it simpler in fog games to see that someone is a turn away from winning.

[degaston]

I mentioned this in another game, but might as well copy it here for public comment.

I've played a lot of games and I feel like it's excessively difficult to break the victory condition. Moreover, in Fog games, you can't even see Book Him unless you own a dectective of your own AND a full triad (one each of room, weapon, and suspect).

I propose making Detective -> Book Him a one-way attack, not conditional. Victory would still require possesion of Book Him + a full triad.

I don't think this would make victory any easier to achieve; taking Book Him before a triad A) telegraphs your plan and B) is no faster than the reverse. It just makes it easier to stop an objective holder, and makes it simpler in fog games to see that someone is a turn away from winning.

I agree that it's a problem, but I'm not entirely happy with your solution. In "Clue", you have to know all three categories before you can make an accusation, so conceptually, it doesn't make much sense to be able to take "Book him" without holding all three categories. I didn't want "Book him" to be too easy to take because as it is now, it can bombard all detectives. I could remove that capability, but then it can't attack anything. I'd like it to have some use other than just as part of the objective, but what?

I'd prefer it if the detectives could bombard "Book Him" if you hold one or two categories, and attack if you hold all three, but you can't have conditional bombardments, or a territory that can both bombard and attack, depending on some condition.

I'd also prefer it if "Book him" was a killer neutral, so that if the player loses any of the categories, then he would also lose "Book him" on his next turn, but you can't have a killer neutral as part of a bonus.

[degaston]

I could potentially kluge it by allowing detectives to bombard "Book him", and vice versa, and adding a killer neutral "Warrant" territory that attacks "Book him", and can be attacked from a detective if the player holds all 3 categories. "Book him" could be set to only a single neutral at the start, and Warrant could be KN 15 or some other value.

It's not ideal, but it would be close to what I had initially wanted.

[Fuchsia tude]

I could potentially kluge it by allowing detectives to bombard "Book him", and vice versa, and adding a killer neutral "Warrant" territory that attacks "Book him", and can be attacked from a detective if the player holds all 3 categories. "Book him" could be set to only a single neutral at the start, and Warrant could be KN 15 or some other value.

It's not ideal, but it would be close to what I had initially wanted.

I like it. Solves just about all the problems at once.

[iancanton]

it's certainly worth a try. u can even reduce warrant's neutrals from k15, given that book him! is much more vulnerable to bombardment now.

u can also use the opportunity to align the legend with the facts. no need to be especially neat at the moment; just ensure that the legend means what it says, for the benefit of the testers.

when adding warrant, doing so at the end (or close to the end) of the file will minimise disruption to test games that are in progress (not that there are many of those just now, which makes it a good time to update the xml).

ian.

[degaston]

it's certainly worth a try. u can even reduce warrant's neutrals from k15, given that book him! is much more vulnerable to bombardment now.

u can also use the opportunity to align the legend with the facts. no need to be especially neat at the moment; just ensure that the legend means what it says, for the benefit of the testers.

when adding warrant, doing so at the end (or close to the end) of the file will minimise disruption to test games that are in progress (not that there are many of those just now, which makes it a good time to update the xml).

ian.

I'm working on it. I have some other changes that I started a while ago that I'm putting in. It's a nuisance doing both sizes.