Moderator: Cartographers
Agreed edbeard...what the xml has done is take 4 starting areas of 8 players each and allocated 6 players 5 places each with two neutrals.edbeard wrote:Game 2485221
looks like there's a problem in the starting areas coding.
Some players are getting 2 of the parachute territories to start.

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:Congratz on another wonderful map (although I still haven't figured out if I can win from 2nd in seq 1v1s).
One small xml bug though (so far):
Markt can be attacked by, but cannot attack Wache dim
Terminator and Assassin games just become regular "objective" games. Lack didn't want to specifically hard code those variations not playable at this time.kletka wrote:Game 2485913 is listed as assassin. This map should not allow assassin as the game will last forever
I guess it is all right with terminator but this becomes dodgy in assassinAndyDufresne wrote: Terminator and Assassin games just become regular "objective" games. Lack didn't want to specifically hard code those variations not playable at this time.
--Andy
QFT, 'cause no matter what you do, the other guy's gonna get 11 armies at least.BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:Congratz on another wonderful map (although I still haven't figured out if I can win from 2nd in seq 1v1s).
Well it seems it is not fair....lackattack wrote:Didn't anyone read the XML tutorial!?cairnswk wrote:Thanks lackattack.
Howver, we have a bigger challenge in this map.
Agreed edbeard...what the xml has done is take 4 starting areas of 8 starting positions each and allocated 6 players 5 places each with two neutrals.cairnswk wrote:edbeard wrote:Game 2485221
looks like there's a problem in the starting areas coding.
Some players are getting 2 of the parachute territories to start.
I believe this might have something to do with the way the starting positions are written, contacting lackattack now.
Do you know of any solutions to this?
The 8 positions that start on the bottom right of the map need to be only allocated to 1 player each.
Would it work if those territories were removed from the starting positions code?
Unfortunately i have to get to RL work, so will have to attend to this later.
Thanks guys.I'm not sure how to limit it to 1 position each. But the engine should either allocate 1 each or 2 each or 3 each, never 2 to some people and only 1 to others. So it should be fair at leastXML Tutorial wrote:So in the above example we have 12 start positions. In a game players will get one or more of these depending on how many people are playing and the rest of the territories are distributed normally.


It doesn't matter - no-one can be assassinated - however the game can still end by gaining an objective.kletka wrote:I guess it is all right with terminator but this becomes dodgy in assassinAndyDufresne wrote: Terminator and Assassin games just become regular "objective" games. Lack didn't want to specifically hard code those variations not playable at this time.
--Andy

yes seems so.yeti_c wrote:Hang on here Cairns - I think we've got a misunderstanding...
C.

We are reading from the same page now... see my PM for a fix.cairnswk wrote:yes seems so.yeti_c wrote:Hang on here Cairns - I think we've got a misunderstanding...
C.
There is also a misunderstanding from my part.![]()
![]()
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.
But there is an error on starting in the parahcute area.

Thanks c.yeti_c wrote:We are reading from the same page now... see my PM for a fix.cairnswk wrote:yes seems so.yeti_c wrote:Hang on here Cairns - I think we've got a misunderstanding...
C.
There is also a misunderstanding from my part.![]()
![]()
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.
But there is an error on starting in the parahcute area.
C.

kletka...appreciate your input, and i hear you.kletka wrote:I am in bdsm love with this map. I love the gameplay but I hate how much imbalanced it is!!
In sequential 1v1 it is 100% win for the starting player!! One really has to put huge stacks (30 I reckon) on AA, AB and AC to give non-starting player any chance...
And I am afraid of trying it with more players as it has STALEMATE written all over it


I'll sus that out incandenza....i've started a few games myself and would like to see how they play out.Incandenza wrote:Seems like one thing that could potentially be done to alleviate stalemate issues would be to have the X1 and X2 terits in the southwest respawn as 3's instead of 1's if they're bombarded (dunno if this is possible in the xml tho). Otherwise it's like night of the living dead down there, you think you've got your opponent on the run but he just keeps coming with fresh numbers.

Hmmm - why did you do this Cairns?cairnswk wrote:and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.

cairnswk wrote: There is also a misunderstanding from my part.![]()
![]()
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.
It looks like Cairnswk took them out...cairnswk wrote:XML challenges should be fixed on this one now.
and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.
edbeard wrote:why is there no one on the castle? didn't the gameplay get stamped with guys on the castle?
Incandenza wrote:I'll be VERY curious to see how that big 8p game goes...
AndyDufresne wrote:cairnswk wrote: There is also a misunderstanding from my part.![]()
![]()
I made the map that 8 players would start on the castle also, but this didn't happen on the xml.
Players only start on three areas of 8, with another region in the castle using random allocation.
That's OK. coz it makes for better game play without that start.It looks like Cairnswk took them out...cairnswk wrote:XML challenges should be fixed on this one now.
and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.
--Andy
No, i didn't take them out...my error for stating they were there...they were never in the stamped xml...and it got through and wasn't picked up, and i and nobody else picked it up. here is the link for you to check from the 2 May upload file on p27.yeti_c wrote:Hmmm - why did you do this Cairns?cairnswk wrote:and the starting positions in the castle have been removed.
C.
