Moderator: Cartographers
First of all, I appreciate very much that you put all this effort into this interesting map for everyone to enjoy and then put even more effort into improving it when people complained.cairnswk wrote:However, without sounding too glib...isn't it wonderful when life throws a little surprise at you??
joriki wrote:First of all, I appreciate very much that you put all this effort into this interesting map for everyone to enjoy and then put even more effort into improving it when people complained.cairnswk wrote:However, without sounding too glib...isn't it wonderful when life throws a little surprise at you??
However, to be honest, your answers (not just this one) do sound a bit glib to me. You seem to see this just as a couple of games going slightly haywire and people shouldn't get too hung up on their games. I see it more as damage to people's trust in the reliability and integrity of *all* their games -- once you've experienced this sort of thing, you know that things can just get changed around behind the scenes, this time you happened to find out, perhaps next time you won't -- there's not the same level of trust as there was before that everything is being done by a well-tested program in which this sort of bug would no longer occur. Obviously that's not the end of the world and most people will probably keep playing, but it's quite a bit worse than just screwing up a handful of their games.
Also, a large part of the chaos was unnecessary -- if you'd appended the new territories at the end, the indices for the existing ones wouldn't have changed and it would have been "just" a couple of border changes and some new territories popping up, which would have felt more like just the map changing slightly and not the whole game being thrown into random chaos.
Anyway, bygones -- it seems to me that what's needed is a mechanism to change maps such that games in progress aren't affected.
It seems that territories are saved as numerical indices in the logs, and these are converted to the territories' names when the log is printed -- since two new territories were inserted, the indices of all the territories that come after them in the XML have changed, so they're now mapped to different names when the log is printed. I believe this should be affecting the following territories:rom_tobins wrote:hmmm wait a sec.....nvm that game log should be from before the upload....but...the attack log obviously has been affected by this...
Most of what I wrote wasn't about what people knew before uploading the changes but about the reaction after the effect had become apparent. But at least the person who wrote the game engine must have known that chaos would result if you insert new territories in the middle of the XML; it would have been a good idea to talk to that person before changing a map in mid-game.rom_tobins wrote:joriki you shouldn't feel so offended because of the change, first of all...maps are never really changes after they have been put into game play...and i'm sure no one new the uploading the changes would have such an affect on the already started games...
These are the last two territories in the XML file; they now have indices that didn't exist when the game started, so the game state probably doesn't contain anything about them.mrbang wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 2#map-cell
Southeast corner Reef 9 and ES 2 seem to be "dead"

mrbang wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?gam ... 2#map-cell
Southeast corner Reef 9 and ES 2 seem to be "dead"

Blake....lack might say that, but actually he was never informed when i gave him the new update that there was added terts on the new map and xml. so still my prob as far as i can see.blakebowling wrote:just FYI, lack made a mistake when he uploaded the new map files, and he didn't delete the old one, so it's using a combination of the two, overlooking some territories.


I don't have the powers to do that...suggest you play on, you are still in a good position....even though other might not be.jackin_u_up wrote:Could you please kill our game...its all jacked up Game 3088313
...

Maybe everyone's die were faulty in your game. No-one else seems to be complaining yet.The Neon Peon wrote:This map is still off balance. I started out with reef 8, and was able to take the West Isabella in the first few rounds. Once I did that, I quickly won the game even when I did lose a 9 v 1 or so every turn afterwards. ALL fresh water territories should have 10 neutrals on them. Had it had 10 instead of 5, my opponent would have taken it from me as soon as I got rid of those neutrals. because I would have wasted a whole lot more men.

I think it is off balance too. Some of the reefs are just too close to others. In my game on this map a player was eliminated by another player in Round 3 (the player that was eliminated had only taken 2 turns!)The Neon Peon wrote:This map is still off balance. I started out with reef 8, and was able to take the West Isabella in the first few rounds. Once I did that, I quickly won the game even when I did lose a 9 v 1 or so every turn afterwards. ALL fresh water territories should have 10 neutrals on them. Had it had 10 instead of 5, my opponent would have taken it from me as soon as I got rid of those neutrals. because I would have wasted a whole lot more men.

ZeekLTK, thanks for your comments; however since you've only played 49 games in toto on this site, and one of these happens to be this T of G map, and you've had some good wins on all those maps, come back and provide feedback when you've played a few more games on this map at other settings and indeed every map on this site and then tell me if it's still unbalanced.ZeekLTK wrote:Yeah this map is horribly unbalanced. There is now some guy in our game who got 18 armies and then 23 armies on consecutive turns while everyone else is getting 5-8. The big cluster of land on the left side of the map means that whoever starts in Reef 4 is going to win every game.
I think the only thing to rectify this is (other than completely remaking the map) changing the number of neutrals. On luggers with 10 armies no one even bothers going for them. They are just treated as "impassible obstacles" and everyone just goes around them because it is not worth it to take them when you could take 2-3 islands for the same amount of armies. Some land only had like 3 neutrals on them and gave the same, or better, bonus! Each land (since they are all bonuses) should have at least 10 armies as well, if not more (maybe 20-25 armies on the land that have "national treasures" AND "fresh water" as those are the most sought after territories). Or you might consider having some land that doesn't have bonuses (aka, take some bonuses off the big island cluster near Reef 4) to balance it better.
Thanks militant.militant wrote:Cairns, I tink the map is smashing, really enjoy playing on it. Thanks for taking the time to make it
