XML Modifications and Variations

[Balsiefen]

I dont know if these have been suggested before but i just had a brilliant idea for a map and i need them

Suggestion Idea: Kingdoms

Description: Sort of like in other maps such as age of realms but instead of a single territory, a player starts off with, a whole kingdom is used. Each kingdom will have several territories and a player will not start off controlling more than one kingdom (so in a 2 player game, the others will be neutral)

Why It Should Be Considered: I think this would be extreamly good for a new direction in maps. In real life, nations dont start spread around the world, holding places dotted at random, they start off with a single powebase and grow outwards. As i said before, this is essential for a map i want to make in the future. I also think, the more players, the better this would be.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suggestion Idea: Kingdom Missions

Description: This ties in with the kingdoms idea. Each kingdom will have its own agenda, for instance, to eliminate neighboring rivals and control certain realms and territories. The mission could be seen by pressing a link next to the map.

Why It Should Be Considered: Again, i think it could really expand gameplay, each player having his own agenda, it may enable them to choose allies that suit their needs more carefully, knowing that they will proberbly not have to go to war with them

Lack Label (Mod Use):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suggestion Idea: Mission Cards

Description: This is similar to kingdom missions but it could apply to all maps as a turn on/off feature like fog of war. On the classic board game there are a number of missions, each about equally as hard (control africa asia and a third cont of your choice; eliminate the yellow player, ect), These could all be assinged at random to the players and they win when they complet the mission. Again, the mission could be seen when a link to the side is clicked.

Why It Should Be Considered: This is not an essential feature for the map i am planning but it would be somthing i would quite like to see (although there may be some maps whare it would be impossible) I dont think it would be too hard to think up a selection of fair missions for each map. It would add the gameplay of players constantly trying to guess the missions of the other players to see if their a threat and to try to stop them winning if it looks as if they're getting close.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[yeti_c]

Mission Cards aren't XML features...

Kingdoms would be - but would be covered by "pre assigned starting locations" or similar...

Map and Starting location specific missions could work - but need to get them in first!!

C.

[Balsiefen]

Mission Cards aren't XML features...

Kingdoms would be - but would be covered by "pre assigned starting locations" or similar...

Map and Starting location specific missions could work - but need to get them in first!!

C.

To get them in what?

[yeti_c]

Mission Cards aren't XML features...

Kingdoms would be - but would be covered by "pre assigned starting locations" or similar...

Map and Starting location specific missions could work - but need to get them in first!!

C.

To get them in what?

"Starting Locations" & "Missions"

C.

[Herakilla]

hes saying that previous suggestions would do what you want but we need to get them installed first

EDIT: fastposted and tired

[Balsiefen]

Sorry, i'm not feeling very bright today

[hecter]

Suggestion Idea:
Simple X for Y Bonuses

Description:
Lets say I have a group of 15 territories, lets call them power plants. I want to be able to do this:
3 Power Plants +1 Army
6 Power Plants +3 Armies
9 Power Plants +5 Armies
12 Power Plants +7 Armies
15 Power Plants +10 Armies

Why It Should Be Considered:
Technically this is possible with the current xml but it is impossible to do without millions of lines of code on our end using combinations of positive and negative bonuses. There should be a better way.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Yes]

I see a yes label on this... When will it be coming out? It certainly would help with ConquerMan, a map a like but can't play because of the greasemonkey lag (I know I can just turn it off, but I'm useless without my monkey! )

[AndyDufresne]

Lack will be looking at the XML updates shortly, they are high up on the priority list, though right behind some communication with rackspace about some of the recent login issues.


--Andy

[yeti_c]

Suggestion Idea:
Simple X for Y Bonuses

Description:
Lets say I have a group of 15 territories, lets call them power plants. I want to be able to do this:
3 Power Plants +1 Army
6 Power Plants +3 Armies
9 Power Plants +5 Armies
12 Power Plants +7 Armies
15 Power Plants +10 Armies

Why It Should Be Considered:
Technically this is possible with the current xml but it is impossible to do without millions of lines of code on our end using combinations of positive and negative bonuses. There should be a better way.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Yes]

I see a yes label on this... When will it be coming out? It certainly would help with ConquerMan, a map a like but can't play because of the greasemonkey lag (I know I can just turn it off, but I'm useless without my monkey! )

This already exists - the Conquerman code uses this feature...

C.

[wrightfan123]

I'm beginning to see more and more people suggesting things that aren't really RISK, but real war games. Like losing armies for winter and dehydration and crap like that... I don't know if I'm for it or against it.

-W123

[hecter]

This already exists - the Conquerman code uses this feature...

C.

Then why on earth is the code so long? You'd think it would be shorter, but I guess not...

Well then, how about a play on that idea?



Suggestion Idea: Allow Multiple Required in One Continent Set

Description: Right now, you can only have one required per territory set, correct? Why can't we have more? It could work like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>NAME</name>
   <bonus>##</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>A</component>
      <component>B</component>
      <component>C</component>
      <component>D</component>
      <required>2
          <bonus>##</bonus>
      </required>
      <required>3
          <bonus>##</bonus>
      </required>
   </components>
</continent>

Why It Should Be Considered: It would allow for quicker and easier coding, and would allow addons to run faster.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

[Coleman]

I'm beginning to see more and more people suggesting things that aren't really RISK, but real war games. Like losing armies for winter and dehydration and crap like that... I don't know if I'm for it or against it.

-W123

The good news is you'll still have all the current maps, many of which don't deviate from risk a whole lot.

I think a method that separates lists, maybe even so far as a drop down where you can't even see the whole list at once would help players like you ignore players and maps who want to do more with the same user interface.

[unriggable]

I'm beginning to see more and more people suggesting things that aren't really RISK, but real war games. Like losing armies for winter and dehydration and crap like that... I don't know if I'm for it or against it.

-W123

Age of Magic has this.

[yeti_c]

This already exists - the Conquerman code uses this feature...

C.

Then why on earth is the code so long? You'd think it would be shorter, but I guess not...

Well then, how about a play on that idea?



Suggestion Idea: Allow Multiple Required in One Continent Set

Description: Right now, you can only have one required per territory set, correct? Why can't we have more? It could work like this:

Code: Select all

<continent>
   <name>NAME</name>
   <bonus>##</bonus>
   <components>
      <component>A</component>
      <component>B</component>
      <component>C</component>
      <component>D</component>
      <required>2
          <bonus>##</bonus>
      </required>
      <required>3
          <bonus>##</bonus>
      </required>
   </components>
</continent>

Why It Should Be Considered: It would allow for quicker and easier coding, and would allow addons to run faster.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

I can't see this working with the current code that Lack has - however if you check back a couple of pages you will see a similar idea to this - but purely based on the territory count modification - that would be better for Lack and for me.

C.

[lackattack]

I caught up on the suggestions because it's time for another round of xml extensions. I want to keep this batch smallish to stay on target for a January forum upgrade. Here is my feedback on the new suggestions:

Note: Any sort of dynamic XML (i.e. something triggers a different set of rules mid-game) would be put off yet again because of complexity.

EDIT: nothing is set in stone, please feel free to debate my decision tags

Variable basic army grants / Standard Army Bonus Adjustment

Code: Select all

<Bonus Adjustment>
      <matrix>
         <lower>1</lower>
         <upper>30</upper>
         <count>3</count>
      </matrix>

With xml like above [Yes]

Converting Territories Surround = conquer is very non risk-like. Not sure if it should be a game option, at the map level or at the territ level. I'd say [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

Variable Attack Range This is actually 2 ideas. Since you can mimic attack range by listing a bunch of bombardments, this isn't priority. The variable part is just a subset of the dynamic xml idea. [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

One-time Bonus [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

Multiple X/Y coordinates even though I don't understand it, [No]

Win condition - number of armies [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand)

Random assigned xml features This doesn't seem to be worth the cost. [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

Motion detectors Forting / advancing could be a trigger for dynamic xml. [Maybe]

Starting positions by color The order of joining the game should not affect gameplay. Do we really need starting positions considering we already have DiM's technique? [No]

Nested Continents I really like this one, plus I don't want DiM to TP my house!

Code: Select all

<continent>
  <name>A</name>
  <components>
    <component type="territory">B</component>
    <component type="continent">C</component>
  </components>
  <bonus>0</bonus>
</continent>

I propose xml like this, with type="territory" optional for backwards compatibility. The xml checker would have to test for infinite loops, and you may have to define a continent before you reference it but I'm not sure yet. [Yes]

Territory Hold Time Bonus [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

RESETTING NEUTRAL TERRITORIES / Respanwing Neutrals [Yes]

SENTRY TERRITORIES

Code: Select all

<visibles>
  <visible>territory</visible>
</visibles>

Cool idea but quite a bit of work when you can have something similar using borders or bombardments. [Maybe]

Continent Bonus Applied to a Territory [Maybe]

Preferred Neutrals Not fun to program [No]

Deffered Armies [No] (or [Maybe] if there is enough demand).

Kingdoms Care to provide an example of how this xml would work, because I can't picture it. [No] (or [Maybe] if we can spec it out).

Kingdom Missions Objectives exist and should do the trick [No]

Mission Cards not really an xml thing [No]

Allow Multiple Required in One Continent Set This could reduce the XML but our current technique allows for better log entries (e.g. "holding two zeroes" vs "holding four zeroes") [No]

So in summary, I'd like to go ahead with the 3 "yes" items listed above. I might be able to include a 4th, which would be from the maybes here or the yeses/maybes from the previous batch that didn't make it.

[cairnswk]

I caught up on the suggestions because it's time for another round of xml extensions. I want to keep this batch smallish to stay on target for a January forum upgrade. Here is my feedback on the new suggestions:

Note: Any sort of dynamic XML (i.e. something triggers a different set of rules mid-game) would be put off yet again because of complexity.

Lackattack..forgive if i am vague....but what about player starting positions.

I am wanting this for Das Schloss map, where one starting region of the map requires a start by one each of the players, but other areas separate again on the map can have a normal random disbursement.
For example.
Area A: needs to start with one of each player (like programming nuetrals)
Areas B and C can start with a random order.

[Coleman]

Starting positions by color The order of joining the game should not affect gameplay. Do we really need starting positions considering we already have DiM's technique? [No]

I disagree with this one sort of.

Starting by color is bad. I don't like that either.

I would like to be able to set starting territories by player count. Like there would be a section for each player count 2 through 8 (if 7 and 8 are viable) and then we set up a tag for each player (player 1, player 2, ect) inside these and then we give them all the countries we want them to always have.

Any countries not set to someone (doesn't matter which color, each person randomly sorts into one of these players) are handed out randomly as normal.

This may be insanely hard to code. Like if I said in a 2 player game Player one should always have X Y & Z and player two should always have A B C D E then of the ones left whoever managed to be player one would need 2 extra so it's still even.

The advantage would be we don't have to keep blanketing the maps in neutrals to make sure someone always has one or two of an important territory. Like if DiM wanted to make his last map 'Chaos' or something, and everyone started with a castle but everyone also randomly got the rest he could do it.

I doubt DiM is planning that... but if he was...

Anyway, you mentioned wanting to keep this smallish, so in the interest of that this can be put off but we'll probably ask for it again.

[lackattack]

Okay, so something like this?

Code: Select all

<positions>
	<position>
		<components>
			<component>territ 1</component>
			<component>territ 2</component>
			<component>territ 3</component>
		</components>
	</position>
	<position>
		<components>
			<component>territ 4</component>
			<component>territ 5</component>
			<component>territ 6</component>
		</components>
	</position>
</positions>

[yeti_c]

I think it would be better off if we could label territories as "starts" - thus allowing us to ensure that we give an even spread of starting territories...

Also - as a double bonus - this tag could have an army number inside...

i.e.

<start>6</start>

So this means that this territory is a starting territory and has 6 to start with...

The <start> territories are dealt out randomly first - and then the rest of the territories are randomly assigned...

This way we could solve Cairns' problem - and also you could make some of the Conquest maps non Conquest but even up the drops...

C.

[yeti_c]

Other queries...

RESETTING NEUTRAL TERRITORIES / Respanwing Neutrals [Yes]

How do you plan on this one?

<components>
<component type="territory">B</component>
<component type="continent">C</component>
</components>

Marvellous - also - if no type then does this default to type="territory"? If not - then some Search n Replace will be necessary!!

C.

[lackattack]

By tagging the starting position on each territory you lose the ability to group them.

If you want to be able to specify starting armies > 3 we could do something like this:

Code: Select all

<positions>
	<position>
		<territory strat="6">territ 1</territory>
		<territory strat="6">territ 2</territory>
		<territory strat="6">territ 3</territory>
	</position>
	<position>
		<territory strat="6">territ 4</territory>
		<territory strat="6">territ 5</territory>
		<territory strat="6">territ 6</territory>
	</position>
</positions>

[yeti_c]

By tagging the starting position on each territory you lose the ability to group them.

If you want to be able to specify starting armies > 3 we could do something like this:

Code: Select all

<positions>
	<position>
		<territory strat="6">territ 1</territory>
		<territory strat="6">territ 2</territory>
		<territory strat="6">territ 3</territory>
	</position>
	<position>
		<territory strat="6">territ 4</territory>
		<territory strat="6">territ 5</territory>
		<territory strat="6">territ 6</territory>
	</position>
</positions>

Coleman? Do we want to group them?

I guess grouping could be useful - in Feudal for instance - you could group up each empire for instance!!

Just allowing definite start territories is enough for me... of course if you had 8 starts in a 2 player game 2 would be for each player - 2 for the neutral player - and the other 2 would be neutral too...

9 starts would be 3 for each player and 3 for neutral...

C.

[lackattack]

RESETTING NEUTRAL TERRITORIES / Respanwing Neutrals [Yes]

How do you plan on this one?

Your territories will respawn when you click begin turn. If you get eliminated, it will handled the same as auto-kick.

Marvellous - also - if no type then does this default to type="territory"? If not - then some Search n Replace will be necessary!!

Read my post again carefully

[lackattack]

Coleman? Do we want to group them?

Look at cairn's post. My understanding is that he wants grouping.

[yeti_c]

RESETTING NEUTRAL TERRITORIES / Respanwing Neutrals [Yes]

How do you plan on this one?

Your territories will respawn when you click begin turn. If you get eliminated, it will handled the same as auto-kick.

How does it fit in the XML?

<neutral respawn="true">5</neutral>

Marvellous - also - if no type then does this default to type="territory"? If not - then some Search n Replace will be necessary!!

Read my post again carefully

Doh missed the word "optionally" - that's exactly how I'd've done it - nice.