New Map

Keir Maxwell · #1 November 5th, 2003, 02:09 AM

I should get another session with the game tomorrow Alex and your and Gandalfs scenario's are top of my list to check.

Alex you are certainly not wasting your time - in my view setups such as you have produced will be the key to a higher quality of games for PBEM. You are, as with Dom I, helping lead the way. As I said to Gandalf - people don't always recognise quality.

My big concern in this area is that we get enough small maps. Big maps with starting positions for 17 players are great but often the corresponding small maps get left out.

Just to clarify my idea of small I would rate Aran as medium. Even maps with as few as 40 provinces could be fun for a certain sort of multi-player or head-to-head game. A good spread of games at the small to tiny end will be a big boon to PBEM based on my past experiance of it.

Cheers

Keir

Pocus · #2 November 5th, 2003, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:

quote:
Originally posted by apoger:
Gandalf's map is pretty cool. I've enjoyed it myself. The chaos is fun.

My scenario is a seven nation game where each nation starts with 10 provinces, temples, forts, armies, and some spells. Effectively it begins with players in control of a small "kingdom" rather than a province.

The question is, does anyone like such a scenario or am I wasting my time?

If you are wasting time so are we. We have one setup in the full Version where all 17 players start with 5 (IIRC) provinces each and an extra watch tower. I like premade kingdoms. The only thing about them in the current game is that you will know the exact starting locations of everyone else. A random feature would be cool. I'm not sure how far down our list it is. Actually I'm not sure what's on top of our list.

BTW the list has become something scary and neverending.

Would you care to tell us if you have restarted coding on something? As you just released a game, I can understand that you are taking some weeks of resting (thats kinda normal after a rush)

bug fixing, AI improvements, something else?

also, speaking of multiple starting provinces, I think I will be done with the option by december (I already said that I was developping a scripting utility). I'm kinda slow, but you know what real life can do to prevent us from doing important things

Gandalf Parker · #3 November 5th, 2003, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keir Maxwell:
My big concern in this area is that we get enough small maps. Big maps with starting positions for 17 players are great but often the corresponding small maps get left out.

Just to clarify my idea of small I would rate Aran as medium. Even maps with as few as 40 provinces could be fun for a certain sort of multi-player or head-to-head game.

Im surprised someone didnt jump on my comment in another thread. Dont remember which. Some discussion about the lack of a battle simulator. Even the old simulator left much to be desired and making it better amounted to making it treat battles with all the options of a game. So the advnaced players just learned how to test-bed using games.

The .map I will mess with, its just a text file. The .tga takes abit more doing and I dont totally understand how Dom2 treats them (and Im still learning GIMP paint program). But someone should be able to create a 3 province .tga with a simple heavily commented .map file which explains to people how to assign their desires to 2 nations and duke it out in the middle.

Sorry to jump in the wrong thread with this.

Kristoffer O · #4 November 7th, 2003, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apoger:
Gandalf's map is pretty cool. I've enjoyed it myself. The chaos is fun.

My scenario is a seven nation game where each nation starts with 10 provinces, temples, forts, armies, and some spells. Effectively it begins with players in control of a small "kingdom" rather than a province.

I have now played briefly on your map and i like it. Shorter initial period of peace (good), but a bit less enjoyment in taking new territories. Miasma with swampguards recruitable in all those towers was nice.

apoger · #5 November 7th, 2003, 12:38 AM

I appreciate the warm words K.O., but I'd like to get some feedback from someone that isn't associated with Illwinter.

Anyone?

Keir Maxwell · #6 November 7th, 2003, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by apoger:

Anyone?

I can't handle the wrap around. Perhaps its all the anti-flu medicine but I'm sure the map goes for ever and keeps multiplying/spawning. Aaaaaaaaaargh - its a Cuthulloid plan to take over the world and Alex is the head Cultist! No wonder no-ones replying - they failed their sanity roles and won't be heard from again. The reason Alex keeps asking for feedback is to get more people to see the map and go mad!

I might be able to cope with wraparound on a world map running east-west but the whole north-south wraparound runs into where the Poles should be. Sure you could have some wacky worlds but in general physics/geography should have some bearing.

I would suggest a non-wrap around Version created by stealing the code from Calanor's non-wraparound Eye map. Shouldn't be to hard to make and if no-one has done so by the time my head clears I'll put it together if you want.

Don't worry, be happy . . .

Keir

[ November 07, 2003, 00:36: Message edited by: Keir Maxwell ]

apoger · #7 November 7th, 2003, 04:05 AM

Making the map non wrap-around would only require removing a few lines of text from the .map file. That's not the issue.

The problem is that some nations would effectively have their backs to the new "wall" and would reap huge defensive benefits.

To balance such a situation I would have to completely revamp the positions/situations of the nations. I am unsure if there is a single player out there enjoying the map. Until I get some feedback (outside of your issues with the wrap-around map) I am not spending hours on alterations.