Conquer Club

Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the diminishing bonus worked such that you aren't penalized for taking a continent... i.e. you'll always get 1 for 3 up to 30, and further territories are 'taxed' at the higher rate, so you don't have a situation where going over each threshhold actually causes you to lose armies. So if you have 30 territs, you'll get 10/turn, but you'll have to get up to 34 to get 11/turn.

Incandenza wrote:Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the diminishing bonus worked such that you aren't penalized for taking a continent... i.e. you'll always get 1 for 3 up to 30, and further territories are 'taxed' at the higher rate, so you don't have a situation where going over each threshhold actually causes you to lose armies. So if you have 30 territs, you'll get 10/turn, but you'll have to get up to 34 to get 11/turn.

Thats fine with me. I just don't know how to do it or want to do it. So if COleman wants the job he can have it.

How about 1 army for every 6 past 12.

There has to be some sort of If statement in the XML that lets you know if you have fewer than 12 terrs.

Basically the new XML would need to override the default. It would have to be something that follows this algorithm?

Code: Select all

// terr_count_div_by_5_max = 100
// terr_bonus_div_by_5_max = 20
IF <territory_count> > <terr_count_div_by_5_max>
THEN <territory_bonus> = <terr_bonus_div_by_5_max> + Integer((<territory_count> - <terr_count_div_by_5_max>)/(5+1))
ELSE
// terr_count_div_by_4_max = 60
// terr_bonus_div_by_4_max = 15
IF <territory_count> > <terr_count_div_by_4_max>
THEN <territory_bonus> = <terr_bonus_div_by_4_max> + Integer((<territory_count> - <terr_count_div_by_4_max>)/(4+1))
ELSE
// terr_count_div_by_3_max = 30
// terr_bonus_div_by_3_max = 10
IF <territory_count> > <terr_count_div_by_3_max>
THEN <territory_bonus> = <terr_bonus_div_by_3_max> + Integer((<territory_count> - <terr_count_div_by_3_max>)/(3+1))
ELSE
// terr_count_div_by_min = 12
// terr_bonus_minimum = 3
IF <territory_count> > <terr_count_div_by_min>
THEN <territory_bonus> = <terr_bonus_minimum> + Integer((<territory_count> - <terr_count_div_by_min>)/3)
ELSE
// terr_bonus_minimum = 3
<territory_bonus> = <terr_bonus_minimum>

// terr_count_div_by_x could be done via an array in which case it's more portable
// terr_bonus_div_by_x_max could be done via an array in which case it's more portable


I know yeti_c said there aren't any case statements - but I've never seen the XML code as to how it determines the current bonus structure. I am just laying out the logic (pseudo code) would be required

That isn't how the xml works at all.

I'd need to do collections with every territory included overriding each other while keeping the default values in mind.

So up to 14 I wouldn't need to do anything because the game already gives 3 for the first 12.

At 15 I'd need to make a collection with all the territories in them and say -1.

At this point up to 17 the game will want to give 5, but because of my collection it will give 4.

At 18 I won't need a new collection because the game will want 6 and I will want 5 so the -1 from the last collection keeps it at 5 instead of 6.

At 21 I'll need to make a collection that gives -2 so they will get 5 instead of 7, this collection will override the last one giving -1.

I'd have do something like this all the way up to 149, I believe.

Ouch !!!

That is a LOT of extra grunt work. And the collections you are talking about, seem to code it the way the map currently states the bonus (albeit at 21 vs 30 terrs). This was deemed incorrect as once you go up to the next collection, you could possibly receive 1 or more fewer armies than at the previous level.

There is no way to make collections additive as opposed to overriding?

I do a collection with all of them and say <required>15<required> and make it worth -1.

Then later I do it again and make the required higher, make it worth -2 (or whatever it needs to be) and add an <overide> to get rid of the last one.

That's the only way it makes sense for me to do it. I have no idea what you mean by additive.

The way he had it I would have only needed 3 collections I think.

Regardless, I don't want to talk about coding it. I want to know if +1 for every 6 is acceptable
<11 = 3
12-17 = 4
18-23 = 5
and so on up to 27 for 150+

Coleman wrote:Regardless, I don't want to talk about coding it. I want to know if +1 for every 6 is acceptable
<11 = 3
12-17 = 4
18-23 = 5
and so on up to 27 for 150+

if it is +1 for every 6 then:
terr owned________terr per bonus
01-11-----------------1 per 3 = 3 bonus
12-14-----------------1 per 4 = 3 bonus
15-19-----------------1 per 5 = 3 bonus
20-23-----------------1 per 6 = 3 bonus
and so on

I am OK with the needing 6 territries to gain a bonus army while still maintaining the standard minimum 3 at <8.

So before Coleman spend all of this time, IS 6 terts per 1 bonus OK with everyone?

WM

OK I change my mind about bonus. I wanted a variable rate and I think this will work

TERRITORY COLLECTION BONUSES ARE REVISED:
1 army for every 3 1-30 Occupied terr.
1 army for every 4 31-60 Occupied terr.
1 army for every 5 61-100 Occupied terr.
1 army for every 6 101-151 Occupied terr.

It still allows for variable bonus but without the bumps (magenta)


Here is the pic



WM

Yeah, the smooth progression is the way to go.

What have I missed???

So is this good everyone? If so then we are just waiting for Coleman to get the XML done. No rush Coleman just trying to stir up conversation.

WM

For the red and teal aliens, it's really hard to see the numbers, especially if they're the same color.

Night Strike wrote:For the red and teal aliens, it's really hard to see the numbers, especially if they're the same color.

I wanted to keep the colors the same as the original game. Does anyone else see the current colors as a problem?

WM

WidowMakers wrote:So is this good everyone? If so then we are just waiting for Coleman to get the XML done. No rush Coleman just trying to stir up conversation.

WM

Rush coleman! Rush it! Do it half-assed and pathetically!

Yes, you need to make it easier to see red on red & light blue on light blue...

spiesr wrote:Yes, you need to make it easier to see red on red & light blue on light blue...

We could just add white spaces to the aliens like there are on the diamonds. Is this acceptable WM?

spiesr wrote:Yes, you need to make it easier to see red on red & light blue on light blue...

I'm torn on the colors... the entire thing hurts my eyes, but in a good 1983 arcade game kinda way. The worst color combination is the "territory collection" text in the legend.

Could you just change that text to "TERRITORIAL BONUSES:" ??

Coleman wrote:

spiesr wrote:Yes, you need to make it easier to see red on red & light blue on light blue...

We could just add white spaces to the aliens like there are on the diamonds. Is this acceptable WM?

I don't see a problem with that. I would like to keep them solid but this is not that big of a deal. Next update.

oaktown wrote:

spiesr wrote:Yes, you need to make it easier to see red on red & light blue on light blue...

I'm torn on the colors... the entire thing hurts my eyes, but in a good 1983 arcade game kinda way. The worst color combination is the "territory collection" text in the legend.

Could you just change that text to "TERRITORIAL BONUSES:" ??

1) It is supposed to hurt your eyes. It is a 1980's video game
2) Edit text. OK. Next update.

I'm sure there's a bit missing out of Colemans signature!?!

C.

WidowMakers wrote:

Night Strike wrote:For the red and teal aliens, it's really hard to see the numbers, especially if they're the same color.

I wanted to keep the colors the same as the original game. Does anyone else see the current colors as a problem?

WM

WM....most of the colours are fine to me except....
1. the light blue in the legend for the diamond....can not see the white space in it properly
2. The bright yellow of the title is very distracting and constantly take my eyes away from the map...i have to concentrate quite hard to determine what it what.
3. is there another colour you could choose for the border of the army indicators other than bright red....I'm not trying to an obstructionist or smart but just telling the way i see it...these army indicators weren't part of the original colour scheme?

yeti_c wrote:I'm sure there's a bit missing out of Colemans signature!?!

C.

What do you mean?

WidowMakers wrote:

yeti_c wrote:I'm sure there's a bit missing out of Colemans signature!?!

C.

What do you mean?

I've just emailed you a piccie...

C.

Just a fine point, but the army number on the cyan ghost is several pixels low (it's the only ghost not aligned with the other numbers around it). I just noticed that Conquer Man and cupcake are a bit low too (although Conquer Man isn't quite as low as cyan ghost - on the same line).

That was all intentional so as not to obscure the graphics as much. Are you sure it needs to be changed?