FIXED: Random Conquest MP vs campaign (11/26: ver 0.4)

Discussion of all aspects of multiplayer development: unit balancing, map development, server development, and so forth.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
User avatar
TL
Posts: 511
Joined: March 3rd, 2007, 3:02 am

FIXED: Random Conquest MP vs campaign (11/26: ver 0.4)

Post by TL »

I have published an almost completely new version of Random Conquest, featuring an entirely new map generation algorithm. The maps it generates are pretty fugly and balance is still pretty hit and miss but it remains much better on the second count (and arguably the first) than Wesnoth's default map generator. It's also set to be a truly endless campaign now, so you can keep playing indefinitely until you get bored.

The terrain-tweaking features of the old version are gone. I don't really plan on re-implementing them, but I want to add items/special units/etc. randomly added to later scenarios with distribution to be weighted in the favor of whoever's worse off, which should hopefully stave off the steamroller effect.
Last edited by TL on November 27th, 2008, 4:02 am, edited 8 times in total.
User avatar
Jami
Posts: 149
Joined: March 15th, 2007, 4:00 am

Re: More junk from me: Random Conquest MP vs campaign

Post by Jami »

Found one minor problem when playing this. In one game against a friend who did not have the map we ended up having to quit at game 2. Although I had won the first match, he had managed to roll my three level 2 units and dominate the battlefild. However, when we tried to advance both of us got kicked from the room. After reloading we both tried, and no matter what the order we couldn't get the game to advance to round 3.

However, the game seems really nice. If you just made it so that the random generation didn't put nearly so many mountains/forests right next to villages...
~Jami
User avatar
TL
Posts: 511
Joined: March 3rd, 2007, 3:02 am

Re: More junk from me: Random Conquest MP vs campaign

Post by TL »

Whoops! It seems the MP server does not like it when the host potentially gets a "defeat" condition.
Jami wrote:If you just made it so that the random generation didn't put nearly so many mountains/forests right next to villages...
I've actually tended to notice the opposite problem: front-line villages often end up with little or no terrain cover, leaving attackers very vulnerable. I did implement a tweak to the generator which should downgrade mountains into hills if they're adjacent to villages, though (I went ahead and had it do the same thing for castle/ruin hexes too). I don't know if forests will actually prove to be a real problem, though. Forest next to village is not all that uncommon in mainline maps.



Ooops! Apparently I forgot to actually upload the previous version. I just uploaded a new one (0.12) which now lets you set victory conditions for the campaign.

-Just updated yet again (0.13). Map generation has been tweaked, so the center is not quite so open anymore.
User avatar
TL
Posts: 511
Joined: March 3rd, 2007, 3:02 am

Re: More junk from me: Random Conquest MP vs campaign

Post by TL »

Updated to 0.14. The terrain generator is now set to allow for a certain rough symmetry, so if one side gets a nice chunk of defensive terrain there will be a loosely analogous chunk of good terrain in a corresponding area on the other player's side. Of course, the map still gets tweaked to handicap the game in favor of the losing player, so if one player is leading by a good margin then the map will still be biased towards the losing team.

Oh yeah, and one other thing: in mirror matches, it no longer tones down chunks of favorable terrain (since it will be equally favorable to both sides). Also, the river has slightly more open water hexes and slightly less ford, but water hexes next to villages are automatically converted into ford crossings.

Next I plan on adding other random stuff. My current project is having it ocassionally give a unique loyal unit to one side or the other (favoring the losing side, of course). I'm thinking I'd like to get 3- and 4- player variations in some time as well, but that's going to take a bit of work since the generator is not very generalized at the moment.
Lim-Dul
Posts: 105
Joined: March 6th, 2006, 1:45 pm
Location: Europe -> Poland -> Warsaw
Contact:

Re: More junk from me: Random Conquest MP vs campaign

Post by Lim-Dul »

I don't know what is possible in Wesnoth and what isn't but I just had this crazy idea taking your "campaign" even further.

How about making a Total War (and other games =) style campaign? One map would be the "overworld" where different units would actually denote certain armies (the weaker the unit the smaller the army - of course with altered movement) and hexes denoting randomly generated maps where the given terrain type would be dominant. Whenever an army attacked another army you would be taken to a new map to battle it out - if you attacked someone standing on a forest hex you would get a scenario with lots of forests etc.

I don't know if it wouldn't be to hard to track all the units in all the armies so maybe just giving the player more gold depending on the size of the army would be reasonable enough?

After defeating the enemy you would expand your territory and certain types of hexes would give you some benefits like cheaper units or some income etc.

I would love to hear if something like that is even doable (I imagine that this would require quite a bit of work) then I can come up with details. ^^
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. - Bertrand Russell
--
Project StD - Save the Drakes - we want more branches! =)
User avatar
TL
Posts: 511
Joined: March 3rd, 2007, 3:02 am

Re: More junk from me: Random Conquest MP vs campaign

Post by TL »

Lim-Dul wrote:How about making a Total War (and other games =) style campaign? One map would be the "overworld" where different units would actually denote certain armies (the weaker the unit the smaller the army - of course with altered movement) and hexes denoting randomly generated maps where the given terrain type would be dominant. Whenever an army attacked another army you would be taken to a new map to battle it out - if you attacked someone standing on a forest hex you would get a scenario with lots of forests etc.
Sounds something like this, no?
Lim-Dul wrote:After defeating the enemy you would expand your territory and certain types of hexes would give you some benefits like cheaper units or some income etc.
That's essentially the opposite sort of reward model as the one this scenario-campaign is built around. The winner of a fight already has a number of advantages: you take out part of the enemy forces and get some experienced units in the process, plus if you win then you're probably a better player to begin with. Adding rewards for victory on top of that only makes the game more and more one-sided. Part of the idea behind this campaign is that it deliberately handicaps things in favor of the side that's losing, to keep things enjoyably challenging for both sides instead of having it turn into a total walkover.
Lim-Dul
Posts: 105
Joined: March 6th, 2006, 1:45 pm
Location: Europe -> Poland -> Warsaw
Contact:

Re: More junk from me: Random Conquest MP vs campaign

Post by Lim-Dul »

Sounds something like this, no?
Hell yeah! Pretty much exactly like this. I'll check it out and leave some comments (if required) - sadly it didn't stand out from the rest on the Add-On server so I haven't downloaded it before. ^^
That's essentially the opposite sort of reward model as the one this scenario-campaign is built around. [...]
You're right. On the other hand not giving the winning side any bonuses might cause the whole thing to drag on and on... I'll come back when I manage to finish a game of Worldwar. =)
War does not determine who is right - only who is left. - Bertrand Russell
--
Project StD - Save the Drakes - we want more branches! =)
User avatar
TL
Posts: 511
Joined: March 3rd, 2007, 3:02 am

Re: More junk from me: Random Conquest MP vs campaign

Post by TL »

Haven't had much time to work on this lately, but somewhere along the line the village shifting got bugged, so I uploaded a new version with it fixed.

On the plus side I know that the principle definitely works: I just played a total newbie stomp, and come the second scenario all my veteran level 1s and level 2s faced a map that had put all but one village on the other side of the river. Now THAT's one hell of an equalizer.
User avatar
TL
Posts: 511
Joined: March 3rd, 2007, 3:02 am

Re: More junk from me: Random Conquest MP vs campaign (ver 0.16)

Post by TL »

OK, so it turns out the previous version introduced a game-wrecking bug with map generation on client games after the first scenario, courtesy of an obscure bug with MP campaigns. I've got a workaround put in so everything should be playable again as of 0.16 (uploaded on addon server).
User avatar
appleide
Posts: 1003
Joined: November 8th, 2003, 10:03 pm
Location: Sydney,OZ

Re: More junk from me: Random Conquest MP vs campaign (ver 0.16)

Post by appleide »

Umm, when I fought computer player, on 2nd and subsequent scenarios the opponent is just a peasant... even when it has 12 villages it has no chance against my leader.
Why did the fish laugh? Because the sea weed.
User avatar
TL
Posts: 511
Joined: March 3rd, 2007, 3:02 am

Re: More junk from me: Random Conquest MP vs campaign (ver 0.16)

Post by TL »

Umm... huh. OK, I know everything definitely works for human vs. human, but you're right, AI sides are broken. I'll look into it.
User avatar
TL
Posts: 511
Joined: March 3rd, 2007, 3:02 am

Re: Updated: Random Conquest MP vs campaign (ver 0.2)

Post by TL »

Brand new version! Redid map generation from scratch. On the plus side, the generator is no longer faction-dependent so the campaign now works with any era.

New version 0.4: catch-up bonuses appear more frequently for a player who's falling behind. If a player is doing badly enough, they will eventually get a BIG band of reinforcements to even things out.
Post Reply