Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

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

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Post Reply
User avatar
Gwledig
Posts: 537
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 5:10 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Gwledig »

if you add 2.7 ("classic" for sake of argument) are you gona maintain it for new versions of Wesnoth (such as 1.9 and in the future)

will it ever be updated with new features or remain "locked" in 2,72 style?

how will it be different named from main pack? e.g. "Conquest Classic"

will you just use core / old maps like wesnoth, jelwan so users arn't swamped with maps when they install multiple Conquest packs..?

Any new featires from main pack you thinking of adding?

Bearing in mind above is this gona be confusing for players familiar with main pack?

some questions...
Maintainer of Conquest (Original Gameplay), Conquest+, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building MP game)

SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by SlowThinker »

Yes, i intend to maintain it for 1.10, but I skip 1.9

After the code will be polished I intend some new features, but I intend to add them rather carefully, and after some debate.

The name should keep the word "Conquest" of course, something will be added to distinguish. "Classic" would be ok only if I wouldn't intend to develop later. I think about Conquest Minus (I intend to follow the KISS principle when it gets changed)

Maps: in the beginning I will use 2.7.2f with all its maps.
As I said previously, we should try to find out a way how to combine maps and engines.

What shall be confusing for players familiar with main pack (you mean the Mabuse's pack?) ? AFAIK there are 3 packs on the server now, and some players still keep 2.7.2, and I don't think it would be confusing.
I work on Conquest Minus • I use DFoolWide, Retro Terrain Package and the add-on 'High Contrast Water'
I moved to Nosebane's corner (Doc Paterson's signature); I am spending my time there, so PM me if I don't answer your post in forums

User avatar
Gwledig
Posts: 537
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 5:10 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Gwledig »

I'm not keen on selecting an "engine" this is gona be meaningless for most ordinary players and might even cause some noobs to just forget it. You would need to explain what these engines mean and by then the less XP player just gets totally confused.

What I think would be easier for the player is giving some options, so for example like you choose the game mode (cap,std etc) you could also give option of fortify. You could run a "vanilla" game where Host chooses no fortify etc.

Regarding new factions/races, I think these will eventually "sit" in their own maps anyway, so Wales will always be Celts & Feudals for example, there is no reason why your pack couldn't have a conquest+recruit.cfg in the UTILS, so Wales.cfg would just include the macro reference to the factions in conquest+recruit.cfg

My own maps could also include the fortifications.cfg macro, and more traditional maps wouldn't have this.

If you have maps with very different features you'd probably want a message on startup saying "Fortificaitons enabled" or something.

just some more ideas.

Sounds like you are defo hosting your own pack though? If this is the case I would certainly be ineterested in metrging somehow with someone else's pack, cos I think too many packs is gona be bad.

But another option we should take seriously is having multiple packs but use unique maps for that pack.. like the Jinnakara one. So may pack could just have wales, empires, faerie etc. I also want to combine the 6 and 8 p packs at some point.
Maintainer of Conquest (Original Gameplay), Conquest+, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building MP game)

Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

Lich_Lord wrote: Also Mabuse, where is any evidence that Blobsy is slow, besides the fact that he is making arguments similar to that of slow's arguments?
no evidence, just male intuition :)
(and if he is not slow then he talked a lot with slow and took over his opinions which is probably as bad for him ;))

in any case, conquest will stay as it is.
i haven heard much arguments that could convince me.
and the things that convinced me got already changed.
(for example undead dragon cannot move over water)

i have thought making the game fully customizable, but in the end this offers no benefit.
OAB.
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by SlowThinker »

Gwledig,
By selecting an engine (Gwledig's, Mabuse's...) I mean a choice from a menu (like standard/capitol/realm), or a similar way.
Gwledig wrote:If this is the case I would certainly be ineterested in metrging somehow with someone else's pack, cos I think too many packs is gona be bad.
- I don't see a big difference between 3 and 4 packs
- you need to merge your 6p-8p code before merging with anybody else
- I still believe the "select engine" option would be the best
Gwledig wrote:having multiple packs but use unique maps for that pack
But I would like to be able to play San Francisco with the Classic engine. So I prefered the map accessory (definition of regions, labels, bonuses) would be separated, so that it can be used by any Conquest clone.
Last edited by SlowThinker on December 7th, 2010, 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
I work on Conquest Minus • I use DFoolWide, Retro Terrain Package and the add-on 'High Contrast Water'
I moved to Nosebane's corner (Doc Paterson's signature); I am spending my time there, so PM me if I don't answer your post in forums

Gengis_Khan
Posts: 5
Joined: December 1st, 2010, 3:03 am

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Gengis_Khan »

ok well i made a new conquest map that Gwledig has agreed to code for me

"Conquest New World"

there will be 4 factions

huts- tribals

normal houses/ brick houses- Fuedal

log houses- Celts

cave houses are rift

the map is a island map with the rift being in the most stratigic position. they have 3 areas 1 2 gold and 2 1 gold bonuses but will be fought over as they will give a advantage to who ever owns it with units with abilitys like submurge

the map is bellow just look and say what you think
Attachments
the new world conquest.zip
the map
(4.16 KiB) Downloaded 168 times

Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

to post something more constructive:

OAB (Options Are Bad) is a Principle that you can follow, as well as following the KISS-Principle. (sometimes the "rules" can be broken though)

As you know there are already OPTIONS to chose from (GAME_LENGTH, GAME_MODE).
Making it more customizeable will have only the result that there are too many different kinds of Conquest, and finding one that suits your personal preferences get even more difficult.


however, i just thought to add one more CUSTOMIZEABLE OPTION:

LUCK SETTINGS.

Luck can be either set to:
- DISABLED
- REDUCED
- NORMAL

i search for a Way to add the REDUCED option, this could be done by multiplying all UNIT ATTACKS by 2 (more Strikes) and multiplying also ALL UNIT HP by 2.
IDEA is that more Strikes will more likely even out in the long run.
(This could be also done JUST a tad of a Moment before Combat engages, so that the unit stats will be the same throughout the game (we dont want to confuse players). ater comabta the HP of the remaining unit are divided by 2 again (ceiled down).


What you Guys think about that ?

Think pls first about if you can imagine a GAME without any Luck, and then about the REDUCE Option.

I for myself are a bit torn if deleting all luck would be beneficial, but for sure it could be interesting. after all you dont want to have a lot of luck in Conquest, but if its completely gone, would you miss it ?

The REDUCE Option need just to get implemented in a way that the player is simply not aware about it (he shouldnt see the doubled up strikes and HP during game), some tricking behind the scenes (just before combat stats get adjusted), if you wana say so (hopefully it can be done as i imagine, but i think it should be possible)
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

User avatar
Gwledig
Posts: 537
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 5:10 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Gwledig »

I personaly like the idea of some luck, eg is my tier 2 militia going to kill the cavalry so I can get a stratrgic objective cruicial in this turn? If luck is OFF it's a dead militia for sure, but there's always a chance of making a daring move and it paying off.
As I say above I think its better to build specific issues into maps, so you could even rename a map to reflect the kind of game it is going to be, for example Conquest+ Seige Wesnoth could be cut down section of Wesnoth over a river or somerhing suitable for seige style play, another map could be named to reflect the races, you'll see I've added factions in maps in brackets so people can see them. I'm also going to add the factions in the REALM options, so it will almost be like chooing your 'race' when you play.
Maintainer of Conquest (Original Gameplay), Conquest+, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building MP game)

Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

Gwledig wrote:I'm also going to add the factions in the REALM options, so it will almost be like chooing your 'race' when you play.
nice idea. i also thought about this.
however, the races would need to be more balanced then

it could be even worth a new game mode(s).
maybe a capitol variant

EDIT:
----------
(on the other hand: the way iam thinking about how this could work, the races are already incorporated ;))

so, right now, i discard that idea (again)
-----------



about luck: well, yes. luck is a factor that must be in a game, i also think its maybe just waste of time (although i have ready-to-insert code for a no-luck option already.)
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

Mabuse
Posts: 2130
Joined: November 6th, 2007, 1:38 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Mabuse »

btw, "NO LUCK" OPTION idea is definatley "in mind"
code just need to get implemented.

i just wait for the next update.
("reduced luck" option would get also incorporated at that point)

so far i think the balance is ok, the races have all their pros and cons
with the undead flyers as an extremely annoying "feature" ;)
thank god the 20gold spectre has only 8 moves ;)

i also plan to add a new map to the pack, based on the middleearth map that was used
(renamed everything of course)
The best bet is your own, good Taste.

wtf_is_this
Posts: 56
Joined: March 24th, 2010, 7:01 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by wtf_is_this »

'At this point there is no Conquest on the add-on server that would meet my gameplay preferences.
(I didn't play last Jinnaraka's versions)
Gwledig's Conquest was always an experimental field, adding a lot of new features.
Mabuse's Conquest follows a very similar path like Gwledig's one, and with some epecially unpleasant points.

My most serious reservations about the Mabuse's Conquest:
It is leaving the KISS principle, and there are some changes that do harm the game balance or shifts player's aims a wrong way.
The most serious problem for me is the stressed XP. So far I ignored XP, but now it is getting important. And it has two bad effects: a micromanagement, and uniqueness of units (a RPG with tens of units is not a good idea)
Units are getting unbalanced (e.g. flyers are getting overpowered.)
The defense is too easy with the 75% def on villages.

EDIT: i jsut saw the no luck option and the lotr map.Well i like that we will play updated lotr(althought in its old variant is the most balnced in 1v1 capitol map).And can u say something more wat is this no luck option( i mean details)
The fully revealed income.
And it is very likely that more features which I won't like will be added in the future.

(And I can't even try Mabuse's Conquest without rewriting my original Conquest)
So...

Lich_Lord wrote:
Also, the reason why I'd like to have my previous conquest is so that people without the new conquest add-on can play and so that I can play 1v1 games without the income table, which I haven't managed to find in the utils.cfg yet, and so I'm not able to take it out. Or to possibly create another conquest clone (though I'd rather not)

I think the original Conquest (2.7.2f) should be added to the add-on server.
Also I think there should be only one maintaner-boss of this add-on. (but I think the boss should not cooperate with other people in a Mabuse's style)

I can do it myself (and be the boss).
I want to simplify and repair the code until any serious change is applied (but I expect some less serious changes, like: to add 2? units stronger than a general, to be able to play without the ageless era...). The problem is I don't know how much I can engage in the code rewrite, and so when it will be finished, and so when any serious change may be worked on.

Lich, if you want to place 2.7.2f to the server yourself and to be the main maintainer, then do it. Then once I finish the code rewrite, we can talk about the future (who shall be the boss, or whether to split its development in case we diverge too much)

btw I don't think it is too bad to have several Conquests:

Gwledig wrote:
u know its pretty easy to have the old/pure maps (no new features) in my pack, eg. have 2 sets of recruit menu for say, Human and Human+ then macro these in the scenario file, same goes for any 'new' features. Conquest+ could actually contain both sets
In fact we can count 4 possible sets now? Original, Gwledig's, Jinnaraka's, Mabuse's? (I listed them in order as they appeared, I didn't intend to insult anybody ).

Your idea requires a lot of cooperation, especially now when the Conquest code needs to be simplified and to get rid of the errors.
Also imagine there are 3*10 maps in the lobby list in place of 10 maps.

I think the most comfortable solution for players is to create a map-pack, where the hosting player can choose the Conquest engine at game start. But at this moment I am not sure whether this is doable under condition the code of the individual engines is kept isolated (I mean each maintainer develops his own code, and their code needn't be to put together).'


Slow u are obiously right.I totaly hate the chart with incomes that apears(as well as all good players i asked-Amangon,Condor,neila,Svetak,xy,Elrood and...)well some of them arent so great players but they are wathcing many good batles:).So there should be option to disable this.
2ndly i would say forification is a good idea but 75% defense is awesome and unbalanced.There should be suc hthing but in other variant,althought i wouldnt care if fortify dont exist.
3rdly.The problem with flyers(not only drakes).Its just crazy :D there are some spawns that garant u 100% of some maps( i mean the teleport surdmark) and on on Jelwal the drakes in center rules.I saw mabuse said dont cry if u have many rivers and flyers near them,but even witohut rivers they are just Awesome.Something should be done with them,i think there is only 1 map with them where they are balanced.( i m talking forr capitol ffa or capitol team/1v1 in standart the problem still exist but not so much and not on nearly all maps).

So i would realy like the normal conquest,and Slow i will aporicate if u become the 'boss' of it.I will surely play it instead the mabuse's,althought its still fun,and prety balanced and many ideas are very good and intresting,just they need to be reworked:):).Jinarka's conquest is 1 big 'BLAAAIH@,and Gwledig's has many new features and factions which cant be balanced at all and some of them are crazy i would say:D,althought i realy like Gwledig as a person i think he should make reworks on some feature if he wants more good players to play his games(8-percent of hi sunbalnced ideas can be easily made balanced).

Well this is my opinion i m sorry if i got speling mistakes cos i was in a hurry:).Have fun guys and hope i see u many more times n the conquest society
Last edited by wtf_is_this on December 7th, 2010, 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gwledig
Posts: 537
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 5:10 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Gwledig »

WTF some folks like playing crazy games... also be more helpful if you actually suggested some balance suggestions, I have been tweaking and stuff for weeks and listening to players

many people think maps like wales are pretty balanced, I have condor playing them and giving me feedback and he's no fool player.

Yes some maps are plain crazy I admit, drake world and Faerie to name a few.

But certainly, many are 1 faction only like Desert Empires, how can it be so unbalanced if everyone has the same units and capabilities?

Maybe you should listen to players a bit more instead of just 2 guys on the forum lol

or make your own map and show us fools how its all done.. lol
Maintainer of Conquest (Original Gameplay), Conquest+, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building MP game)

SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by SlowThinker »

I uploaded Conquest Minus 2.7.3
(due to my weak english the description might need a correction, let me know pls)

Changes from Conquest 2.7.2f:
I changed the starting gold for capitol 1 vs 1 to 11g (red) - 14g (blue). Originally blue had only 13g.
I changed the starting gold for standard 1 vs 1 to 18g (red) - 29g (blue). Originally blue had only 26g. (This is appropriate only for the xanthor map. In fact this value should be dependent on a number of villages)

code polishing:
{VARIABLE garrison $random} has been applied

bugs:
25g for red in a 3p capitol game - corrected

maps:
I removed the Far East map (I am looking forward for an update; or just grumble and I give it back)
I added Poland with teleport and Surdmark with teleport
I added Poland (no teleport) 1 vs 1
Edit:
I uploaded Conquest Minus 2.7.3b

maps: I repaired wrong gold bonuses in Poland and Surdmark maps.
Last edited by SlowThinker on December 8th, 2010, 10:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
I work on Conquest Minus • I use DFoolWide, Retro Terrain Package and the add-on 'High Contrast Water'
I moved to Nosebane's corner (Doc Paterson's signature); I am spending my time there, so PM me if I don't answer your post in forums

User avatar
Gwledig
Posts: 537
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 5:10 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by Gwledig »

@ ST

I hope you were able to rename the actual maps so they have unique IDs and names, otherwise this may cause problems when viewing the maps in the map list, eg. all the maps names/ Ids need to be

Conquest [Minus] Wesnoth
Conquest [Minus] Jel'wan
Maintainer of Conquest (Original Gameplay), Conquest+, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building MP game)

SlowThinker
Posts: 876
Joined: November 28th, 2008, 6:18 pm

Re: Conquest 2.0 - on 1.8 server

Post by SlowThinker »

But they have unique IDs and names: "Conquest-".
I work on Conquest Minus • I use DFoolWide, Retro Terrain Package and the add-on 'High Contrast Water'
I moved to Nosebane's corner (Doc Paterson's signature); I am spending my time there, so PM me if I don't answer your post in forums

Post Reply