Conquest Minus

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

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

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

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by SlowThinker » September 23rd, 2014, 8:27 pm

I will comment your idea now, because it is simpler than the Conquest update (i.e. the unit re-build):
At this moment I can post some unorganized thoughts only:

The idea is interesting, and resembles HoMaM, where strength of the static AI is revealed only roughly.

I see one serious problem: less information means less planning and less decision. Planning and decision represent the fun of the game.
Yes, you could "pay" for the intelligence/information: you could reveal AI units by sending militias against them, but this is rather costly.
In other words, player's decision would be limited to
a) invest in an intelligence (send militia and lose it probably)
b) go blind and hope
and usually b) would be the better option: it means less decisions and probably a higher significance of luck

I would consider an opposite situation better: imagine a) would be the better and so the more common option, and b) would just add a flavor and made decisions a bit more complicated.
It could be done by introducing very cheap units for example, but still I am not sure whether it would improve the game ...
(BTW in Conquest- 2.0 I want to stress the significance of the intelligence very seriously, and your idea might work better there)

One more problem: now players may want to send explorers to create advance bases, and it is an interesting aspect of the game. With your idea it wouldn't pay off.

___________________________________________
A modified idea: any unit standing next to the AI unit would reveal it: the AI units would be similar to units with the concealment ability. It would make the intelligence cheaper.

User avatar
Blop
Posts: 76
Joined: May 22nd, 2011, 6:49 pm

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by Blop » September 24th, 2014, 5:19 pm

SlowThinker wrote: (BTW in Conquest- 2.0 I want to stress the significance of the intelligence very seriously, and your idea might work better there)
Looking forward to it :)
SlowThinker wrote: One more problem: now players may want to send explorers to create advance bases, and it is an interesting aspect of the game. With your idea it wouldn't pay off.
Yes, I see that. But as an alternative game mode, it wouldn't be problematic but rather the opposite.
SlowThinker wrote: A modified idea: any unit standing next to the AI unit would reveal it: the AI units would be similar to units with the concealment ability. It would make the intelligence cheaper.
I have already consdered that and I like the approach as well. It wouldn't hurt to have several options to pick in this game mode.

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

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by SlowThinker » September 26th, 2014, 1:43 pm

Blop wrote:
SlowThinker wrote: (BTW in Conquest- 2.0 I want to stress the significance of the intelligence very seriously, and your idea might work better there)
Looking forward to it :)
It is a question of a rather far future. Firstly Conquest should be polished, support for 3D maps should be added, the teleport system should be changed again.
Conquest 2.0 should resemble Conquest only partially: in order to stress importance of the intelligence recruits would not be immediate, but they would take one turn: that would make surprise attack possible.
And I am afraid Wesnoth functions would not support such a game well, and so a standalone game would be needed (if someone writes it :) ). For example Wesnoth doesn't allow to browse previous turns: a player would like to see where exactly was the enemy scout two turns ago or which hexes he revealed last turn.
Blop wrote:
SlowThinker wrote: A modified idea: any unit standing next to the AI unit would reveal it: the AI units would be similar to units with the concealment ability. It would make the intelligence cheaper.
I have already consdered that and I like the approach as well. It wouldn't hurt to have several options to pick in this game mode.
For the sake of simplicity let's limit our thinking to this approach.

What are the effects of this modification?
  • it adds another kind of 'discovery'. And discoveries are fun.
  • it adds another kind of decision and different thinking, maybe it stresses micromanagement over strategy.
  • the effect on the strategy "go blind and hope":
    it diminishes the chances of "go blind and hope" in some special situations, e.g. recruiting 5+3+3 in the 1st turn and hoping for a big bonus
    but in most situations it helps "go blind and hope", because a militia is too valuable even if it is not killed but only delayed one turn.
  • it makes any planning hard. And this is a very serious point.
I think this modification would make sense in these situations:
there are different AI and human units so that "go blind and hope" is useful in rare situations only.
there is a cheaper way how to reveal AI units (in Conquest 2.0 I plan cheaper units ... but I don't want to say details so that you don't lose the moment of surprise :) )

maze
Posts: 13
Joined: September 6th, 2012, 7:53 am

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by maze » December 11th, 2014, 5:57 am

Some players said a 2v2 tournament would be good.

Here is my idea (edited).
We dont make pre-made teams. Players play 2v2 games with random teammates. In the Final Round everyone plays with everyone.

Here an example:
final group
1player
2player
3player
4player

In the First game everyone get random teammate. The starting positions must be saved.
1st game: (settings: 1 shuffle on 2 capitol/bank mode 3. map settings on)

4p2p - 1p3p
2nd (shuffle sides off)
3p2p - 4p1p
3rd
1p2p - 3p4p

4th (with loading the saved position which was played in the 1st round)
1p3p - 4p2p
5th
4p1p - 3p2p
6th
3p4p - 1p2p




in this way in the final round 6 games should be played.

The qualification round can be shorter.
Example:
15 players register for the tournament. People in 1 group. They play 14 games. 4 or 8 best players goes into the final This is not decided.
IN this way the tournament is shorter. Whole Tourn is 14+6 or 14+12 games.






Advices ideas suggestions are welcome.
MAPS:
Last edited by maze on December 12th, 2014, 1:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
MAze

Conquest Minus LAdder Tournament:
http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=41430

enclave
Posts: 715
Joined: December 15th, 2007, 8:52 am

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by enclave » December 11th, 2014, 10:37 pm

2v2 tournament would be great and I seen big interest in 2v2 games during this week..
means people want to play 2v2 3v3..

the main problems are:
1) people think teams not equal.. (yep they might be, thats why tournament could be a nice idea.. we will test which teams better..)
2) with unknown players joining, they often quit.. and it results in strange game :) not really a problem.. harder is to find equal teams..

so basically tournament could help us split good and bad players.. and find equal teams.. and have nice equal fights..

I will be honest I dont quite understand maze's idea, except his words "everyone plays with everyone" or something like this..
What i see good in this idea is that it could help us determine the level of skills of the players who not in the ladder yet or who have not played sufficient amount of ladder games. For example a newbie played vs newbie, won, now he has more than 1500.. but does it really mean anything?

So If there would be a tournament I would offer to devide it into 2 parts..
1) pre-tournament warm up... Maze's plan.. everyone with everyone.. we finding good ally in process.. determine the level of skills of players..
2) tournament itself.. everybody chosing his teammate.. and register teams..
I would offer to be possible for each player to be registered in multiple amount of teams, but it's not very possible, since such teams would not be able to play against each other.. :)

thanks.

maze
Posts: 13
Joined: September 6th, 2012, 7:53 am

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by maze » December 12th, 2014, 10:53 pm

I realized that Have to make it simple.

Pre-made teams. 4-5 groups. 2 or 3 games in each group in the first round. Luck wil be a factor which group has the best teams. But NO KO-system in the first round. Each team that register can play at least 2-3 games
MAze

Conquest Minus LAdder Tournament:
http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=41430

maze
Posts: 13
Joined: September 6th, 2012, 7:53 am

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by maze » December 15th, 2014, 9:05 pm

I asked the Conquest-minus players and Fans about what tournament would be the best choice. First of all time to make an 1vs1 challange.
Rules and Registering for 1vs1 tournament here:
http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=41430

2vs2 tournament:
.. coming soon
MAze

Conquest Minus LAdder Tournament:
http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=41430

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

Conquest Minus 3.2.6 + 3.2.7 + 3.2.8

Post by SlowThinker » March 28th, 2015, 12:55 am

Conquest Minus 3.2.6
(released 24 November 2014)

This version fixes several bugs affecting BfW 1.12; it has no effect with BfW 1.10 (except maps):

Changes that affect the game mechanics:
  • (BfW 1.12 only) Fixed: a bug that prevented to teleport if the source hex was occupied (related to https://gna.org/bugs/index.php?21661)
  • (BfW 1.12 only) Fixed: a bug that showed autolabels also for units covered by fog
  • (BfW 1.12 only) Fixed: fog was not revealed after recruits and unboard
Changes that don't affect the game mechanics:
  • (BfW 1.12 only) Next bug won't be be fixed in Conquest-: with BfW 1.12 any attack can be ordered from an adjacent hex only; in other words, if a player orders both a move and an attack, only the move is performed, and the attack must be re-ordered. I hope it will be fixed in BfW 1.12.x (see https://gna.org/bugs/?22988 )
Changes of maps:
  • Europe
    fixed Krakow, Zurich: the string contained a non-ASCII character and so the label wasn't shown on the map.
  • Gabrithia
    fixed: the scenario didn't launch due to unit errors: AE Ukian Attack Dog had an undefined ability, due to changes in C- 3.2.4
Conquest Minus 3.2.7

Changes of maps:
  • Gabrithia
    (BfW 1.10 and 1.12) fixed: in some situations this scenario failed to start.
    From now, Conquest- Gabrithia requires Conquest- 3.1+ (or a non-recent version of Ageless Era) is installed
    As previously, Scenarios with kalifa units require Conquest- 3.1+ or any version of Ageless Era is installed

    (details: if both Conquest- and a recent version of Ageless Era were installed, ukian and darkblood units were not loaded and Conquest- Gabrithia failed to start. It happened because internal identifiers of ukian and darkblood units were changed in Ageless Era recently, and so they didn't correspond to those of Conquest-.
    Now Conquest- loads ukian and darkblood units anytime, even if Ageless Era is installed.)
Conquest Minus 3.2.8
(it may be downloaded from the 1.10 and 1.12 add-on servers)

Changes that don't affect the game mechanics:
  • fixed: if both Conquest Minus 3.2.7 and Ageless Era were installed, kalifa units definitions might be spoiled in Ageless Era, theoretically.

User avatar
Blop
Posts: 76
Joined: May 22nd, 2011, 6:49 pm

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by Blop » April 8th, 2015, 1:11 pm

Idea for a rework of Conquest Minus:

If a boat gets killed, it spawns the loaded unit onto that tile unless it cannot walk there.
If this is too unbalanced, the unit could take dmg according to the damage on the boat before being spawned.

enclave
Posts: 715
Joined: December 15th, 2007, 8:52 am

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by enclave » April 8th, 2015, 1:44 pm

My opinion on Blop's idea: doesn't make sense at all Blop sorry... Maybe somebody else finds it good idea, but not me.. just being honest. Should take a good care of units you load. Doesn't make sense to me in both conquest and real world.
However maybe you can give good reasons for why you think it is needed to be changed this way? How will it help anybody?

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

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by SlowThinker » April 8th, 2015, 3:36 pm

Like enclave, I don't see the good point behind Blop's idea. So it should be elucidated.

I see some bad points:
- it is a (little) complication of game rules
- it is a (big) complication of the gameplay. Normally you need one attack hex in order to unblock (=kill) one occupied hex. Now you could have two units stacked on one hex (boat+passenger), and so you would need two attack hexes in order to unblock one hex. It would make many areas unbreakable.
Last edited by SlowThinker on April 8th, 2015, 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blop
Posts: 76
Joined: May 22nd, 2011, 6:49 pm

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by Blop » April 8th, 2015, 6:26 pm

No need, just an idea.
And I am aware that with the current maps it is not a good idea.

User avatar
Gwledig
Posts: 352
Joined: March 30th, 2009, 5:10 pm
Location: UK

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by Gwledig » April 9th, 2015, 12:05 pm

ewo
I was just wondering if there is any sign of Mabuse's Conquest on v.12, it seems not... in which case, is there an argument for just renaming Conquest Minus to "Conquest"? Am I tempting fate here, maybe this is a very controversial suggestion, but it would be sensible I think if Conquest Minus has become the defacto mainstream version of Conquest.
Maintainer of: Conquest+ Classic, Conquest+ Space/Ranged, Chaoz Battle of the Wizards, Lazersquad (squad game), WesCraft (building multiplayer scenario)

enclave
Posts: 715
Joined: December 15th, 2007, 8:52 am

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by enclave » April 9th, 2015, 3:10 pm

I guess it would confuse people.. but in more far future, sounds like good idea to me :)
So my vote is -> do it after 1-2 years.. when people forget about 1.10
(from another point of view.. maybe now exactly time.. hard to say..)

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

Re: Conquest Minus

Post by SlowThinker » April 9th, 2015, 9:01 pm

Gwledig wrote:I was just wondering if there is any sign of Mabuse's Conquest on v.12, it seems not...
Mabuse's answer is here: http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php ... 33#p568033
Gwledig wrote:... in which case, is there an argument for just renaming Conquest Minus to "Conquest"? Am I tempting fate here, maybe this is a very controversial suggestion, but it would be sensible I think if Conquest Minus has become the defacto mainstream version of Conquest.
:) I thought Minus was always the mainstream version.

concerning the name
- Conquest Minus is a trademark with a good reputation, I don't think I would like to abandon it now ...
- I think it is good that Conquest (Minus) and World Conquest are better differentiated now
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