![[us]](/mwf/flags/us.png "United States")
>Sort of. But I'd split energy radius and ownership radius to two different buildings. Maybe have a fortress handle the ownership.
>Or abduct the whole ownership radius thing completely. Why is it there anyways? It just draws weird triangles into the landscape. (wich I think are even uglier than powerlines :x) Just never let enemies use a building you have build.
>+Maybe don't let enemies build near a hostile fortress?
Yes, my thoughts exactly.
![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
That's sort of the current system except not drawing the borders :P No, seriously the graphics is the least of a problem here.And if you're pro keeping the energy radius, why not open some nice gameplay mechanics (abadoned buildings in the landscape which you have to reclaim; struggling for the control of a base - if all of 'your' buildings are just unusable for the enemy, this can never happen).
In addition to this post: There will be lines/pipes anyway in the game(?) -> pumps! So why the strain to avoid nice and satisfying energy lines!
>So why the strain to avoid nice and satisfying energy lines!
Mainly because of what Clonkonaut explained here:
It's not a fun task for the player. It's just additional building cost that requires some walking.
Well, only if its done the same way as it is in ClonkRage!
And in other the cases, as already discussed somewhere in this forums the pipe system can also be used for object transportation, which would be really cool if you can some how see objects go through pipes. So there might actually be uses for a pipe system, but I'd also rather not use them for power.
Based on what everyone said and on one conversation between PeterW and Matthi on IRC, I suggest the following:* remove the flag
* give every power producer a flag-like area which also defines ownership (with a windmill, you own the nearby workshop)
* as usual, in such a base every producer & consumer is connected
* give the players something for inter-base transport of power (for example those satelite-dish-like things)
Implications:
- you cannot take over enemies' power production buildings, but you have to destroy them to take over his base
- you will most likely build some power production buildings to expand your base sometimes
- power production buildings will become a valuable part of your settlement to attack
- it becomes a lot easier for the players to understand
thanks to Matthi for the picture:
Since there seems to be some agreement that power producers should be able to transmit energy within a small radius on their own, I made that change in the development branch. It's just enough to build one building on each side; like e.g. a sawmill or some energy transmitter thing. See screenshot.
![[gb]](/mwf/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
> - you cannot take over enemies' power production buildings, but you have to destroy them to take over his base
That part seems a bit odd. Does this mean we completely remove all ownership transfer systems? If not, why stop using them?
If energy means control, you can't really lose control over an energy producing building. Did we have other ownership transfer systems? I can actually think of a few other ideas to manage ownership, but I'd like to "wrap up" the energy system discussion independently of that :)
>Does this mean we completely remove all ownership transfer systems?
No!
But instead of destroying the other player's flag and building your own flag to take over his workshop, you would destroy the enemy's steam engine and build your own steam engine (or something similar).
This is basically the "if you can power it, it is yours" thing that someone mentioned
Yes, that's pretty much want to convey as well, so I'm not really against it. The part I have doubts about would be power producers being statically bound to a team - the slotting proposal was all about allowing switching that allegiance. I mean, in Matthias' example, the relatively remote windmill farm would determine the control over the whole settlement, right? Also what would happen if an enemy inserts an additional power producer at some point in the network? And wouldn't the need to destroy infrastructure mean that contested bases would be constantly unpowered due to frequent switching attempts?
I'd like it more if we still had something like control crystals in there that you can switch around quickly, even if we resolve to make the network itself more static. Its function would be reduced to "colouring" the nodes of the energy network around it according to whatever connected crystal is closest.
I'd like it more if we still had something like control crystals in there that you can switch around quickly, even if we resolve to make the network itself more static. Its function would be reduced to "colouring" the nodes of the energy network around it according to whatever connected crystal is closest.
Zapper you have the best idea yet, I personally vote to have your idea implemented into the game. \o/ We can discus some concept art on the "dish", but otherwise I love the idea. :)
The point with the ownership seems a bit odd to me. Why would a power plant define ownership? It's kind of the same question as before, just reverse: "Why would the flag define energy distribution?"What about splitting up ownership radii for flags and energy radii for energy producers?
Your local power distributor also has control about if you can work on your computer today or not, so its not too far off ;)In my opinion, its for simplicitys sake. I could live with other systems for ownership as well, but I think we should actually make that a seperate discussion then, because I'm not entirely sure the ownership-thing is thought through well.
![[vn]](/mwf/flags/vn.png "Vietnam")
I like the overall idea and how the area of ownership are displayed (transparent circles of player color). These circles could be only displayed when in build-mode (with hammer).By the way, I also belong to the "I like the power lines"-faction for the visual effect. However, I understand and acknowledge that from a gameplay design point of view, a wireless power distribution system is better.
Also, various people have been coming up with ideas for a system of switches, triggers and mechanisms. Just a few use cases I remember from previous brainstorms: traps, airlocks, automatic switching-on of pumps that pump down (produce power) on lack of power and the other way round, flood gates, guides (for a pneumatic delivery system). The mechanisms and triggers/switches will be connected with lines, so if there are no power lines, it is much easier to understand the mechanism and not mix it up with them. To boot, connecting these lines is not a repetitive and boring task because you are constructing a mechanism with it.
By Anonymous ![[nl]](/mwf/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
Date 2013-09-18 20:12
Completely random person here, just thought I'd drop in to tell you this reminds me of Perimeter:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/Perimeter
Really funny to see how to completely different games can arrive to the same conclusion. In case you don't have the time to look around on youtube: essentially the entire base is connected by power transmitter towers, and special "boosters" can be used to cover longer distances. but the energy system is basically allso the ownership, if you can cut buildings off from power, you can connect them to your own network. Also, the game has a form of terraforming, but hey :p.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/Perimeter
Really funny to see how to completely different games can arrive to the same conclusion. In case you don't have the time to look around on youtube: essentially the entire base is connected by power transmitter towers, and special "boosters" can be used to cover longer distances. but the energy system is basically allso the ownership, if you can cut buildings off from power, you can connect them to your own network. Also, the game has a form of terraforming, but hey :p.
In my personal opinion the idea is not ideal.In the actual concept the windmills spread there energy-radius over the place. All buildings in this place receiving energy, whether there consume energy or not. But I can still build outside of the radius, which is - of course - comfortable if there is a building which doesn't need energy. But an enemy can use this building. To avoid that I need to place a windmill nearby. Well, problem solved, but this doesnt make any sense at all? At least, it's the opposite of intuitive.
I would prefer to have some sort of property system, which is very popular in many RTS-Games (Anno, Settlers - and yes I noticed OC isnt a RTS, but still!). So I define my property via flags/stones/skulls/whatever the mysterious art-team is planning(!) and within the property-radius I can place my buildings, noone can abuse them and energy is floating automatically. Of course I can extend my property radius with a limited number of flags/stones/whatever - which can be definied by the scenario-author. And of course the enemy can remove/destroy them...sort of - to claim the place. Energy can still be "teleported" via telephone poles between my separated property-areas.
Any thoughts on this? I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who is confused with the concept right now.
I am doing this exact thing for Clonk Rage at the moment. Naturally, I think it is a good idea ;)
Ya, I think I'm in favor of splitting ownership and energy. Producers with an own, big energy radius, wich can be expanded by antenna buildings or coils, etc.And ownership handled by strongholds (I think that's cooler than flags :p). So a building belongs to everyone, expect it's in the radius of a stronghold and enemies can't build in the radius of a stronghold. Just my opinion here. :)
Like I said, I don't mind if ownership is handled seperately from Energy. But the way you describe it, I actually don't see much difference. Its just.. duplicating the system, right? I'd need a windmill to power stuff and in addition a flag to own stuff in a certain area.
The main difference would be that you cannot build outside your own base, as I understood it.That means that the confusing situation with a wind generator not powering a workshop directly next to it but outside your base, could not happen. That also means that you have to expand your base before constructing stuff and should put a stronger focus on capturing the enemies' flags compared to when the power-stuff would define the base-area.
![[la]](/mwf/flags/la.png "Lao People")
Then why not define ownership radius with a flag and energy producers within that tadius just piwer anything else within the radius? See Matthi. Im in favour of either what sven implemented now (energy prod. define ownership) or like it was before. Not two different radii.
I also don't like the idea of energy producers defining ownership.
But I think multiple kinds of radii are too complicated.
So here's my idea:
Producers do not define ownership, there are no other structures which have an ownership radius or something like that. Instead, if you want to prevent a building from being usable for enemies, you attach a *insert creative idea* (e.g. a flag) to it. If a hostile player wants to use it, he has to put his own *flag* on it (could take a bit of time).
But I think multiple kinds of radii are too complicated.
So here's my idea:
Producers do not define ownership, there are no other structures which have an ownership radius or something like that. Instead, if you want to prevent a building from being usable for enemies, you attach a *insert creative idea* (e.g. a flag) to it. If a hostile player wants to use it, he has to put his own *flag* on it (could take a bit of time).
I'm currently spending quite some time in trains, so I've put some thought into the detailed mechanics I would like to see for energy & control. This doesn't care too much about whether we end up using flags or not (personally, I don't care too much), as long as there is some way to introduce control into the system.
General:
- Certain buildings work as "nodes".
- Such nodes have an area around them. Where areas touch, we see their nodes as neighbouring.
- There might be additional mechanics for making nodes neighbour each other (e.g. dishes)
Control:
- Some nodes are "control" nodes. They are under control by a fixed player.
- Other nodes are controlled by the owner of the control node with the shortest node path to the given node (the node path length is the sum of all distances between the neighbouring nodes that make up the path)
- Nodes that have no path to a control node are neutral.
Power:
- Some nodes can introduce power into the system.
- If the power node is neutral, this means it transmits energy freely to all connected nodes (which must be neutral too, otherwise there would be a path, see above).
- Otherwise, it transmits energy to all connected nodes that have the same controlling player.
Effects:
- An object counts as controlled by a player if their center lies in an area of a node that is controlled by the player.
- If an object is on more than one area of a node at the same time, the closest one counts.
- Only that player should be able to interact with the object. Ideally, there should be a visual representation (let's just
- If the area is neutral, the object should accept control from either all or no players (whatever makes most sense).
- The object has power exactly if there is enough power nodes connected to the closest node.
Some examples:
1. A neutral node, a node owned by "red", a node owned by "green".
1.1 If the left-most was a power producer, the left-most bubble would have energy, but all players could use powered objects.
1.2 If the middle node was *not* a power producer, we would have no energy there. This might still mean that some objects that work without power might be specific to the red player (say, doors might not open to other players).
1.3 Same for the green one, obviously.
2. Now the red control node overlaps with the other node. As there's now a path between them, the left-most node becomes controlled by the red player.
3. If the green control area starts overlapping the red one, we get a straight line between them
4. Now the control nodes are on the far sides: The middle one is controlled by red, as it's closer.
5. Two nodes in the middle: They get different controllers as they have different shortest paths to control nodes. Note however that they are each closer to a node controlled by the other player than they are to their control node.
6. It is important to consider path distance when deciding control. Here the upper-most left green node is closer to the red control node, but the path is longer.
What we have discussed so far:
- "Classic": Flags are control nodes. Power producers are power nodes.
- "Slots": Producers are power nodes, coils (?) are neutral nodes. By slotting you can introduce control at any of the nodes.
- "You control what you can power": Producers are automatically both power as well as control nodes.
I still like my slot idea the most - it means that networks remain relatively stable even while control changes around wildly. Might make it possible for puzzle scenarios to construct networks using fixed objects which you can then "activate" using your crystal? And yes, the same could be done with the "classic" model, but it wouldn't be as clean.
Opinions? Sorry if it's a bit disorganized, short on time :)
General:
- Certain buildings work as "nodes".
- Such nodes have an area around them. Where areas touch, we see their nodes as neighbouring.
- There might be additional mechanics for making nodes neighbour each other (e.g. dishes)
Control:
- Some nodes are "control" nodes. They are under control by a fixed player.
- Other nodes are controlled by the owner of the control node with the shortest node path to the given node (the node path length is the sum of all distances between the neighbouring nodes that make up the path)
- Nodes that have no path to a control node are neutral.
Power:
- Some nodes can introduce power into the system.
- If the power node is neutral, this means it transmits energy freely to all connected nodes (which must be neutral too, otherwise there would be a path, see above).
- Otherwise, it transmits energy to all connected nodes that have the same controlling player.
Effects:
- An object counts as controlled by a player if their center lies in an area of a node that is controlled by the player.
- If an object is on more than one area of a node at the same time, the closest one counts.
- Only that player should be able to interact with the object. Ideally, there should be a visual representation (let's just
SetOwner them?).- If the area is neutral, the object should accept control from either all or no players (whatever makes most sense).
- The object has power exactly if there is enough power nodes connected to the closest node.
Some examples:
1. A neutral node, a node owned by "red", a node owned by "green".
1.1 If the left-most was a power producer, the left-most bubble would have energy, but all players could use powered objects.
1.2 If the middle node was *not* a power producer, we would have no energy there. This might still mean that some objects that work without power might be specific to the red player (say, doors might not open to other players).
1.3 Same for the green one, obviously.
2. Now the red control node overlaps with the other node. As there's now a path between them, the left-most node becomes controlled by the red player.
3. If the green control area starts overlapping the red one, we get a straight line between them
4. Now the control nodes are on the far sides: The middle one is controlled by red, as it's closer.
5. Two nodes in the middle: They get different controllers as they have different shortest paths to control nodes. Note however that they are each closer to a node controlled by the other player than they are to their control node.
6. It is important to consider path distance when deciding control. Here the upper-most left green node is closer to the red control node, but the path is longer.
What we have discussed so far:
- "Classic": Flags are control nodes. Power producers are power nodes.
- "Slots": Producers are power nodes, coils (?) are neutral nodes. By slotting you can introduce control at any of the nodes.
- "You control what you can power": Producers are automatically both power as well as control nodes.
I still like my slot idea the most - it means that networks remain relatively stable even while control changes around wildly. Might make it possible for puzzle scenarios to construct networks using fixed objects which you can then "activate" using your crystal? And yes, the same could be done with the "classic" model, but it wouldn't be as clean.
Opinions? Sorry if it's a bit disorganized, short on time :)
>Opinions? Sorry if it's a bit disorganized, short on time :)
Wouldn't it be more intuitive for the players to use the age of the nodes instead of the path distance? aka "who builds first, gets the node"?
Other than that, the big question remains whether we should try only allowing players to build in their own base as http://forum.openclonk.org/topic_show.pl?pid=24486#pid24486%5bNachtfalter suggested. That would fit better into such a conquest-scenario, since the power producers would not have anything to do with any area or ownership AND it eliminates the confusing situation for the player where you would build an unfunctional workshop next to a wind generator (outside your base) and wonder why it doesn't work.
Well, the confusing situation you mention is taken care of with this system anyways.I dislike the idea of only being able to build inside your base strongly for it requires a base in the first place to build anything.
Lets say: I want to build an elevator at this faraway gold mine. What do I do? I' have to extend my base by building the least expensive building until the elevator fits into my base area. Then I set up a wind generator next to it, and destroy all the cheap, "base-bridging" buildings again? By the way, this way, I'd still be able to have uncontrolled buildings, you know.
Oh. The milestones/flags you would use to extent your base could be build outside, as I understood it.So in your scenario, you would build a milestone/flag at the faraway gold mine, then an elevator and a power generator.
That would imply that every building I build is controlled anyways, because if it wasn't i couldn't build it. What's the point of handing the control system to the player, then, besides making building even more expensive? Keep in mind non-competitive scenarios here. (Don't even suggest "turning off" the control system if there is no melee goal.)Also, if the flag is supposed to be a rare item, i don't think that is a good idea. It'd just overcomplicate getting your first gold mine up and running.
Edit:
Also, in terms of how this problem is solved, this isn't too far from Peters system: Here, I'd just skip the flag part, if I don't feel the need to secure this building. If I think it should be owned, I would still slot in a control node, so the only difference in that case would be the order in which things can be build. But the big advantage would be that I can decide if that building is worth an extra flag.
>What's the point of handing the control system to the player, then, besides making building even more expensive?
The difference to the current system would be that - in competitive scenarios - taking over parts of a settlement/base would be a lot easier compared to when power producers define ownership. Because if your base is defined by power producers, the enemy would have to destroy your producers and then build own power generators to take over production buildings (because otherwise they would be non-functional). With a different building defining the base/ownership, it would come down to fighting over this building as a means to take over parts of an enemies base without destroying their infrastructure (power-wise) in the process.
For single player scenarios where milestones/flags might be a rather rare building, as you said, I could imagine that it puts the focus more on building your base in a few spots and transporting the material to your base instead of moving your base to the material. The difference to the system we had for the last three years would only be rather small - you already had the flag there that you needed in your base.
> difference to the current system ... a different building defining the base/ownership
In Peters proposal, it is a different building (or slottable item or something like that) that defines ownership. Did we talk past each other here? :o
> it puts the focus more on building your base in a few spots and transporting the material to your base
If buildings require flags, this is only true if your methods of transportation don't include any buildings like elevators, pumps or cable car stations.
>In Peters proposal, it is a different building (or slottable item or something like that) that defines ownership. Did we talk past each other here? :o
Oh, I was taking about that one here
>If buildings require flags, this is only true if your methods of transportation don't include any buildings like elevators, pumps or cable car stations.
Yes, that would have to be dealt with. For example cable car stations could require energy only at one point of the connected line (one end of the railway will most likely be in your base anyway).
That's an issue with the other system where power producers define the ownership, too, though: imagine a cable car line underground. You couldn't simply build a wind generator next to each station. Actually that's an issue with every system where power transport is required.
> Wouldn't it be more intuitive for the players to use the age of the nodes instead of the path distance? aka "who builds first, gets the node"?
Not sure how it would be more intuitive. After all, distance is apparent, whereas age is an invisible property?
Something that could be problematic would be an enemy constructing a flag right outside your base, therefore taking control of your entry door. This would essentially force you to have the control nodes at the outer edges. It's too early to tell whether this is a good choice tactically, but it doesn't seem like a fatal issue.
> Other than that, the big question remains whether we should try only allowing players to build in their own base
Building should be disallowed in enemy area at minimum - so you can't easily build stuff over your enemy's castle. Restricting it to your own base area seems unnecessarily restrictive to me. After all, the need to always establish control before you plop a building down is bound to become a bother. This is all about making things easier in the typical cases even if it means we need to invest some brain cells into corner cases. Note that my original proposal was to allow building from raw material in neutral or own territory, but allow buying buildings as a whole in owned territory.
> it eliminates the confusing situation for the player where you would build an unfunctional workshop next to a wind generator (outside your base) and wonder why it doesn't work.
That's exactly why I introduced neutral powered areas. If you don't have a flag but happen to have the materials, you can make your own settlement without any flag at all. Problem is just that it effectively becomes public property.
>Not sure how it would be more intuitive. After all, distance is apparent, whereas age is an invisible property?
For me it would be more like "oh, there is a neutral node and when I build my own node, I take it and its mine", "oh there is a node taken by an enemy, I can NOT overtake it by building my node 3 pixels closer".
>That's exactly why I introduced neutral powered areas. If you don't have a flag but happen to have the materials, you can make your own settlement without any flag at all. Problem is just that it effectively becomes public property.
So the big area outside of everyone's base would always be one huge power area? Or would the power producer define one small neutral area?
> oh, there is a neutral node and when I build my own node, I take it and its mine
Well, that's how it works anyway. But I suppose you have a slightly more permanent concept of possession in mind? :)
I see the appeal, but I feel this could lead to problems with possession being too "sticky". Let's say we have that scenario with a windmill farm far away. Now let's say I want to "steal" that windmill farm for my own settlement. How would I accomplish that? I think it should work by installing a new control node - either by placing or slotting your flag at the new location. But if we go by "oldest" this wouldn't have any effect, because no matter where you put the flag, all existing nodes have already been claimed. You'd have to additionally temporarily disrupt the connection to the enemy's settlement to get the desired effect, which feels silly to me.
> So the big area outside of everyone's base would always be one huge power area? Or would the power producer define one small neutral area?
Not sure I understand the question. Putting a control node close to the boundary of your settlement would establish a zone that your enemy will have a hard time moving into. You would have energy in that zone - but you probably wouldn't want to put buildings there, as the enemy might flip them by constructing a new control node. It might however be an interesting thought to have, say, powered cannons or other mobile defensive weaponry that could make use of said power area.
>Not sure I understand the question
I think I had misunderstood how you intended power nodes/generators to function. A power generator outside your base would just have a small circle around itself where it could power stuff, right?
>You'd have to additionally temporarily disrupt the connection to the enemy's settlement to get the desired effect, which feels silly to me.
I will sleep over that - not sure what I find more silly, what you said or that you could claim something by building your flag three pixels closer than your opponent :D
> A power generator outside your base would just have a small circle around itself where it could power stuff, right?
Yes. Doesn't have to be small though - if we don't go for the "touching" rule that I proposed earlier (which doesn't seem to have generated a lot of enthusiasm) we could just as well use the same radius for everything.
> or that you could claim something by building your flag three pixels closer than your opponent :D
A compromise could be to forbid building control nodes in a given radius around other control nodes. That way, there's a minimum area that such a node guarantees control over.
Well it's more organized than the other proposals so far!Thanks for the summary. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by
> coils (?) are neutral nodes
Did you mean to write "control nodes" there?
I really like how this system doesn't need to concern the player with control at all for cooperative or single player scenarios.
> Did you mean to write "control nodes" there?
Well, no. This is about "neutral" nodes that act solely as a transmitter for energy and control. Dishes would be an example, with the added feature of establishing long-rage connections. However, I think there will also be use for cheap "local" transmission nodes no matter what system we use. It's just most pressing for the "slots" system, because otherwise you'd quickly run into situations where you want a control node at a certain point, but have nothing there to slot your crystal/flag into.
The question is just what identity it should have. An idea would be to use the energy storage buildings for this purpose. And/or make them boundary stones as Nachtfalter proposed.
What about trying this? Is anyone strongly against any points?As I understood it, the changes to current version would be:
- keep flag/milestone as control node
- power producers keep their power radius, however must become non-control nodes
- implement system to take over neutral non-control nodes depending on close control nodes
- make sure owners of objects in a base are changed properly
- fix power system to support neutral "bases"
Did I misunderstand anything, Peter?
Yes, pretty much. From a technical point of view, the trickiest part is probably that now neighbouring nodes (= overlapping areas) aren't automatically connected any more. Also removal of control nodes can now trigger significant network changes.
By the way, after thinking a bit about your objection, here's a better version about the area ownership and control node construction rules:
- A point is controlled by a player if it lies within a node area controlled by the player
- If multiple node areas cover a point, the one that has been under control for longer takes priority (time of construction or time it last changed control, whichever is later)
- It is impossible to build a new control node at a point controlled by another player unless the construction would flip all nodes that cover the point of construction.
I think this is a cleaner way to think about it. The advantage of this is that now once a control node owns an area, you can only change control by changing the node's controller, full stop. It should therefore now be impossible to "chip away" at your control area using flags, and you can therefore build you control nodes further back.
On the other hand, the control node construction rules ensures that we can still flip ownership. Note though that this has a number of subtleties. A node that is within a 50% circle of a control node is now impossible to flip, as you would need to install a control node within the are of the (unflippable) existing control node. On the other hand, a node at 75% radius would still block construction of control nodes at 75%-100% radius from it, but flip from any flag in the 25%-75% range. I'll probably make an illustration shortly.
By the way, after thinking a bit about your objection, here's a better version about the area ownership and control node construction rules:
- A point is controlled by a player if it lies within a node area controlled by the player
- If multiple node areas cover a point, the one that has been under control for longer takes priority (time of construction or time it last changed control, whichever is later)
- It is impossible to build a new control node at a point controlled by another player unless the construction would flip all nodes that cover the point of construction.
I think this is a cleaner way to think about it. The advantage of this is that now once a control node owns an area, you can only change control by changing the node's controller, full stop. It should therefore now be impossible to "chip away" at your control area using flags, and you can therefore build you control nodes further back.
On the other hand, the control node construction rules ensures that we can still flip ownership. Note though that this has a number of subtleties. A node that is within a 50% circle of a control node is now impossible to flip, as you would need to install a control node within the are of the (unflippable) existing control node. On the other hand, a node at 75% radius would still block construction of control nodes at 75%-100% radius from it, but flip from any flag in the 25%-75% range. I'll probably make an illustration shortly.
Okay, here's an updated illustration. I actually realized that now we have a situations where the node centre point is not controlled by the node's controller. Bug or feature?
Quick explanation: We always assume green nodes were constructed earlier and therefore take priority. Only exception is the illustration in the top right, where the green non-control node on the bottom was constructed afterwards. Due to being closer to the green control node, it becomes green, but does not take control of the red area.
The second illustration on the right shows the area where a new control node could be constructed. Note that there is a green border where control node construction is impossible, until it becomes allowed again due to being able to flip the left node.
Side node: Slots wouldn't have this problem :)
Quick explanation: We always assume green nodes were constructed earlier and therefore take priority. Only exception is the illustration in the top right, where the green non-control node on the bottom was constructed afterwards. Due to being closer to the green control node, it becomes green, but does not take control of the red area.
The second illustration on the right shows the area where a new control node could be constructed. Note that there is a green border where control node construction is impossible, until it becomes allowed again due to being able to flip the left node.
Side node: Slots wouldn't have this problem :)
me to :(
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
