![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
For me it worked in the Internet Explorer :D(Now it doesn't anymore, though)
[offtopic]you use IE? xD i remember you on clonk net2 times you had a tux as bigicon.png xD
[/offtopic]
i tried with FiFo and chrome, no luck :O
After I tried with my usual browser, I checked in IE and it worked there. I do not usually use the Internet Explorer, no>i remember you on clonk net2 times you had a tux as bigicon.png xD
That was my brother. We frequently played on one computer ;)
Use File->Download and then view the SVG file directly in the browser.
![[gb]](/mwf/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
Nobody thought of just saving it to disk, and then viewing it? :(
Here's a link to a PDF, that should give Google less trouble.
The new illustration shows an even hairier edge case: If we have more than one node in the 50%-75% radius from a control node, the area where an enemy can build a new control node becomes increasingly hard to predict. Theoretically, it's possible to have so many nodes around the control node that you effectively double the area that your enemy can never control without destroying the central control node.
Also note that the second scenario from the bottom left (where the center-point of a red area is actually controlled by green) can actually happen in real gameplay: All you'd have to do is have green construct the control node as well as the two center nodes. Then red adds his control node, which switches control of the node, but not all of its area. Red gets significantly less for his troubles than he might have anticipated.
Here's a link to a PDF, that should give Google less trouble.
The new illustration shows an even hairier edge case: If we have more than one node in the 50%-75% radius from a control node, the area where an enemy can build a new control node becomes increasingly hard to predict. Theoretically, it's possible to have so many nodes around the control node that you effectively double the area that your enemy can never control without destroying the central control node.
Also note that the second scenario from the bottom left (where the center-point of a red area is actually controlled by green) can actually happen in real gameplay: All you'd have to do is have green construct the control node as well as the two center nodes. Then red adds his control node, which switches control of the node, but not all of its area. Red gets significantly less for his troubles than he might have anticipated.
No opinions on this? I might actually go ahead and implement this unless somebody objects.
I don't have a strong opinion. Though, whatever you do, maybe a different branch for the time being?
Well, the only user-visible change at this point would be that the new areas Sven2 introduced would switch allegiance as required. Everything else would be internal - preparations for potential further nodes, as well as new neighbouring relations (dishes). I'll probably be tempted to rename Library/Flag at that point - probably the change with the largest breakage potential.
I am in favour of the idea in general. Not necessarily how the edge cases and the overtaking of nodes is supposed to be handled (no strong opinion there), but rather of the concept of having control and energy nodes, because I like the implications for the players.Would be really cool if you want to do the work of implementing that, because it is going to be quite a bit of work if you want to keep it flexible etc. And I - having implemented the old control stuff - will do other things with a higher priority first :)
I am not entirely in favour. All this theory with documents and pictures is nice, yes. But it also shows me that the matter might have become overly complicated in your design. It is very hard to make predictions in the outcome and the game shouldn't be (imho) about constructing relevant control nodes but rather try to destroy enemy ones.So, I'd favour a simple "first come, first served" method where no area of control can be destroyed by establishing area of control.
Please do! I think we reached a point where we actually have to play it a bit to decide if it works well - and if it does not, we certainly can get a better idea about what could be changed or simplyfied.
Then someone should also design a simple melee with bases to test the system also in a melee context. Actually changing flag behaviour might break some of the settlement scenarios...
To be honest, I started reading your explainations, then half way through I thought "man that seems complicated" and stopped reading. :S
Maybe, there should be an additional building, as example a tower, wich is allways the base node, and flags are "just" extending the area.tower behave differend to flags on those points:
+ only 1 per team/player, i.e. a real mainbase.
+ cost alot of rock (finnaly a reason to get rocks :D)
so it would not be possible to make a kind of "proxy rush" on the enemy just with a flag, real extending of the controled area would be neccesary, instead of spam flags overall where wanted (like the old game Serf City / The settlers / die siedler).
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
