.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Dominions 2: The Ascension Wars (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=55)
-   -   New map by Jason Lutes (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=18544)

Jasper April 6th, 2004 08:14 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Near as I can tell, the "Extra Magic" flag simply means there's 30% more likelihood that magit sites are in the province. Unfortunately, that overrides the bonus from mountains (10%), forests and wastes (20%?), and whatnot.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">+30% is pretty good though, as doesn't this add to the chance for each site? E.g. w/ the default 40% site frequency you have a 70% chance to get a site, and if you do then a 70% chance to get another, and so on up to 4 sites. Or do I misunderstand the site distribution mechanics?

Stormbinder April 6th, 2004 11:33 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Jasper:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Cainehill:
Near as I can tell, the "Extra Magic" flag simply means there's 30% more likelihood that magit sites are in the province. Unfortunately, that overrides the bonus from mountains (10%), forests and wastes (20%?), and whatnot.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">+30% is pretty good though, as doesn't this add to the chance for each site? E.g. w/ the default 40% site frequency you have a 70% chance to get a site, and if you do then a 70% chance to get another, and so on up to 4 sites. Or do I misunderstand the site distribution mechanics? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes you do. It's 70% for each of the 4 possible magic sites in your example.

tinkthank April 6th, 2004 11:50 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Excuse me for mentioning this, but the other map (parganos) is also very nice. Doesn't have the bridges or the easily recognizable "farm land" fields, but it seems very nice so far. Thanks Jason!

PDF April 6th, 2004 02:02 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by J. Lutes:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Cainehill:
Hmm - I thought the map was set up to only allow provinces with 4 or more connecting neighbors as starting provinces?

I just started a new game with my capitol as province #111, only 3 neighbors and one is a water province.

Side question: Is there a way to tell the game to display the province numbers? I know the general logic to how provinces numbers work, but still took about 4 minutes of clicking to find one of the ones people had mentioned as being incorrect.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Thanks, Cainehill -- I've removed #111 as a possible starting place.

As far as I can tell, there's currently no way to get a display of province numbers.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Look at them in the map editor ...
BTW I've just started a game and had a capitol surrounded by two rivers and with ... 1 neighbor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif
Don't have access to the game map right now, will give the province name/number later http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Edit : now I've checked, it's Prov #150 Scythewater, No start flag wasn't positioned.

[ April 06, 2004, 20:37: Message edited by: PDF ]

Cainehill April 6th, 2004 04:28 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by J. Lutes:
Thanks, Cainehill -- I've removed #111 as a possible starting place.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wow. I thought you had taken advantage of some rule-based map command to disallow the provinces with fewer than 4 neighbors, the marshes, etc.

If you've been hand editting the .map file to set exactly which provinces aren't starting-province material, my hat's off to you. (It is anyway, for such a great map, but still.)

Jasper April 6th, 2004 10:17 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Yes you do. It's 70% for each of the 4 possible magic sites in your example.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What's your source for this belief?

Stormbinder April 7th, 2004 01:13 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Jasper:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Yes you do. It's 70% for each of the 4 possible magic sites in your example.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">What's your source for this belief? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Developers.

Jasper April 7th, 2004 01:45 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
That's what I figured. It's the same source I have for my belief...

In retrospect it seems like you're more likely to be right, as with 40% sites it always seems like most provinces have sites. Then again, it seems like more than 13% of provinces have no sites...

Truper April 7th, 2004 02:13 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Jasper:
That's what I figured. It's the same source I have for my belief...

In retrospect it seems like you're more likely to be right, as with 40% sites it always seems like most provinces have sites. Then again, it seems like more than 13% of provinces have no sites...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've always suspected, with no real basis other than the logic *I* would have gone by, that the increased chance of sites in mountain, etc. is counterbalanced by a reduced chance in farmlands. So that with 40% sites both most provinces having sites and more than 13% of provinces having none are both reasonable.

Stormbinder April 7th, 2004 07:29 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Jasper:
That's what I figured. It's the same source I have for my belief...

In retrospect it seems like you're more likely to be right, as with 40% sites it always seems like most provinces have sites. Then again, it seems like more than 13% of provinces have no sites...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Make a search for "magic sites" on this forum, and look for the the thread with the same name that I've started myself few days ago. KristofferO explained there clearly how magic sites placement algorithm work in their code. The placements in each potential site "slot" have the same chance (basic province chance +- terrain midifier) and are independent of each other.

Stormbinder April 7th, 2004 07:39 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Truper:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Jasper:
That's what I figured. It's the same source I have for my belief...

In retrospect it seems like you're more likely to be right, as with 40% sites it always seems like most provinces have sites. Then again, it seems like more than 13% of provinces have no sites...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've always suspected, with no real basis other than the logic *I* would have gone by, that the increased chance of sites in mountain, etc. is counterbalanced by a reduced chance in farmlands. So that with 40% sites both most provinces having sites and more than 13% of provinces having none are both reasonable. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yeap, it is true. In fact only for farmlands (asuming farmland modifier is -20% and the site frequence is 40%) the chance that the standard farmland province has zero magic sites is 0.8*0.8*0.8*0.8 = 0,4096. (The probability formula is (100% - (40%-20%))^4 ) )

That means that in average 40% of all farmland provinces with such settings have zero magic sites.

tinkthank April 7th, 2004 09:28 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Jason, could I ask a question?

I *love* both of these maps.
Do you think it would be possible to have the tga *larger*? The provinces are often so small that the little icons (I like the candles, money, temples all on) dont fit in the provinces. What if the .tga file were just a bit larger? (Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I know nothing about mapmaking)
Does that make sense?

thanks much for listening

Kristoffer O April 7th, 2004 10:40 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Jasper:
That's what I figured. It's the same source I have for my belief...

In retrospect it seems like you're more likely to be right, as with 40% sites it always seems like most provinces have sites. Then again, it seems like more than 13% of provinces have no sites...

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">In Dominions I we believed that it was as Jasper said (it might even have been true once). Many Dominions I players might have the same impression as Jasper. Now it works as Stormbinder says: each of the site slots have a chance of getting a site independent on the other sites.

Kristoffer O April 7th, 2004 10:44 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by tinkthank:
Jason, could I ask a question?

I *love* both of these maps.
Do you think it would be possible to have the tga *larger*? The provinces are often so small that the little icons (I like the candles, money, temples all on) dont fit in the provinces. What if the .tga file were just a bit larger? (Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I know nothing about mapmaking)
Does that make sense?

thanks much for listening

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You can change the #defaultmapzoom in the map file. It alters the size of the icons vs the map tga.

tinkthank April 7th, 2004 11:38 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
oh thanks -- I opened the map file and couldnt find a #defaultmapzoom command. Is that somewhere else? Or if it is not there, must I enter it myself -- does it matter where? And what value(s) does one enter? Sorry and thanks in advance.

Minrhael April 9th, 2004 10:31 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Played with it myself as I had the same desire. You can put #defaultmapzoom right before the #description line. I found that for cradles at least 1.6 or so was about right.

Gandalf Parker April 9th, 2004 02:29 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Wow is that what that does? And all this time I took for granted that it affected the starting position of zoom (pageup/pagedown) so you just started more zoomed out than normal.

(note: I went looking at the mapedit.pdf to see how I could have misunderstood that. Is it just me or is that command missing?)

PDF April 9th, 2004 02:51 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
Wow is that what that does? And all this time I took for granted that it affected the starting position of zoom (pageup/pagedown) so you just started more zoomed out than normal.

(note: I went looking at the mapedit.pdf to see how I could have misunderstood that. Is it just me or is that command missing?)

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It affects map zoom but flags/building icons are fixed relative to this value.
So a flag will take "50% less space" in a province is mapzoom is set to 2 for example.
However by doing so the map looks initially more pixellated. You can then zoom out as you want, but the icons will resize correspondingly smaller...
Is that clear ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Gandalf Parker April 9th, 2004 03:28 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by PDF:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
Wow is that what that does? And all this time I took for granted that it affected the starting position of zoom (pageup/pagedown) so you just started more zoomed out than normal.

(note: I went looking at the mapedit.pdf to see how I could have misunderstood that. Is it just me or is that command missing?)

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It affects map zoom but flags/building icons are fixed relative to this value.
So a flag will take "50% less space" in a province is mapzoom is set to 2 for example.
However by doing so the map looks initially more pixellated. You can then zoom out as you want, but the icons will resize correspondingly smaller...
Is that clear ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Much, thank you. It sounds like we could use another map command to set the pageup/pagedown zoom level seperately. Hmmmm no that might be too much. Too many petty little commands can intimidate new people from trying mapping. Ishould write up something on "a minimum map project". Kindof like what the Jotun walkthru does for playing the game. Someone might consider that for modding also

-- Im trying out new sigs. Would "NetNanny" give the wrong impression? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
www.dom2minions.com

[ April 09, 2004, 14:29: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Daynarr April 9th, 2004 04:13 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
I had no idea about it either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif
Nice to know this thingie. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Stab West April 9th, 2004 05:02 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
-- Im trying out new sigs. Would "NetNanny" give the wrong impression? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Yes, It would.

guybrush threepwood April 16th, 2004 02:44 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Hi there,

Just doing some SP on this awesome map.

I noticed that poor R'lyeh started in province#120, which is a sea province surrounded by non-sea provinces on all sites.

Would it not make sense to mark province 120 as nostart?

Cheers,
Thomas

Nephelim April 18th, 2004 03:32 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by guybrush threepwood:
I noticed that poor R'lyeh started in province#120, which is a sea province surrounded by non-sea provinces on all sites.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Speaking of province 120 (Blackwater), it appears to now be of type plains (Grabbed latest .map file as of today). Vanheim's pretender is going to be most displeased when he finds out his army is at the bottom of a lake, and not in a lovely meadow http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Love the map.. Chokepoint heaven.

verax April 22nd, 2004 07:40 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Is there a working download site for any of Jason's work anywhere? The links on http://www.illwinter.com/dom2/maps.html currently do not work.

thanks!

Verax

Arryn April 23rd, 2004 03:07 AM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by verax:
Is there a working download site for any of Jason's work anywhere? The links on http://www.illwinter.com/dom2/maps.html currently do not work.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The IW links appear to be working fine for me as of this moment. Please try them again. If you still have problems, I can put the maps up for d/l from my site.

Lars M. Nielsen April 25th, 2004 05:24 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
I have an idea regarding the passability/impassability of terrain that has been discussed in this thread.

There has been mentioned two example scenarios that Dom2 can't handle, that

1. Rivers. It should be possible to have rivers that can't be crossed by units on foot.

2. Mountains and mountain ranges. It should be possible to cross these with flying units.

But how to implement these features with a minimum of work, and complete backwards compatibility? I have a suggestion.

The neighbours part of the .map file looks something like this:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">#neighbour 141 152
#neighbour 141 165
#neighbour 142 167
#neighbour 142 154</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If we could append a tag to a connection, banning a certain mode of travel, we could have the above mentioned scenarios.

Suppose we wanted the second connection to be across a wide river, which would make an ulmish army stop in it's tracks. But the hordes of Ermor would march across the bottom of the river, and Caelum would just fly over it. The third connection could be across a mountain range, meaning that only flying units could cross it, and walking and swimming units would be stopped.

In my hypothetical solution it would look like this:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">#neighbour 141 152
#neighbour 141 165 nowalk
#neighbour 142 167 nowalk noswim
#neighbour 142 154 </pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The concept is that you can append "nowalk", "noswim" or "nofly" to any connection to prevent specific modes of travel.
I'm not sure what the point of "nofly" would be, but it should be there for the sake of completeness. "noswim" would include both amphibious and swimming units.

Of course, I don't know how difficult this would be to implement, but at least it would be backwards compatible.

This could of could of course be expanded to include such tags as "noundead", "nosacred", "nomages" and so forth. They could also be inclusive, like "onlypretenders" or "onlymbeings, you get the idea.

But I'm rambling, what do you think?

Cainehill April 25th, 2004 10:53 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Something else that ought to be fixed for Jason's Parganos map - province ... 31 should be nostart. It's the little island in the southwest - 4 neighbors, none of them land. Had to call for a mulligan on that yesterday.

PhilD April 26th, 2004 07:16 PM

Re: New map by Jason Lutes
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Something else that ought to be fixed for Jason's Parganos map - province ... 31 should be nostart. It's the little island in the southwest - 4 neighbors, none of them land. Had to call for a mulligan on that yesterday.
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I corrected all of the mistakes I found, and sent the resulting file to Illwinter; it's now on their site (I also changed the "starting province" "rules" for the map: water provinces with only one water neighbour are now nostart).


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.