This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - CarcFox
Pages: [1]
1
« on: August 20, 2019, 01:27:22 AM »
Hi meepledrone, sorry if I'm a bit late.
I think that the main concern atm should be to resolve any ambiguities in placement that manifest themselves using "vanilla" tiles. A coordinate system would be useful for expansions but perhaps it's better to use it only when it's necessary and not by default. I wrote something about a similar system for the plague and the dragon previously in this thread, too.
Anyway, what do you think should be done to differentiate the placement of a knight on different cities in the same tile? Is the system I proposed in the edit in my previous post ok in your opinion?
2
« on: August 11, 2019, 01:26:25 AM »
I think that document is pretty much the ultimate tile reference for vanilla tiles. Props to you for coming up with the ideas for tunnel/bridges and all the things you added and for having condensed all of this discussion in a fleshed out document!
Meeple placement is a little more straightforward, since we only need a way to indicate on which road/city/field the follower is placed. For Knights KN,KE,KO,KS (knight north/east/south/west) and for some H&S tiles KNE/KNO etc. Pretty much the same for thieves (maybe a TI for T “internal”) is needed) and for non-internal farmers. Internal farmers seem a bit more problematic with this system.
Perhaps notating the continuation of a feature by keeping the same capitalization would solve this problem since we could put the type of the meeple followed by the letter of the feature they’re in. But perhaps there are more convenient ways.
Edit: Nvm, I came up with a far better idea. Just use the letter of the meeple+a number that denotes on which feature it’s placed. The numbers are assigned depending on the position of the city/field/road/cloister in the field notation. E.g. in CcR/R a T1 would be a thief on the south road and T2 on the east one. Since internal fields are also noted this solves that problem too. Let me know what you think of those methods. I personally feel this one is the best.
3
« on: August 07, 2019, 05:29:20 AM »
Isn’t that crazy tile at the end just a plain C..+/C/Rc/ ? The first witch hat city, its continuation and the other city are all connected to the only road. Things might get messier if multiple different roads connect to various cities in a non-obvious way tho. In that case one could start using “/“ and “/‘ “ etc. to distinguish between connections to different roads. Just an idea, let me know if I’m misunderstanding something.
4
« on: August 05, 2019, 08:52:01 AM »
My bad, I simply got a bit confused. It would be a CCCC indeed.
5
« on: August 04, 2019, 01:06:45 PM »
I like this solution very much! The only thing that slightly bothers me is that to note a tile in which all the 4 cities on the edges are separted would require using a triple apostrophe (CC’C’’C’’’). Using the same capitalization (and not the change of it) to note connection would reduce this to a CcC’c’ . It’s only aesthetical but I like it better.
Another small nitpick: how would two distincts roads crossing on each other (with a mini-bridge) be distinguished from two roads crossing one underneath each other with a tunnel? Maybe tunnels would be considered some kind of special feature tho.
6
« on: August 04, 2019, 03:40:09 AM »
I came up with a system that fixes some of the problems and that in theory should work for all the “vanilla” tiles.
Basically it’s the one from my last post, with tp10053’s / and // symbols to note city-road junctions. Pennants are noted with a + after the city they affect (this fixes the problem with that strange A&M’s tile). Also, if a corner is touched by a city that hasn’t an edge of the two the corner is in (aka a “witch hat” city) or by an internal farm, this should also be noted by a C/c/c’/C’/F/f/F’/F (depending on which city/field is touching the corner) followed by an !. Corners are noted after noting the tile from the left of the corner. Cloisters are notated with an L prefix (since its exact position in the tile doesn’t matter (?)). Internal fields that do not touch corners (do they even exist?) can be notated with an (F) suffix.
So, for example, the un-notable tile from P&D in the pdf would be a Cf!c+cC!f!F
It’s a bit cumbersome but keep in mind that many other tiles are way simpler. If you find a tile that still poses problems of course post it!
7
« on: August 02, 2019, 05:29:49 AM »
In my opinion the biggest challange is accurate description of tile configuration without adding way too much complexity - ideally a set of rules that would enable us to describe any theoretical tile configuration (with as little exceptions as possible). Consolidated tile reference only describes the edges of the tiles and their connectivity with other tiles. It doesn't actually tell you anything about inner layou. In "special" notation, this is not a problem since there is only a limited number of configurations.
I thought of a good system to explain the tile configuration better and with less ambiguities: instead of marking with different capitalizations if a feature is connected or not, we could mark with different capitalizations (and eventually apostrophes) different cities/roads on the same tile. I was thinking of C,c,C',c' starting from the "north" side and proceeding clockwise (if that's needed, in most cases C and c are sufficient). So the tile with two cities crossing each other would be a CcCc, a tile with four distincts road would be a RrR'r'. This could be refined but it's a massive improvement in clarity and consistency since to tell if a two feature are connected you just need to check if they have the same capitalization and apostrophe. Note that this would eliminate the need to signal a rotation. For example a CCCR could be CCRC or a RCCC, depending on how the tile is placed, since every string starts from the north element (which varies depending on the rotation). Plus, you could use this system to refine the placement of meeples too. Writing simply "K" could cause ambiguities in some cases, which are avoided by writing "KC" or "Kc".
8
« on: August 01, 2019, 05:29:52 AM »
So, I opened a simple save file of JCloisterZone and I hope that I can answer tp10053's questions. The whole file is composed by lists in curly brackets, for example: {"type":"PLACE_TILE","payload":{"tileId":"BA.Rr","rotation":"R270","position":[-2,0]}} ,or {"type":"DEPLOY_MEEPLE","payload":{"pointer":{"position":[-2,0],"location":"NL.NR.EL.SR.WL.WR"},"meepleId":"0.small.2"}} As you can see, it does infact handle rotation in a similar manner as tp10053 proposed in the original post, and it does have a coordinate system. You can see the full file at https://pastebin.com/bXPqB11b (it's quite short, I saved the game after a few moves). To be honest this doesn't seem so usefull to create a system humans can use. I would stick to the original one that was proposed in this thread, perhaps expanding it to include expansions.
9
« on: July 31, 2019, 01:05:07 PM »
I find the system JCloisterZone uses to notate tiles very effective. And props to you for explaining it here  We now need to notate the placement of special meeples in some expansions and more generally all the “moving the wood” phase. Traders and Builders seems like also pretty doable using the .w, .g and .g symbols jcloisterzones uses. Putting them in the middle of the string (e.g. cc.wrf, i don’t know if that tile actually exists but I hope you kinda get the idea) would ensure maximum accuracy tho. Regarding the special figures: T* could indicate the placement of a builder on a road, K* on a city and maybe F* the pig. Probably the River (I and II) are also quite easy to notate. The Princess and the Dragon seems quite a mess, especially considering the movements of the dragon. But it’s definitely doable. The hardest expansion to notate consistently is by far “The Plague” since it would require almost certainly a second and a third coordinate system to indicate how the plague spreads and which plague tiles are moved to expand that region. And a third one for meeple escaping the plague. Maybe we should standardize all of those “movements” (Flying Machines, Magic Portals, the Dragon to an extent, the Plague, meeple escaping from the plague and meeple escaping from the Cathars...): Figure.[x;y]->[w;z] For example: PlagueChip[17;18]->[20;12] or Dragon[5;6]->[5;7]->[6;7] etc. This was just a quick draft and notations indicating those things eliminating meeples are needed but I feel like it’s a good start.
10
« on: July 31, 2019, 08:28:15 AM »
One could just denote tiles starting from the "north" feature. So a crfr could be written as an rfrc or as a rcrf depending on how it's placed. It seems a bit more elegant imho and it's more coincise. It also doesn't require anybody to remember which feature is where in the official tile reference. Could it work or are there some problems that I'm overlooking?
Also, I would gladly offer my help to extend this notation to other expansions... It shouldn't be too hard to add Inn and Cathredals. Next to the string rapresenting the tile, c+ is a city with a cathedral, r+ is a road with an inn. The same system can be extended to indicate the placement of a big meep (K+, T+, M+, F+). Could it work?
Maybe I'll try to notate some other expansions later.
11
« on: September 17, 2017, 10:59:57 AM »
How did you print them all? That's a crazy amount of tiles!
Pages: [1]
|
Show Posts