Dianthus said:
Thanks!
I'm sure EMan will be happy about that (may be for a little while)
- Thread starter Moonsinger
- Start date
Thanks!
I'm sure EMan will be happy about that (may be for a little while)
denyd
Emperor
One question:
On my HOF game attempts, I tend to abandon a game if I've explored by local area (say to size 15 on CRP rings) and if no ivory is present, I resign. I like to let the SoZ & KT build most of my military in the first 2 ages. Would it be possible (and HOF legal) to include a scan to a particular distance from the capital for a given resource (iron, horses, ivory, etc) ?
BTW: Thanks for a wonderful utility.
On my HOF game attempts, I tend to abandon a game if I've explored by local area (say to size 15 on CRP rings) and if no ivory is present, I resign. I like to let the SoZ & KT build most of my military in the first 2 ages. Would it be possible (and HOF legal) to include a scan to a particular distance from the capital for a given resource (iron, horses, ivory, etc) ?
BTW: Thanks for a wonderful utility.
That means the utility will definitely be revealing information that's not readily available to the player. My gut reaction is to say no, this shouldn't be allowed. I'll talk it over with 'slug/space first though.denyd said:
denyd
Emperor
The player wouldn't necessarily know where the resource is located, just that it is nearby. So we wouldn't know anything that the AI doesn't already know. Though I do understand the reasoning, playing 1+ hours just to find out the you can't build Immortals as Persia (or Mounted Warriors as Iroquois) is kind of a waste. With the new, limited resources in C3C, it is a little frustrating to have a HOF promising start cancelled by a lack of a key item.
Hey, Moonsinger, you've got mail!Moonsinger said:Thanks!Dianthus said:
Should MapFinder also search for AI starting location right next to a volcano? The answer will be "no". Even if Space, Slug, and Dianthus approve it, I won't do it. Therefore, my feeling is that it will be "no" to searching for anything that is outside the visible tiles at the starting location. Of course, knowing the domination limit at 4000BC would fall into this same category as Denyd's request....so I will leave that up to Dianthus/Slug/Space.
Therefore, my feeling is that it will be "no" to searching for anything that is outside the visible tiles at the starting location. Of course, knowing the domination limit at 4000BC would fall into this same category as Denyd's request....so I will leave that up to Dianthus/Slug/Space.
Dianthus said:Hey, Moonsinger, you've got mail!
Wow, you are fast!
I haven't checked my mailbox yet, but I'm sure you have already done it! Since I will be on a date tonight (just going to be out on a special date with someone I have already been married to), the new release will have to wait until tomorrow's night.
Well, it's sort of possible(ish) in C3C. You settle, you get 9 tiles of territory. Look at the victory condition screen and scale the 9 tiles up from the % shown. Not very accurate, but it would give you an idea.bed_head7 said:
Actually, I've been "Over The Moon", so to speak, ever since y'all's first version of MapFinder. That first version was able to save us hours of manual labor! Everything since then has been icing on the cake..........it's great for people to have good starting positions to push the HOF scores/end-dates to the limit........you know that only too well Moonsinger. You & Dianthus are a GREAT team! Firaxis SHOULD be reading this thread....AND, speaking as an investor, trying to hire you both!!Moonsinger said:Thanks!
Would it be possible to solve this by putting the Rule Sets in "reverse order"? (3 cows, followed by 2 etc.)Moonsinger said:
Wonderful!Yup! I have implemented these rule sets with that idea in mind.
(I think this could make a big difference for people trying to break Fast Finish records in the HOF.
)
EMan said:
Thanks Eman!
You are too kind!You & Dianthus are a GREAT team! Firaxis SHOULD be reading this thread....AND, speaking as an investor, trying to hire you both!!
I honestly don't think Firaxis can afford me. Since they couldn't even spare 10K to have SirPleb fix those bugs in Civ3, there is just no way they can afford to hire anyone here.
It's a little bit more complicate than the 1, 2 ,3 ... cows example. Unless you figure out how to weight each set of rules (as DaveMcW has suggested before), you can't really tell which rule set is more superior than the other. Anyway, it will take a math genius to figure that out...since I have a history of having a headache whenever I see numbers...I won't go there.
Actually, I think they have the right idea. If you always put the save in the first rule that matches and players order their rules by their priorities, then they should get what they want. It's not a matter of determining absolute superiority of one rule over another, just providing consistent behavior when a save matches multiple rules.Moonsinger said:
You could say superiority is in the eye of the beholder.
Denniz said:Actually, I think they have the right idea. If you always put the save in the first rule that matches and players order their rules by their priorities, then they should get what they want. It's not a matter of determining absolute superiority of one rule over another, just providing consistent behavior when a save matches multiple rules.
You could say superiority is in the eye of the beholder.
Let's test your that theory with the following example: Let say you have some set of rules as follows:
Set #1: Looking for a good dairy farm
Set #2: Looking for the ultimate 20K start
Set #3: Looking for the ultimate bad start
Set #4: Looking for the ultimate fast conquest
Set #5: Looking for whatever...
Now, please give me the order that you wish to put it. Are you sure that you want to let set #1 to be first your first choice? Why not give each of them an equal chance? It seems to me that the average beholder does often chance its mind.
FYI: Since I have a very busy day so far (things didn't work out as I have planned), I don't think I will have any time to work on this project tonight.
I will try to wrap it up by the end of this week.
I will try to wrap it up by the end of this week.
Whatever kind of map I wanted the most or the most of, would be first. And so on. The point is that what a map is best for, is subjective. If it's a choice between multiple copies of a map or having to choose what my priorities are when it comes to categorizing a save. I would rather not have the same map multiple places. If I don't like where it is put, I can always move it.Moonsinger said:Let's test your that theory with the following example: Let say you have some set of rules as follows:
Set #1: Looking for a good dairy farm
Set #2: Looking for the ultimate 20K start
Set #3: Looking for the ultimate bad start
Set #4: Looking for the ultimate fast conquest
Set #5: Looking for whatever...
Now, please give me the order that you wish to put it. Are you sure that you want to let set #1 to be first your first choice? Why not give each of them an equal chance? It seems to me that the average beholder does often chance its mind.
if on an ntfs filesystem you can always create junction points (hard links) from one savegame into the other dirs 
Insei
Chieftain
I'm using the following rules:
AND food bonus > 0
AND desert = 0
OR domination limit > 4000
The idea is to keep any map no matter how bad as long as the domination limit is over 4000. For the others, only if they contain no desert tiles and at least one food bonus.
The problem I'm having is that the OR part doesn't seem to work. I watch the map being generated and the status line clearly says: Verifying... and after a while it says Recent Limit: 4318 .... and immediately after that I get the Quit dialog box. Such a map should be saved, as its domination limit is 4318.
The AND part works, any map with at least one bonus food is saved.
If I delete the two AND rules, it works. But as soon as I add even a single AND rule, the OR doesn't trigger. I've tried putting the OR rule first, same result.
Am I doing something wrong? Can anyone reproduce this strange behavior? I'm using MapFinder v6.3 (latest) on a Windows 98 machine. I'm going for a huge map, archipelago, 60% water. Any map on this setting will have a domination over 4000. This makes it easy to try the above example.
Thanks for any help you might provide!
--Insei
P.S. Moonsinger, you rock! You are the 
<--- me
AND food bonus > 0
AND desert = 0
OR domination limit > 4000
The idea is to keep any map no matter how bad as long as the domination limit is over 4000. For the others, only if they contain no desert tiles and at least one food bonus.
The problem I'm having is that the OR part doesn't seem to work. I watch the map being generated and the status line clearly says: Verifying... and after a while it says Recent Limit: 4318 .... and immediately after that I get the Quit dialog box. Such a map should be saved, as its domination limit is 4318.
The AND part works, any map with at least one bonus food is saved.
If I delete the two AND rules, it works. But as soon as I add even a single AND rule, the OR doesn't trigger. I've tried putting the OR rule first, same result.
Am I doing something wrong? Can anyone reproduce this strange behavior? I'm using MapFinder v6.3 (latest) on a Windows 98 machine. I'm going for a huge map, archipelago, 60% water. Any map on this setting will have a domination over 4000. This makes it easy to try the above example.
Thanks for any help you might provide!
--Insei
P.S. Moonsinger, you rock!
You are the <--- meWith the current version, if there are multiple ands, all must be true, and at least one or must be true. To get what you want, Moonsinger will need to add parenthesis, I guess, so you can put two ands in parenthesis and then have the or. I would imagine this should be relatively simple. This statement based on the fact that I think I could do this in the most crude way possible with my limited knowledge of C++, and I know both Moonsinger and Dianthus actually know what they are doing with whatever language they used for MapFinder.
Insei
Chieftain
bed_head7 said:
Thank you, bed_head7, for clearing that up. I have read the warning in the Rule Set pop up window each and every time. It clearly states what you described above. I guess too many years of programming have created a blind spot for me. (Those who know C/C++/Java will understand.) Mea culpa.
Thanks again, bed_head7!
--Insei
Insei said:
I had already thought about that some where back in page #28!
If you have time, read page #28 of this thread starting with post #551 to post #557. Anyway, if you rewrite your rules as the following, you would get exactly what you are looking for.
AND food bonus > 0
OR desert < 1
OR domination limit > 4000
Like I said back in post #557, there is usually more than one way to express the same thing.
//Edit note: "desert < 1" is the same thing as "no desert". What if you want to save all maps with domination limit > 4000 regardless of the food bonus, well, you need use a another rule set for that. The next version will check for multiple rule sets.
Similar threads
