Since I've been spending a bit of time updating my first (expired) realm using the new whizzy flags and conditional tests, I immediately came upon a few issues that hinder realm design.

A couple of these are mentioned in Farious' wishlist I think but I'd like to restate them.

1) Please could named mercs have their name as the unique key so that I don't end up with three different mercs with the same name?

EDIT: Ignore this as Farious notes below it's not actually a problem.

2) As Farious requests, please could we have more than three outcomes (ie set flag, gold, time etc) for each choice? I realise there's limited screen real estate but three isn't enough if I have to use two to grant named mercs to the player.

3) Could there be any way to have two or more encounters on the same space, so that one or the other could be activated, or indeed both to fire after each other?

Explanation: The problem I have is that although the choices available can be made dependent on a flag, or I can activate an event based on another encounter, I can't change an encounter entirely based on a flag setting, unless the encounters are on separate spaces.

(I can sort of work around it by forcing the player through a narrow path and putting alternate encounters on subsequent spaces, or by writing encounters in such a way that the opening text is the same and all the interesting stuff goes in the choice text, but these are a bit clunky. What I'd really like to do is to have an entirely different encounter depending on a flag setting.)

4) Would it be possible to have a button on the realm edit screen to jump straight into a test of that realm, and then when exiting the realm come straight back into the editor? Now with all the flags and so on I need to do a lot more testing and jumping back into the editor, and having to keep submitting my realm for testing and then going back via two other screens to edit it again is making it more tedious process than it needs to be.

Thanks for wading through this

Tess wrote:1) Please could named mercs have their name as the unique key so that I don't end up with three different mercs with the same name?

This would prevent the creation of a Merc 'squad'. You can use a Flag to prevent the same Merc being offered for hire twice.

Tess wrote:Explanation: If I have an encounter with three choices that all lead to [a chance of] recruiting a named merc, even if I give that merc the same name it ends up listed as three separate mercs in the condition list. This makes testing if they're in the party very cumbersome as I have to test for all three.

The test is just a String$ check so you only have to check the first instance of the name.

Tess wrote:3) Could there be any way to have two or more encounters on the same space, so that one or the other could be activated, or indeed both to fire after each other?

I think a better approach would be one Encounter, but with the Description & Rumour Text being able to be selected based upon a Flag and the number of Player Choices being increased. Thoughts?

Tess wrote:4) Would it be possible to have a button on the realm edit screen to jump straight into a test of that realm, and then when exiting the realm come straight back into the editor?

I will request it.

Tess wrote:Thanks for wading through this

No problem.

Farious

Farious wrote:

Tess wrote:1) Please could named mercs have their name as the unique key so that I don't end up with three different mercs with the same name?

This would prevent the creation of a Merc 'squad'. You can use a Flag to prevent the same Merc being offered for hire twice.

The test is just a String$ check so you only have to check the first instance of the name.

Farious

If it's just a string check then there's no problem. The same merc does appear three times in the dropdown list if I have three choices in the same encounter which add him to the party, so I assumed they were treated separately.

Farious wrote:

Tess wrote:3) Could there be any way to have two or more encounters on the same space, so that one or the other could be activated, or indeed both to fire after each other?

I think a better approach would be one Encounter, but with the Description & Rumour Text being able to be selected based upon a Flag and the number of Player Choices being increased. Thoughts?

That would be my first preference to be sure - though it would require the editor UI to be altered considerably, and also presumably the resulting number of choices would need to be limited to 3 or perhaps 4 even though I'd have entered 6 or more (only some of which would end up being visible depending on the flags set).

I figured that allowing multiple encounters on a single space would be easier to fit into the existing model, but either way it's potentially a relatively complex change to underlying data structures which I don't really anticipate Snapshot would enjoy implementing.

Tess wrote:I figured that allowing multiple encounters on a single space would be easier to fit into the existing model, but either way it's potentially a relatively complex change to underlying data structures which I don't really anticipate Snapshot would enjoy implementing.

I don't see it as that complex. You'd just add a flag check & two extra text fields. I'll request it.

Farious wrote:

Tess wrote:I figured that allowing multiple encounters on a single space would be easier to fit into the existing model, but either way it's potentially a relatively complex change to underlying data structures which I don't really anticipate Snapshot would enjoy implementing.

I don't see it as that complex. You'd just add a flag check & two extra text fields. I'll request it.

The complexity comes in the fact that you'd need to be able to enter up to six choices for a single encounter, with only a maximum of three being shown to the player. i.e. The flag conditions would need to determine not only which of the two encounter texts were displayed but also which of the six choices were made visible (up to a maximum of three). I can foresee a few issues with that which would concern me if I was the developer implementing it.

My preferred solution would be to allow the creation of encounters that are not immediately placed on the map at design-time but which can be placed and activated as a result of previous encounters. In that way I can chain any number of encounters in a single location (or indeed choose the encounter to be displayed) based on previous player decisions and outcomes. This could be implemented in the UI similarly to how transport routes can be opened up after an encounter, and I believe it would be a more general, flexible and comprehensive solution than simply allowing existing encounters to have alternate introduction text.

One additional request: If I place an encounter on a space with a wizard lord and then add a rumour for that location in a town, could the rumour please use the encounter rumour text rather than simply saying "Location of enemy controlled region" ? I would like the rumour to be able to say something about the encounter that might occur if you should go there.

Tess wrote:The complexity comes in the fact that you'd need to be able to enter up to six choices for a single encounter, with only a maximum of three being shown to the player. i.e. The flag conditions would need to determine not only which of the two encounter texts were displayed but also which of the six choices were made visible (up to a maximum of three). I can foresee a few issues with that which would concern me if I was the developer implementing it.

You could just use a drop down menu to select the Player Choice.

Tess wrote:My preferred solution would be to allow the creation of encounters that are not immediately placed on the map at design-time but which can be placed and activated as a result of previous encounters. [...]

Isn't this the point of Flags & Activate & Deactive?

Tess wrote:One additional request: If I place an encounter on a space with a wizard lord and then add a rumour for that location in a town, could the rumour please use the encounter rumour text rather than simply saying "Location of enemy controlled region" ? I would like the rumour to be able to say something about the encounter that might occur if you should go there.

I will add it to the list.

Farious