The problem is that it shows the text to everyone, while mine shows it only to each player of the force whose enemies build in the center. I'm not sure which one it is meant to be.
What do you mean by saying "The problem is that it shows the text to everyone"? It is not showing the text to everyone. Indeed, the Scwizard's variant is showing the text to
some foes (and only foes) of the player who've built a building in the center. Probably it is something else you wanted to say... But Zhuinden, I cant see logic in your triggers
in my opinion your variant will be simply spamming the text as long as one's foe has taken the expo...
Ahli, I dont understand why do you need wait. I believe you use wait to postpone setting the switch, but what for? If
someone (namely Foes) brings at least 1 building then
All Players brings at least 1 building for sure and the second trigger wont fire even if the switch is set. The method should be perfect when there are distinct coalitions of players. The coalitions are foed with each other and all players are allied within the coalition. This should suffice for a normal melee game. But it raises an interesting questions when switching between foed owners of the expo in some... unusual cases. Let me elaborate.
The relation of foe might not be symmetrical. It reflects only the player's vision of the relations with the other players. You may consider a player being a foe of yours while that player can consider you an ally. In the situation you will be warend about that player's actions and your vis-a-vis wont be warned about your's. I want to introduce some conventional signs for convenience. I will write the statement "P2 is an ally of P1"
(in other words "P1 has an ally flag set to P2" or "P1 considers P2 an ally") as
A(P1,P2) and it's negation "P2 is a foe of P1"
(in other words "P1 has not an ally flag set to P2" or "P1 considers P2 an enemy") as
E(P1,P2). We've just understood that A(P1,P2) does not silently imply A(P2,P1).
Now, the text is meant to display every time a foe of a player takes the expo from scratch, right? It is a distinct question if the expo is taken not from scratch. For example as a result of a sunken attack or a photon push. Well, lets cosider for now the system is meant to work
only when the expo is taken from scratch. But wait! What means
from scratch when there might be more complicated relations between players than coalitions?! Indeed, consider three players P1, P2, P3. Let's assume P1 and P2 are allied with each other: A(P1,P2) AND A(P2,P1). Let's additionally assume P3 considers P1 an ally but P2 an enemy: A(P3,P1) AND E(P3,P2). It does not really matter for us how players P1 and P2 relates to P3. Now the question:
should the building by P2 of his first structure at the expo be considered a building *from scratch* when there are already structures of the P1? From the coalition's point of view it should not because all coalitions see the same picture of ally relations... But in our case from the player's P2 point of view it is the first structure being built by
his foes and therefore taking the expo
from scratch. Let's see what will we have if now we add a player P4 with the next relation to P1: E(P4,P1). When the player P1 was building his first structure on the expo the switch was set. Later, when P2 is adding structures to the expo this should be considered as a building from scratch for P3, but the switch is already set and he wont get a message. With the Scwizard's triggers he will.
This in no way making one method better than another. This only shows their difference. This also shows that often we need more percise definition of a well-understood intuitive notions than it seems at first look.
I find the discussion about ally/enemy relations quite interesting. The nonsymmethry of the relation is the source of it's interesting properties and raises nontrivial questions. The next question might be: what should happen if the relations' picture is not static in time but can occasionally change? What should happen then? We have not still decided what to do when the capture of the expo happens
not from scratch.
Going further, the discussed ideas could be used to develop new kinds of the social type maps like Phantom, The Thing and others where the players have not got the full picture of the relations between each other, where they have to disciver and eliminate the potential enemy. Moreover, there might not even be a
total enemy at all! Each player might see
it's own picture of what is going on, his own allies and his own enemies! Who says that ally of my ally is my ally? The picture might not be static but changeing in time! And more and more... I believe that many interesting ideas are hidden there. The potential of such kind of maps is not fully discovered.
I could have tried to answer the questions and developped the ideas further, but I've already written a too much for a single post. It is leading me too far from the main topic. The time is also reminding me of spending it in too big quantities. Finally, I should admit it is simply boring to have a discussion with myself.
If you are interested, this could be good start for a new discussion. I am begging pardon for a little offtop there. If someone would like to discuss these ideas, I am asking you, please, make a new topic in the appropriate forum with the link to this post. Though if you have particular questions I think you better ask them there.
Ah, and finally, you should forgive me if I was wrong somewhere.
