Space Escape (new reactor core artwork pg3) 3-20-09

[demonfork]

What would solve the problem is some form of bombardment of the center space. Perhaps the connecting arm spaces such as X7 could be some sort of artillery that could bombard, but not capture, the objective space?

I like the idea of some type of bombardment. On a graphics note I think you should add a spaceship to the center. I like it so far!

Yea. I like that idea, I will add a spaceship to to the center.

[oaktown]

or instead of a spaceship, how about the reactor core? it's very sci-fi fabulous and stays with the space station look.

[demonfork]

I could make X7, ZOG, QOP and C12 bombard the spaceship. How does that sound to everyone?

[demonfork]

or instead of a spaceship, how about the reactor core? it's very sci-fi fabulous and stays with the space station look.

A reactor core could be cool but then the name of the map would no longer make sense.

Maybe the starting positions could be spaceships and the center is the reactor core that needs to be turned on?

[demonfork]

All of the current gameplay information has been updated on page 1.

I would like to start detail work on the graphics but I want to wait until the gameplay has been approved.

I am happy with the current gameplay parameters, please approve them or advise on what else may be required for approval.

[Teflon Kris]

Gameplay
The central objective formula is a winner.

The extra territories and bombardment routes you have added plenty of complexity to the gameplay.

With or without the bombardment would work in my opinion.

I'd have a think about neutral values - as St Patrick's Day showed - neutral values make a big difference.

The bombardment points maybe should be easy to take, to make them a viable alternative to just goingstraight for the objective?

Plus, looking at that map, there was no auto-deploy on start positions and yet the map still proved popular. You may wish to to go for similar neutrals to St Patrick's Day and maybe just +1 or +2 auto-deploy?


Graphics
Your idea of spaceships and reactor core stemming from oak's suggestion would add a lot of depth to the context. I imagine you might be finding it hard to resist, although more work.

[LED ZEPPELINER]

don't you think a space station would be a little more symetrical

[demonfork]

Gameplay
The central objective formula is a winner.

The extra territories and bombardment routes you have added plenty of complexity to the gameplay.

With or without the bombardment would work in my opinion.

I'd have a think about neutral values - as St Patrick's Day showed - neutral values make a big difference.

The bombardment points maybe should be easy to take, to make them a viable alternative to just goingstraight for the objective?

Plus, looking at that map, there was no auto-deploy on start positions and yet the map still proved popular. You may wish to to go for similar neutrals to St Patrick's Day and maybe just +1 or +2 auto-deploy?


Graphics
Your idea of spaceships and reactor core stemming from oak's suggestion would add a lot of depth to the context. I imagine you might be finding it hard to resist, although more work.

I am certainly willing to change the auto deploy numbers to either +1 or +2 but I think that this map does need them.

Maybe I can change the bombardment points from a [5] to a [3]?

I have the ability to get extremely detailed with the graphics, which I plan on taking full advantage of. This is partially why I am so anxious to get my idea/gameplay stamps because I want to get started on the graphics.

[demonfork]

don't you think a space station would be a little more symetrical

I don't know?

That said

The start positions are all equal distance from one another and the space ship is exactly on center, so in essence it is somewhat symmetrical.

[demonfork]

I am gonna go ahead with the graphical detail work in the space station. I am going to start with the blank model of the space station without any features or textures and build from there.

Keep in mind that the space station is a solid model, so the sky is pretty much the limit when it comes to adding detail to it. If you think that you have a cool idea let me know because I can pretty much model anything.

here is a detail pic of the reactor core that I just finished modeling up...


here is what it will look like on the map


P.S. All of my XML is embedded in the model and is completely parametric. The space station is spatially correspondent to the map dimensions, therefore any change that I make to the model automatically updates the XML to reflect the change.

[sailorseal]

The way it looks I would change the map to appear as a blueprint for a space station. I like the idea of this being a conquest map with starting positions. I would change that sentence to say Ëach turn plus three is auto deployed on each platform so it loos more professional. I love the idea of the map and the look is cool also. I would increase the territory count.

[MrBenn]

oaktown's thoughts on this map are broadly in line with my own... St Pat's worked as a gimmick map, but I have my reservations about how it plays

The image you're got embedded in the 1st post of the thread seems a bit blurry and pixelly? I'm not too sure whether that's the result of any resizing, or a by-product of the software you're using?


As an aside, could you update images in the thread as well as the 1st post, as it helps track comments to particular versions/updates etc

[demonfork]

oaktown's thoughts on this map are broadly in line with my own... St Pat's worked as a gimmick map, but I have my reservations about how it plays

I'm gonna go ahead and make the map. To me it's clear that there is a place here for a map like this, if it ends up being used fine, if not thats fine too.

The image you're got embedded in the 1st post of the thread seems a bit blurry and pixelly? I'm not too sure whether that's the result of any resizing, or a by-product of the software you're using?

It's just the effect, I just threw this thing together just to have something as a starting point, this should be fairly obvious at this stage.


As an aside, could you update images in the thread as well as the 1st post, as it helps track comments to particular versions/updates etc

Everything is currently up to date.

[Teflon Kris]

I'm glad you're persevering with the gameplay - St Pat's was gimicky graphically but the gameplay attracted many people - the Tournament Newsletter just released shows how popular it was. I am sure your map would be well played - players have many different tastes, even individual players have many tastes, and this map would appeal to many I'm sure.

An extra feature to consider
Having said that above - I thought that maybe, ad mainly for graphical appeal, it may be worth thinking of having encircling spacecraft as the starting point - each craft linking to one of the spurs. Just a thought. Further down the line, if there are unsurmountable objections about gameplay, you can always complex-it-up by having the craft as bombardment points (maybe not on the reactor). The extra bombardment feature would be a last resort in my opinion though.

[EagleofGreenErth]

I like it but I think the map would be much better off if "Eaton" were replaced with "Eagle."

[MrBenn]

[Moved]

It would appear that development of this map has stalled. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Foundry Moderators will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.