New Zealand [Quenched]

[Leehar]

agree with the fix for 2p

[ManBungalow]

Is the Tiki "+1 bonus when held" an autodeploy?

[cairnswk]

Is the Tiki "+1 bonus when held" an autodeploy?

yes MB, there's a fix coming for that shortly.

[cairnswk]

Attached is the xml file with the new divisor of 4 in it.
The new xml file must be uploaded because it has new centering in it.

Small

Click image to enlarge.

Large

Click image to enlarge.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... 1S_xml.png
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... 1L_xml.png

XML: http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/12/21/3378809/06_NZ.xml

[Leehar]

It's still somewhat tough to tell which terr. exactly have the planes. Gisborne (and perhaps Auckland) are the best because they're right next to the actual troops (which you click on for clickable maps etc)

Perhaps put mini-airports inside the actual territories, or some other identifier like you have with the tiki's?
Or I see now that the planes are alongside the territory names, so perhaps make that explicitly stated, since sometimes I thought ashburton or mt. taranaki had a plane etc

Also, is there anyway to make mt. cook & twizei seem more seperated? the curving of the river right near the mountain made it seem they were connected.
In that same vein, is it possible to say that the rivers have Bridges?

[cairnswk]

It's still somewhat tough to tell which terr. exactly have the planes. Gisborne (and perhaps Auckland) are the best because they're right next to the actual troops (which you click on for clickable maps etc)

Perhaps put mini-airports inside the actual territories, or some other identifier like you have with the tiki's?
Or I see now that the planes are alongside the territory names, so perhaps make that explicitly stated, since sometimes I thought ashburton or mt. taranaki had a plane etc

Also, is there anyway to make mt. cook & twizei seem more seperated? the curving of the river right near the mountain made it seem they were connected.
In that same vein, is it possible to say that the rivers have Bridges?

"Where are mine eyes".
We'll see if anyone else has these problems.

[Oneyed]

It's still somewhat tough to tell which terr. exactly have the planes. Gisborne (and perhaps Auckland) are the best because they're right next to the actual troops (which you click on for clickable maps etc)

Perhaps put mini-airports inside the actual territories, or some other identifier like you have with the tiki's?
Or I see now that the planes are alongside the territory names, so perhaps make that explicitly stated, since sometimes I thought ashburton or mt. taranaki had a plane etc

Also, is there anyway to make mt. cook & twizei seem more seperated? the curving of the river right near the mountain made it seem they were connected.
In that same vein, is it possible to say that the rivers have Bridges?

"Where are mine eyes".
We'll see if anyone else has these problems.

for me is question about planes clear. maybe because I´ve looked at the map more often...
...but cairn for those who have this problem you could do that frame around names will be longer and planes will be in frame with names...

Oneyed

[thenobodies80]

The updated images and xml have been sent.

Nobodies

[cairnswk]

It's still somewhat tough to tell which terr. exactly have the planes. Gisborne (and perhaps Auckland) are the best because they're right next to the actual troops (which you click on for clickable maps etc)

Perhaps put mini-airports inside the actual territories, or some other identifier like you have with the tiki's?
Or I see now that the planes are alongside the territory names, so perhaps make that explicitly stated, since sometimes I thought ashburton or mt. taranaki had a plane etc

Also, is there anyway to make mt. cook & twizei seem more seperated? the curving of the river right near the mountain made it seem they were connected.
In that same vein, is it possible to say that the rivers have Bridges?

"Where are mine eyes".
We'll see if anyone else has these problems.

for me is question about planes clear. maybe because I´ve looked at the map more often...
...but cairn for those who have this problem you could do that frame around names will be longer and planes will be in frame with names...
Oneyed

Yes i could do that, and planes would have to be smaller ti fit inside the frame of name and to me spoil the look of the map.
I think Oneyed, that if some players simply take the time to examine the map, they will see that most of the planes sit at the end of the name frames, and that had they applied that association to Mt Taranaki or Ashburton they see exactly where the planes were.

[cairnswk]

The updated images and xml have been sent.

Nobodies

thanks tnb80

[Oneyed]

I think Oneyed, that if some players simply take the time to examine the map, they will see that most of the names sit at the end of the name frames, and that had they applied that association to Mt Taranaki or Ashburton they see exactly where the planes were.

me too ...but you know people...

Oneyed

[ender516]

The word "Mountains" is misspelled "Moutains" in the legend. (I am getting a feeling of déjà vu. Did I mention this here before, or is it just a common mistake that I have encountered elsewhere?)

[cairnswk]

The word "Mountains" is misspelled "Moutains" in the legend. (I am getting a feeling of déjà vu. Did I mention this here before, or is it just a common mistake that I have encountered elsewhere?)

no, i think you might have mentioned it, and i am almost certain i fixed it, but no...somehow it hasn't translated. Bugger.

[thehippo8]

Ah that most kiwi of expressions "bugger" - a reference to Footrot Flats and a series of Toyota adds based on the dog!

ANyway, as to the planes - the only other solution I can think is to bold the territory border (or even shade the whole territory) so it stands out?

[cairnswk]

Ah that most kiwi of expressions "bugger" - a reference to Footrot Flats and a series of Toyota adds based on the dog!

ANyway, as to the planes - the only other solution I can think is to bold the territory border (or even shade the whole territory) so it stands out?

you know, i don't think the kiwis hold the license on "bugger"...my father taught it to me when i was young and he is not kiwi.

anyways. appreciate your suggestion, but i am now reluctant to improve the planes image any at all.
my reason is this, and i don't care if i argue with the foundry chiefs...very few people bothered to come in and comment on this map while it was in production, and certainly the instigator of this request was not one of them.

[ender516]

Ah that most kiwi of expressions "bugger" - a reference to Footrot Flats and a series of Toyota adds based on the dog!

ANyway, as to the planes - the only other solution I can think is to bold the territory border (or even shade the whole territory) so it stands out?

you know, i don't think the kiwis hold the license on "bugger"...my father taught it to me when i was young and he is not kiwi.

anyways. appreciate your suggestion, but i am now reluctant to improve the planes image any at all.
my reason is this, and i don't care if i argue with the foundry chiefs...very few people bothered to come in and comment on this map while it was in production, and certainly the instigator of this request was not one of them.

You have my partial support, cairnswk. I think that the planes flying into the territory names is quite clear enough. That said, the purpose of the Beta phase of development is to expose the map to the whole community and check for flaws. You cannot write off comments at this point just because the commentator has not frequented the Foundry.

[Leehar]

Ah that most kiwi of expressions "bugger" - a reference to Footrot Flats and a series of Toyota adds based on the dog!

ANyway, as to the planes - the only other solution I can think is to bold the territory border (or even shade the whole territory) so it stands out?

you know, i don't think the kiwis hold the license on "bugger"...my father taught it to me when i was young and he is not kiwi.

anyways. appreciate your suggestion, but i am now reluctant to improve the planes image any at all.
my reason is this, and i don't care if i argue with the foundry chiefs...very few people bothered to come in and comment on this map while it was in production, and certainly the instigator of this request was not one of them.

You have my partial support, cairnswk. I think that the planes flying into the territory names is quite clear enough. That said, the purpose of the Beta phase of development is to expose the map to the whole community and check for flaws. You cannot write off comments at this point just because the commentator has not frequented the Foundry.

I mentioned the problems I had, if you prefer these things to be learned by trial & error, and my comments to be unconstructive than so be it.
I did try to make allowances that you may find my comment distasteful, so tried to mention other possible additions like adding a mention of bridges to the legend, but If I'm going to be tarred with a 'useless' brush I guess I can butt my head out of where it's not wanted.

I recognise this comment may seem a bit butthurt, and that I should be bigger than to take offense, but meh, it's not worth it to try be more neutral, just as cairns is honest enough to say what he feels as well (which I can only applaud)

Perhaps I'm alone in not looking at my maps so closely as to not stumble on these small things, and if everyone else spends the time to not make my silly mistakes than I agree there's probably no good that I'm doing here.

I did pop in here because I thought cairns interview and the foundry section in the dispatch were nice enough to make it worthwhile mentioning these things, so I'll probably stick around but will try avoid raising hackles in the future

And I completely acknowledge that I mentioned a very minor issue, and I probably would be like others and just not mention it all because it's no longer an issue once I've learned from my mistake. I just thought maybe it was worth leaving some feedback...
Heck even a response from cairns like he had in the newsletter "Thank you but No" would have made me feel better than "You're not a foundry regular so your mentions aren't worth the salt on my shoe"

If this was a place I frequented, I'd be willing to actually go to the effort of defend my views, but since as it was so eloquently stated that I don't bother to come here anyway, it's not worth the effort to stick to my guns?

[cairnswk]

Ah that most kiwi of expressions "bugger" - a reference to Footrot Flats and a series of Toyota adds based on the dog!

ANyway, as to the planes - the only other solution I can think is to bold the territory border (or even shade the whole territory) so it stands out?

you know, i don't think the kiwis hold the license on "bugger"...my father taught it to me when i was young and he is not kiwi.

anyways. appreciate your suggestion, but i am now reluctant to improve the planes image any at all.
my reason is this, and i don't care if i argue with the foundry chiefs...very few people bothered to come in and comment on this map while it was in production, and certainly the instigator of this request was not one of them.

You have my partial support, cairnswk. I think that the planes flying into the territory names is quite clear enough. That said, the purpose of the Beta phase of development is to expose the map to the whole community and check for flaws. You cannot write off comments at this point just because the commentator has not frequented the Foundry.

ender516. not wanting to put anyone off side, you have been around long enough to know that my pet peeve is community leaving it until the last minute (after graphics stamp) to come into the foundry and make suggestions on imporvements for the maps when the map sits around in the foundry without comments for weeks on end. I always thought that someone who could devote so much time to creating tournies, could at least also give the foundry sometime....but no this appears to not have been the case.

I don't consider that the whole community has yet expressed its displeasure for the planes, in fact only 1 has and others have backed this up with alternatives. Having said that i did not say i wouldn't do the changes, but am reluctant to do them....bit of a difference over semantics....but they will have to wait until another big update because in extending the frames to place around the planes is going to create a little havoc on some areas and these are major changes for both maps in moving things around.

I still consider that such large changes should have been done in graphics stage, but no, no-one bothered to visit except thehippo8 and a few other committed people.

[cairnswk]

....
I mentioned the problems I had, if you prefer these things to be learned by trial & error, and my comments to be unconstructive than so be it.
I did try to make allowances that you may find my comment distasteful, so tried to mention other possible additions like adding a mention of bridges to the legend, but If I'm going to be tarred with a 'useless' brush I guess I can butt my head out of where it's not wanted.

Leehar. i have no problems im making changes to maps of mine...if these major graphcis changes are made predominantly when they are supposed to be made (in my mind) while the map is in graphics stage in the main foundry, not when it is in BETA. BETA to me is for absolute minor tweaks. I don't consider your suggestions to be minor tweaks nor indeed useless and i don't consider that you need to "butt" out of here...but for someone who spends all their time organising tournies (which you have my repesect for)...
i' d like you to consider the fact this map sat for weeks in the foundry and no-body bothered to visit and comment...yourself included and that also goes for the requested changes on the Salem map. Had you bothered to visit and suggest at that stage you might have found me most cooperative.

i don't consider your comments to be unconstructive, but most untimely and i have been fighting this timeliness challenge since my first map in 2007 when Andy Dufresne used to come in late with suggestions. Seems nothing changes, but gets moved from player to player.

So please visit us to give your feedback (1. preferably while a map is in production and 2. afterwards when the maps are in Beta and you have played them a while).

you will notice that i did not cut off the Beta stage in my comments, but did say "preferably while a map is in production"

I recognise this comment may seem a bit butthurt, and that I should be bigger than to take offense, but meh, it's not worth it to try be more neutral, just as cairns is honest enough to say what he feels as well (which I can only applaud)

Leehar, it doesn't hurt at all, but rather pisses me off due to untimeliness of these comments and since you've been around since 2009 you really should perhaps know better.
I wouldn't want to come into the Tournies and ask for you to include me in one when i hadn't bothered to sign up before closure or after one had started.
Perhaps if you want your suggestions to be included in changes to maps, then don't leave it until the last minute...

Perhaps I'm alone in not looking at my maps so closely as to not stumble on these small things, and if everyone else spends the time to not make my silly mistakes than I agree there's probably no good that I'm doing here.
I did pop in here because I thought cairns interview and the foundry section in the dispatch were nice enough to make it worthwhile mentioning these things, so I'll probably stick around but will try avoid raising hackles in the future

Oh, you are doing some good...i would prefer you to stick around but be more proactive in giving your requests like these major ones in a more timely manner.

And I completely acknowledge that I mentioned a very minor issue, and I probably would be like others and just not mention it all because it's no longer an issue once I've learned from my mistake. I just thought maybe it was worth leaving some feedback...
Heck even a response from cairns like he had in the newsletter "Thank you but No" would have made me feel better than "You're not a foundry regular so your mentions aren't worth the salt on my shoe"
If this was a place I frequented, I'd be willing to actually go to the effort of defend my views, but since as it was so eloquently stated that I don't bother to come here anyway, it's not worth the effort to stick to my guns?

Mmm, salt on my shoes...seems once again i've left a bitter taste...and it is not because you are not a foundry regular that i made these comments...perhaps you'd take the time to add your comments to a map when the map is sitting around for weeks on end.
As a tournie organiser who has accomplished over 30 and several general achievements, with a BAccSci (congrats on that) i would have thought you might have been a bit more organised in your timeliness.

[Leehar]

I always thought that someone who could devote so much time to creating tournies, could at least also give the foundry sometime....but no this appears to not have been the case.

if that was at me, the only tournies I've ever run, was when official teamcc ones needed assistance.

I doubt the issue would have come up in graphics either, I only noticed it after I dropped on a territory using clickies and realised it wasn't actually where the plane was.
All I do is mostly based upon playing the game, I admit to the sin of rarely looking at the map beyond how it affects gameplay, so I would be of no use looking at a map if I can't and offering input if I can't play it.

I was actually quite active in the Beta stage of the foundry for a few weeks a year or so ago, but decided it just wasn't worth the effort after I got poo-pooed again :/

[cairnswk]

Now, back on topic.

The changes will be made to name tags and planes, but at a later date.

[Leehar]

As a tournie organiser who has accomplished over 30 and several general achievements, i would have thought you might have been a bit more organised in your timeliness.

As you can see from the Tourney comments, it's very easy to make these kind of tiny mistakes which snowball (You thinking that my medals are for tourney organising rather than winners medals); so I think it just helps serve my point that even if the problems can be solved by paying a bit more attention to those things, it would be far easier if they were just made a trifle clearer?


And I apologise for not popping into the other stages of the foundry, but the reality is that there are over 200 maps in play, many of which I still don't know very well and could provide input, that putting suggestions on ones that still haven't even come into play is sometimes beyond me.

Now, back on topic.

The changes will be made to name tags and planes, but at a later date.

Sorry for dragging it a bit off-topic
Thanks for taking it under consideration, thats all I could've asked for!

What did you think about my other comment on bridges, is it worth adding to the legend that they allow you to cross the impassable rivers?

[cairnswk]

I always thought that someone who could devote so much time to creating tournies, could at least also give the foundry sometime....but no this appears to not have been the case.

if that was at me, the only tournies I've ever run, was when official teamcc ones needed assistance.
...

Mmm, my error and apologies.
I too make mistakes...perhaps you gained these over 30 for winning.

[cairnswk]

As a tournie organiser who has accomplished over 30 and several general achievements, i would have thought you might have been a bit more organised in your timeliness.

As you can see from the Tourney comments, it's very easy to make these kind of tiny mistakes which snowball (You thinking that my medals are for tourney organising rather than winners medals); so I think it just helps serve my point that even if the problems can be solved by paying a bit more attention to those things, it would be far easier if they were just made a trifle clearer?


And I apologise for not popping into the other stages of the foundry, but the reality is that there are over 200 maps in play, many of which I still don't know very well and could provide input, that putting suggestions on ones that still haven't even come into play is sometimes beyond me.

Leehar...providing input on a map is required before quenching, not after it...so i doubt commenting on over 200 maps that are in play will help anyone.
If others can provide comment before coming into play, then perhaps you should try also. There are many maps sitting in the foundry awaiting comments.

Now, back on topic.

The changes will be made to name tags and planes, but at a later date.

Sorry for dragging it a bit off-topic
Thanks for taking it under consideration, thats all I could've asked for!

I too am sorry we went down that road, but was quite peeved as you know at the timing of this.

What did you think about my other comment on bridges, is it worth adding to the legend that they allow you to cross the impassable rivers?

Re the bridges...No. I have sometimes wanted to place things like that on my maps to clarify instructions, but have been told that providing what should be the obvious of normal style gameplay conditions re impassables, borders etc etc....players who are familiar with the initial game, are aware that bridges allow crossing of the impassable rivers, so it is a waste of time, which upon reflection is quite true. These are standard areas for this game and re-creating the wheel shouldn't have to occur.

[thenobodies80]

ok, some thoughts.

Every user has the right to say nothing about a map till a map reaches the beta stage. And we all know that Beta is the moment in which a map receives the biggest amount of suggestions.
In the same time an earlier comment would be really appreciated, this because make maps require lot of work and late changes are really stressing and unfreindly from a mapmaker's point of view.
Said that, I would like to not read unkind answer that might push users to not visit or suggest in the foundry anymore.
I understand the effort put to draw a map and i have respect for mapmakers, but in the same time the mapmakers should have respect for those who pay to play the maps.
I don't want to seems hars but like I have already said no one force people to draw maps. Mapmaking has rules here so if we want to draw maps we must live with the fact that maps must be changed accordingly a reasonable request of players till the moment a map is quenched.
In the same time, if a player want to play a game, he must know how to play it. A request just because a player is too lazy to read instructions or take the time to "study" a map is not reasonable imo.

Now, if a player takes the time to go to the browse maps page, study a bit the map and understand how it works before to start a game on it, issues like the planes wouldn't be issues. Then if that page is too hidden, and i can only agree about that, it's not a foundry or mapmaker fault.
Planes are not clear at glance, but I can't say they are so unclear. In real life, when someone buy a board game, some time is certainly spent on reading instructions and understand how the game works....no?
I have the feeling that it's some time that players think maps should be ready to play without spend 10 mins at looking at the map.
I'm not referring to Leehar , I'm just speaking about a feeling I have each time I read on this forum that people spend zero time to read instructions. (e.g. when people ask to explain killer neutrals on maps)
In addition, when something is unclear, it would be nice to not point out the problem and click submit, but instead try to spend a minute and suggest a possible solution for it.
Beta stage is done to test maps and if something deosn't work find a solution for it....problems without a solution remain problems! So please, if there's something that is not clear or doesn't work for a player, i think it's corteous to try to give a suggestion so to help the mapmaker to fix the issue without have to try 1000 times before to fix it. Unfortunately we are not able to read into people mind and understand what they would like to see.

Things like rivers that can be crossed via bridges are pretty clear to everyone who has a brain....but maybe those who says the opposite, in real life swim to reach the opposite side of a river?
With bridges the only thing required is a bit of common sense...and again if someone make a mistake for a "unclear" bridge on a map, then i think that the mistake can be done just once. In italy we say: "errare è umano, perseverare è diabolico"

On the opposite, I agree with Leehar about the river between twizel and Mt. Cook . It can be easily redraw to make the border more clear....something like this could work imo:


Finally, Beta stage is NOT for minor tweaks only. If maps have flaws, they must be fixed. It doesn't matter if they are big or small. Then..if they are big feel free to spank a CA for not spotting the issue when it was the right moment...but the mapmaker should fix it anyway. Also in this case, don't play a game if you're not keen to follow the rules.

Be aware, I'm not trying to argue with anyone here, just trying to explain to everyone that find a balance and a way to cooperate between mapmakers and players is the way to go.

Nobodies