Moderator: Cartographers
thenobodies80 wrote: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)
thenobodies80 wrote: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.
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 courteous 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.
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:
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
Leehar wrote:...Also, can I assume the difference in colours for some waterways, is to show the difference between rivers and lakes? (ie the TL portion vs Central Otago?)
Why is the lake in Taupo light blue then?
And similar to that same mt.cook border issue, is the area around Te Anau/Milford/Doubtful & Winton a bit congested with regards to the lakes and borders?
Perhaps a more contrasting colour between the bonus and the water/lakes/mountains?
Basically, you can the lake doesn't extend that far to the mountains, so there's space for Milford & Te anau to border, but there's a little wobble between the lake and the mountains to bring doubt into perhaps Milford & Doubtful Sounds also perhaps connecting(the mountain also blends in a bit)
Then the lake takes a little jump and now Winton's border extends a bit letting it connect to Doubtful but not to Fiordland and of course it connects to Te anau which itself doesn't connect to Doubtful because of the impassable and squiggly line next to the 'T' in Te Anau.
Leehar wrote:...the reality is that with over 200 maps around, it's also unreasonable to expect people to do that every time they play a game....
Dukasaur wrote:...
Minor issues:
I found myself confusing Picton with Nelson and Picton with Wellington a lot, and in particular whether the black plane is on Picton or Nelson, but there's not much to be done. It's a crowded area and it's just a matter of time to memorize the proper order that they go in.
"Moutains" needs to be fixed, but I see you're on it already.
I think the black planes could be replaced with 2 different colours for north and south, but it's not really essential. Might make it clearer, but again if I can figure it out by my fourth attempt maybe no clarification is really required.
Some of the borders like Twizei and Mt. Cook took some squinting, but again, I've got them figured out now.
Oneyed wrote:I post this also in game chat:
Kaitaia is only airport with Tiki. is possible to change it to Whangarei? then maybe change bonus for Northland from +1 to +2 and leave bonuses for Taranaki and Gisborne as they are.
Oneyed
cairnswk wrote:No, tiki are sacred areas.http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=156364&start=150#p3780796...and plaees in those regions for specific reason.
But i'd be happy to change down Gisborne and Taranaki to +1
Oneyed wrote:so bonus for Taranaki is still +2? I realy think that +1 is better for so small area.
thenobodies80 wrote:If we want to change taranaki to +1, we should change also gisborne imo.
ender516 wrote:I think that the planes flying into the territory names is quite clear enough.
cairnswk wrote:Leehar wrote:So while you may be somewhat critical of someone not taking the time to go research a map before playing it, the reality is that with over 200 maps around, it's also unreasonable to expect people to do that every time they play a game.
I don't agree with you here, and many others wouldn't also.
iancanton wrote:Oneyed wrote:so bonus for Taranaki is still +2? I realy think that +1 is better for so small area.thenobodies80 wrote:If we want to change taranaki to +1, we should change also gisborne imo.
agreed in both cases. do we want to reduce the neutral on the tiki for each of these bonuses from n4 to n3, as some compensation for reducing the bonus value from +2 to +1?
ender516 wrote:I think that the planes flying into the territory names is quite clear enough.
i tend to agree here, though i haven't actually held any planes in my only game on this map so far, so i'm not speaking from experience. however, i initially thought that there were only 4 white planes and it took me several rounds to realise that those 4 white planes can be assaulted by queenstown, which also has a white plane. can the queenstown plane be made clearer by swapping the colour of southland with that of otago, which is very pale?
cairnswk wrote:Leehar wrote:So while you may be somewhat critical of someone not taking the time to go research a map before playing it, the reality is that with over 200 maps around, it's also unreasonable to expect people to do that every time they play a game.
I don't agree with you here, and many others wouldn't also.
leehar makes a completely valid point. we have too many maps to know by heart and we're sometimes forced to play one that's not of our choosing, whether through joining a random map game or by taking part in a clan war or tournament. while we can say that it's largely someone's own fault for mistaking the location of a plane (for example), the fact that someone has bothered to post in the map thread during beta is a positive development and he certainly ought not to have to use an exceedingly apologetic tone for fear of being roundly criticised. this is an issue that comes to light during the hurly-burly of actual play and cannot easily be forecast while the map is being made.
ian.
cairnswk wrote:Oneyed wrote:at the first I have queston about Tikis. some of them are airports, some of them not. this makes difference between them. a little...
Yes they may need moving....i think there are 4 that i count.
cairnswk wrote:Oneyed wrote:just what with difference between Tikis with airport and Tikis without airport?
tikis on airport territories have been moved.
Oneyed wrote:this is from page 5:cairnswk wrote:Oneyed wrote:at the first I have queston about Tikis. some of them are airports, some of them not. this makes difference between them. a little...
Yes they may need moving....i think there are 4 that i count.cairnswk wrote:Oneyed wrote:just what with difference between Tikis with airport and Tikis without airport?
tikis on airport territories have been moved.
cairnswk, reaction on your reaction in game chat:
2013-01-23 11:25:14 - cairnswk: oneyed. airport on whangerei....that discussion took place in thread several weeks back when ian did the bonus adjustments for gameplay....no i am not moving it. end of story.
2013-01-23 11:33:01 - cairnswk: you too should take the benefit of actively participating in gameplay discussion when the map is in development.
Oneyed
from page 5 immediatley under map, and then nothing from you again until p16 about mountains.Oneyed wrote:hm, airport gameplay looks fine now....
cairnswk wrote:i apologise Oneyed for saying that and not checkng first...
but you forget to add this....from page 5 immediatley under map, and then nothing from you again until p16 about mountains.Oneyed wrote:hm, airport gameplay looks fine now....
cairnswk wrote:Files attached for adjustment to xml...
min reinforcement was set at 4 instead of 3...
divisor is still 4, not three.
instructions added to maps.
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... 2S_xml.png
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... 2L_xml.png
http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/12/21 ... /07_NZ.xml
Oneyed wrote:cairnswk wrote:i apologise Oneyed for saying that and not checkng first...
but you forget to add this....from page 5 immediatley under map, and then nothing from you again until p16 about mountains.Oneyed wrote:hm, airport gameplay looks fine now....
yes, but there were no region with Tiki and airport together. you moved Tiki to Kaitara from Whangerei, but you did not moved airport from Kaitara...
cairns, I do not think that moving this airport is huge change. and it realy could helps in my opinion. and then Gisborne, Taranaki and also Northland could be +2...
it is not about "who said what", I just can help... now in Beta, because later it will be too late.
Oneyed
EDIT: also Nelson could be +3 and Wellington +2.
2013-01-24 09:52:20 - playerxxxx received 4 troops for 11 regions
Nola_Lifer wrote:2013-01-24 09:52:20 - playerxxxx received 4 troops for 11 regions
Is someone suppose to get 4 under 12 troops?
Gamefreakguy wrote:It seems the coding may have been changed on this map? Mid-game the armies received for territory count changed, it seems very odd now. 4 armies for 16 and for 18 where as I received 6 for 18 the first turn, as was normal in previous games on this map. (check out Game 12249641) What's up?
Oneyed wrote:looks good.
- you have wrong colour of frame around New Plymouth.
- could you do a little more visible the last northern hill between Milford Sound and Mt. Aspiring N.P.?
Oneyed
ender516 wrote:If the background/frame of the territory names is intended to match the zone colours, then I think Coromandel and Napier are wrong, having picked up the colour of a neighboring zone. And in general, these colours would match the zones better if they were all fully opaque. As they are, they blend in the ocean colour and look too blue. The part of the New Plymouth frame that matches best is the part which picks up the shallow water colour, which is less saturated than the deep water.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users