Conquer Club

b00060 wrote:Just like 50 other maps on this site. Nothing special at all???

Ok...well that makes the last 10 months of working on the map worth it. I'm not exactly sure what you were expecting, or looking for. Not every map coming out these days has to be "special", with some crazy bonus system, or conditional border, etc. Old and new players are always looking for variety when it comes to simple, yet aesthetically pleasing maps, and I'd like to think this map fills that need.

But really, I'm sorry you feel the map is lacking something, I wish you would have participated in the thread more, so you could have helped influence the map in a way that more players might enjoy. This map is pretty pretty much done, but there is a whole foundry full of maps that are in need of expert opinions, so please join the cause to help make those maps the best they can be...before it's too late like this one.

Seamus76 wrote:

b00060 wrote:Just like 50 other maps on this site. Nothing special at all???

Ok...well that makes the last 10 months of working on the map worth it. I'm not exactly sure what you were expecting, or looking for. Not every map coming out these days has to be "special", with some crazy bonus system, or conditional border, etc. Old and new players are always looking for variety when it comes to simple, yet aesthetically pleasing maps, and I'd like to think this map fills that need.

But really, I'm sorry you feel the map is lacking something, I wish you would have participated in the thread more, so you could have helped influence the map in a way that more players might enjoy. This map is pretty pretty much done, but there is a whole foundry full of maps that are in need of expert opinions, so please join the cause to help make those maps the best they can be...before it's too late like this one.

Even though gameplay is similar to many other maps, I still think that this map is worth being live. Classic gameplay maps run this site...and the graphics are good, too. Don't feel like your time was wasted, Seamus.

cairnswk wrote:Seamus...our game...

Southern Shu
5T/3D/4A/2N...shows in my calcuator as +3

compared to Riverland Shu +4 which has two cities for ano0ther +1 effectively making it +5

...yeh something is way out of balance there IMO.

Wuh Jin seems OK at +2

Riverland Shu at +4 is fine, but it gets +1 atop that for two cities, im almost thinking it could be brought back to +3

just my two cents worth.

Sorry for the delay. I've been thinking about this as I play more games, and one thing I just noticed is that you mentioned Riverland having 2 cities, but it only has one. The other tert, Chendu is a capital, not a city. Given that do you still think it should be adjusted? I don't think it does, but let me know your thoughts.

my primary observation is that the capitals usually play no part in the game, most often remaining neutral throughout.

ian.

Quench it! This is one of my new favorite maps on CC btw, tanks for making and introducing me to it a while back Seamus

iancanton wrote:my primary observation is that the capitals usually play no part in the game, most often remaining neutral throughout.

ian.

This is also my observation as well with the games I have played.

Two options for you to make them worth taking. I suggest you do both. Make holding them a winning condition. Very easy to add to the map and xml. Secondly, increase the bonus for holding all three to +6.

koontz1973 wrote:

iancanton wrote:my primary observation is that the capitals usually play no part in the game, most often remaining neutral throughout.

ian.

This is also my observation as well with the games I have played.

Two options for you to make them worth taking. I suggest you do both. Make holding them a winning condition. Very easy to add to the map and xml. Secondly, increase the bonus for holding all three to +6.

I agree as well. The only time they are taken is to gain the region bonus. I think there have been maybe 2 games I've played 1v1 where they have been taken, and never in a larger game.

I think something needs to be done, but how can you have it be a bonus and a victory condition at the same time? If you hold all three the victory condition would go into effect before the bonus, correct? So it's really one or the other. Personally a victory condition would be my last choice, with increasing the bonus being one of the top options.

One other option I'd throw out there, and personally like better, would be to make it +4 for holding 2, instead of 3. With them all starting 2n, and only needing to kill 4n to get +4, I think that makes them a whole lot more attractive to players. I think this would also make them more of an option in all game types, whereas a victory condition might be overlooked except for 1v1, where it's easier to hold.

Thoughts?

how about +3 for holding 2?and +4 for 3 stays?

The effort /risk of grabing only 2 instead of all 3 , is definitly more appealing then aiming for 3.

Armandolas wrote:how about +3 for holding 2?and +4 for 3 stays?

The effort /risk of grabing only 2 instead of all 3 , is definitly more appealing then aiming for 3.

I like this, but does taking only 2 capitals for +3 make it too easy in 2v2, 3v3, etc.? Would a +2 for 2 and +4 for 3 not be as attractive? Either do you boys in blue have any specific thoughts?

Have been eagerly anticipating this map coming out of beta. Very much looking forward to playing it!

Seamus76 wrote:

Armandolas wrote:how about +3 for holding 2?and +4 for 3 stays?

The effort /risk of grabing only 2 instead of all 3 , is definitly more appealing then aiming for 3.

I like this, but does taking only 2 capitals for +3 make it too easy in 2v2, 3v3, etc.? Would a +2 for 2 and +4 for 3 not be as attractive? Either do you boys in blue have any specific thoughts?

agreed and we already know that +4 for 3 capitals is almost always ignored.

koontz1973 wrote:increase the bonus for holding all three to +6.

this appears to be best, with or without a part-bonus of +2 for 2.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:

Armandolas wrote:how about +3 for holding 2?and +4 for 3 stays?

The effort /risk of grabing only 2 instead of all 3 , is definitly more appealing then aiming for 3.

I like this, but does taking only 2 capitals for +3 make it too easy in 2v2, 3v3, etc.? Would a +2 for 2 and +4 for 3 not be as attractive? Either do you boys in blue have any specific thoughts?

agreed and we already know that +4 for 3 capitals is almost always ignored.

koontz1973 wrote:increase the bonus for holding all three to +6.

this appears to be best, with or without a part-bonus of +2 for 2.

ian.

Ok, here's what it would look like with both bonus options included. At least the map that is.

That would work.

Instead of increasing bonus, maybe just decrease neutrals to 1?

benga wrote:Instead of increasing bonus, maybe just decrease neutrals to 1?

You then get the same as the cities. Why have the two if both are the same thing?

koontz1973 wrote:That would work.

Ok, I have both versions changed, but my question is, now that the bonus is greater should the Capitals go to a starting 3n instead of the current 2n? I'm thinking yes, but does that then discourage anyone from taking them, thus putting us back in the same situation of non-use, etc? Or is the change enough?

no, don't increase the neutrals, for exactly this reason!

ian.

CURRENT UPDATE INFO - 2013-12-31:
- Updated the Capital bonus from being only +4 for 3, to +2 for 2 and +6 for all 3.

Attached are the updated map images and xml.

CURRENT MAP VERSION

v10.0 - Large (840x800)


v10.0 - Small (630x600)

Hey, sorry if this has been brought up before. I just stumbled across this map and thought I'd mention it:

Some of the writing is very difficult to read. In particular:

The territory names in the darker green region (Riverland)
The territory names in both the darker red regions (Jing and especially Yang)
Wuting/Wuling is obscured by the crease. Moving the wiriting down a little would solve this I think, or maybe make the crease a little less evident there?
The territory names in the darkest blue region (Bei Ping)
Especially difficult is all the writing explaining the regional bonuses

I've not the experience that you guys have but the territory names would probably be easier to read if they were darker, maybe you'll have some different ideas. I hope you take this as the constructive criticism that it's intended to be, and can make the small fix because the map looks good.

The difference between jing and king in colors is not that noticeable to me. I know that it is outlined to the bottom right in that little mini map but could it be possible to differentiate between those areas a little more?

i like the map size and i like the bonus structures but the overall colour scheme is not great could use some work - overall a good map

I really like this map as I do all of Seamus maps. I really like the city bonuses that are unique from most CC maps as well as the masterfully set up dividers and 1 ways that make it just a little different. Something specific to consider is starting neutrals. In Game 14094126 a poly (3) game you'll notice I have Liang with Liang South being neutral and north also neutral. I also have Yong Cheng with 2 neutrals surrounding it. These essentially made my pink player impossible to take out. It seems maybe it would be better to make this so that drop specifically cannot protect a player.

Posting for March Challenge. Great map! The map is visually appealing to me. It has bright colors. The slight differences in shading help to point out the additive bonus structure. The legend is easily understood.
The neutrals balance potentially too-small bonus regions up north, but the only negative I see is Liang North and Bei Ping West always starting n3 (at least as far as I can tell) is a bit much IMO. Maybe the neutrals would be better on Liang and Bei Ping Port? Would n2 be too low there?

I like the idea of the map, it seems pretty balanced and I like maps with city bonuses.
A possible improvement, or something I don't like with how it currently is, is that it is unclear if capitals count as cities, and if they don't, I think they should.