Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri May 23, 2008 4:53 pm**

hmmm... I'm getting a bad feeling about all this.

Posted: **Fri May 23, 2008 6:00 pm**

The map isn't going to show support from several Foundry people because they're not interested in a big map with purely classic gameplay. I personally love that kind of map, and the majority of CC does too. We need to keep in mind that sometimes the Foundry isn't "representative" of the greater site, and map types is where it comes into sharp and obvious relief. I vote for continuing this map, and keep the simple, clean look of it. It's not the graphics of Iceland, but really Charleston doesn't need those kinds of graphics. The city speaks for itself, and though it may look like Puget Sound, it'll play better than Puget Sound.

Posted: **Fri May 23, 2008 6:37 pm**

huh? What's going on here?

everything is fine and it's developing well. What's the big deal?

Anyway, the development of the legend is coming on quite nicely. I like the straightforward title, but I think I preferred version 4. I'm not sure it quite fit in as well, but maybe go back to that and try to edit it to fit in more with the map. Rather than scratching it for this new one.

Bonus-wise I think more discussion needs to take place.

West Ashley is not worth the same as East Ashley. If S. St. James is only worth 2 then Ashely is probably 2 as well. Furthermore, is Folly Beach really worth 3?

Lets look at some things.

WA - 2 border, 2 attacking, 2 continents
SSJ - 2 border, 4 attacking, 3 continents
FB - 2 border, 4 attacking, 4 continents
EC - 2 border, 3 attacking, 2 continents

I'd say WA and EC are 2 and SSJ and FB are 3.

f*ck it. Lets put together the whole list. Obviously strength of neighbors and size of continents should be considered but these are just starting points.

WA - 2 border, 2 attacking, 2 continents
EA - 3 border, 4 attacking 2 continents
SJI - 3 border, 3 attacking, 3 continents
NSJ - 4 border, 4 attacking, 4 continents
SSJ - 2 border, 4 attacking, 3 continents
FB - 2 border, 4 attacking, 4 continents
NC - 2 border, 2 attacking, 2 continents
HD - 3 border, 6 attacking, 6 continents
MP - 4 border, 4 attacking, 4 continents
EC - 2 border, 3 attacking, 2 continents
IP - 2 border, 3 attacking, 3 continents

I say we ignore size except for the extreme cases. In my opinion only SJI, HD, and possibly NC should be considered 'large' getting maybe an extra bonus from their size.

Just looking at the numbers (without looking back at the map) or the size, I'd say bonuses should be...

2 - WA, NC, EC
3 - EA, SJI, SSJ, FB
4 - NSJ, MP
5 - HD

IP i'm not sure. 3 seems too much and 2 too little. Possibly a gameplay change could solidify this one.

Including the 'size' bonus I talked about we are left with...

2 - WA, EC
3- EA, NC, SSJ, FB
4 - NSJ, MP, SJI
6 - HD

That's mostly what you had I think except probably the changes I had suggested above. So maybe convince me about Isle of Palms being worth 2 or 3, or make it more evident with a gameplay change.

Posted: **Fri May 23, 2008 6:46 pm**

Great job RJ and don't get discouraged. There are a lot of people interested in this map...they just don't visit the foundry. It's going to be great for some solid 6 and 8 player games.

Bridges: The Naval Complex and Daniel Island bridges should have their outer edges curved liked the rest of the bridges. I would also make the Legareville bridge straight like all the rest.

Sea routes: I want the rounded dots you used in an earlier version when the sea route connected with the land.

The legend is looking good now. Keep up the good work.

Posted: **Fri May 23, 2008 8:39 pm**

2 - WA, EC
3- EA, NC, SSJ, FB
4 - NSJ, MP, SJI
6 - HD

I can see WA being a 2 perhaps, and also SJI being a 4 maybe. HD may be a better 5, though Fort Sumter is a gem and can get a player around the map. So that could justify a 6 perhaps. SSJ...I suppose I can see your point about it being a 3 (It'd be similar to North Africa's argument for 3 on the Europe map I suppose...touching 3 continents, 4 territories) Perhaps I should flip flop from my earlier argument.

So I suppose I generally agree with edbeard's above quoted.

--Andy

Posted: **Fri May 23, 2008 8:40 pm**

TaCktiX wrote:The map isn't going to show support from several Foundry people because they're not interested in a big map with purely classic gameplay. I personally love that kind of map, and the majority of CC does too. We need to keep in mind that sometimes the Foundry isn't "representative" of the greater site, and map types is where it comes into sharp and obvious relief. I vote for continuing this map, and keep the simple, clean look of it. It's not the graphics of Iceland, but really Charleston doesn't need those kinds of graphics. The city speaks for itself, and though it may look like Puget Sound, it'll play better than Puget Sound.

I don't think that's a fair thing to say. Some of us are just wondering what a map like this has that will appeal to people. It has standard graphics (didn't say bad: just nothing that makes this map catch your eye), not too much of a theme (geographical maps are fine, but this is what some might call a "niche" map, a place with not too much significance), and normal gameplay. Now, I love standard gameplay; I basically only play classic-style maps. None of these things individually make for a "bad" map, in fact most maps don't have all three of these. But when none of these aspects of the map are really very pronounced, you sometimes have to ask what gives the map appeal.
Sorry RJ, this one just isn't really working for me

There seems to be a fair amount of support for it though, so I won't say anything else. It would just be great if you could do something to make this map stand out more, make it more unique.
But that's just me

Posted: **Fri May 23, 2008 8:51 pm**

Hm, I think this map will appeal to more users on the website than a number of the maps recently released. In most of the threads I've encountered over the past couple of days, people seem to be wanting more and more classic-esque maps, and I think this one, along with a fair number of others in the Foundry, will deliver to them.

I think one of the attracting things about this map is the general openess of it...and the ability to move about the map. No huge wasteland continents...but a way to build yourself up gradually. (NC and HD are a prime example I think).

It's graphics are inherently unique, which is always a key in my book. (I.E. While I like Pamoa as a cartographer (he's got some skills!), his new France map just replicates Ireland's feel too much for my comfort.)

Bottom line...users will never get tired of classic-esque game play maps. People will always play them, and I think this one will appeal to those people surely!

--Andy

Posted: **Fri May 23, 2008 11:35 pm**

This map definitely has appeal. How much appeal? I think it will be similar to USSR. Heck I think it is very similar to USSR in many ways, though obviously not visually. I can't wait to play it.

Posted: **Sat May 24, 2008 4:02 am**

pepperonibread wrote:
TaCktiX wrote:The map isn't going to show support from several Foundry people because they're not interested in a big map with purely classic gameplay. I personally love that kind of map, and the majority of CC does too. We need to keep in mind that sometimes the Foundry isn't "representative" of the greater site, and map types is where it comes into sharp and obvious relief. I vote for continuing this map, and keep the simple, clean look of it. It's not the graphics of Iceland, but really Charleston doesn't need those kinds of graphics. The city speaks for itself, and though it may look like Puget Sound, it'll play better than Puget Sound.

I don't think that's a fair thing to say. Some of us are just wondering what a map like this has that will appeal to people. It has standard graphics (didn't say bad: just nothing that makes this map catch your eye), not too much of a theme (geographical maps are fine, but this is what some might call a "niche" map, a place with not too much significance), and normal gameplay. Now, I love standard gameplay; I basically only play classic-style maps. None of these things individually make for a "bad" map, in fact most maps don't have all three of these. But when none of these aspects of the map are really very pronounced, you sometimes have to ask what gives the map appeal.
Sorry RJ, this one just isn't really working for me There seems to be a fair amount of support for it though, so I won't say anything else. It would just be great if you could do something to make this map stand out more, make it more unique.
But that's just me

These are the things I'll never understand about the foundry. If you're not interested in a map why not simply ignore the thread instead of saying I don't like it or it has no appeal.

None of the 7-8 new maps just quenched appeal to me. I will never play most of them. However I did not go into their respective threads saying these maps are disgusting, too complicated or have no appeal to me. The answer is simple...maps appeal to different people so I know someone else will appreciate them even though I don't.

Besides I know hundreds of very good CC players who never even look into the foundry but would love this map. Only around 50 people visit the foundry regularly out of the thousands of players on CC. A very very small and inaccurate sample of the whole CC community.

I think once a map maker (especially a renown one like RJ) starts making a map only people interested in the map should post in the thread. People who can give constructive comments. I hate the posts who discourage a map maker from continuing a map unless it's a total disaster.

Posted: **Sat May 24, 2008 8:57 am**

Ruben Cassar wrote:[color=#000080]These are the things I'll never understand about the foundry. If you're not interested in a map why not simply ignore the thread instead of saying I don't like it or it has no appeal....However I did not go into their respective threads saying these maps are disgusting, too complicated or have no appeal to me.

Wow - some action here last night. I need to digest all this before a follow up, I just wanted to defend pepperonibread a bit, because I did ask the private map makers group aadomm for some feedback, good or bad. But.... I do need to read this page of comments, and decide on a path to take with this map.

Posted: **Sat May 24, 2008 9:56 am**

Ruben Cassar wrote:
pepperonibread wrote:
TaCktiX wrote:The map isn't going to show support from several Foundry people because they're not interested in a big map with purely classic gameplay. I personally love that kind of map, and the majority of CC does too. We need to keep in mind that sometimes the Foundry isn't "representative" of the greater site, and map types is where it comes into sharp and obvious relief. I vote for continuing this map, and keep the simple, clean look of it. It's not the graphics of Iceland, but really Charleston doesn't need those kinds of graphics. The city speaks for itself, and though it may look like Puget Sound, it'll play better than Puget Sound.

I don't think that's a fair thing to say. Some of us are just wondering what a map like this has that will appeal to people. It has standard graphics (didn't say bad: just nothing that makes this map catch your eye), not too much of a theme (geographical maps are fine, but this is what some might call a "niche" map, a place with not too much significance), and normal gameplay. Now, I love standard gameplay; I basically only play classic-style maps. None of these things individually make for a "bad" map, in fact most maps don't have all three of these. But when none of these aspects of the map are really very pronounced, you sometimes have to ask what gives the map appeal.
Sorry RJ, this one just isn't really working for me There seems to be a fair amount of support for it though, so I won't say anything else. It would just be great if you could do something to make this map stand out more, make it more unique.
But that's just me

These are the things I'll never understand about the foundry. If you're not interested in a map why not simply ignore the thread instead of saying I don't like it or it has no appeal.

None of the 7-8 new maps just quenched appeal to me. I will never play most of them. However I did not go into their respective threads saying these maps are disgusting, too complicated or have no appeal to me. The answer is simple...maps appeal to different people so I know someone else will appreciate them even though I don't.

Besides I know hundreds of very good CC players who never even look into the foundry but would love this map. Only around 50 people visit the foundry regularly out of the thousands of players on CC. A very very small and inaccurate sample of the whole CC community.

I think once a map maker (especially a renown one like RJ) starts making a map only people interested in the map should post in the thread. People who can give constructive comments. I hate the posts who discourage a map maker from continuing a map unless it's a total disaster.

Why shouldn't I speak my opinion about a map? I even posted some constructive criticism earlier in this thread. I just thought maybe it would be possible to get this map more appeal than it currently has. I'm probably wrong, as a number of people posted after me, including Andy, about how they disagreed.
And you're right, you usually shouldn't post on maps you don't like. I don't post in the AoR threads or on cairns's maps, because I'm more into standard maps. But I know those maps would have a lot of appeal. I just think that this one has potential to be more appealing than it is now. I didn't tell RJ to stop production, just told him what I thought. Now I don't have any suggestions on what he should do for the map, so this isn't really the best comment. If I were in his position, I'd probably go with the majority, which seems to like the map as is.
Anyway, this is just my view on the map. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone too much, especially RJ. Love your work, man

Posted: **Sat May 24, 2008 10:09 am**

pepperonibread wrote:Why shouldn't I speak my opinion about a map? I even posted some constructive criticism earlier in this thread. I just thought maybe it would be possible to get this map more appeal than it currently has. I'm probably wrong, as a number of people posted after me, including Andy, about how they disagreed.
And you're right, you usually shouldn't post on maps you don't like. I don't post in the AoR threads or on cairns's maps, because I'm more into standard maps. But I know those maps would have a lot of appeal. I just think that this one has potential to be more appealing than it is now. I didn't tell RJ to stop production, just told him what I thought. Now I don't have any suggestions on what he should do for the map, so this isn't really the best comment. If I were in his position, I'd probably go with the majority, which seems to like the map as is.
Anyway, this is just my view on the map. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone too much, especially RJ. Love your work, man

I was speaking in general, don't take it personal.

You definitely should voice your opinion but I see many comments just bashing maps and giving no solution or suggestion and they get on my nerves.

I also think that every map is appealing in its own kind of map, even those I don't like. I don't like to see people discouraging a map maker from giving his creative input to CC. Even if a map is played by only 50 people it's already an achievement. It means it's making 50 people happy and contributing to CC.

I just refrain from posting comments on maps I don't like because I know I can't be of help since I'm biased towards that map.

Anyway let's focus back on this map. Sorry for coming out a bit strong before...it was a rough day yesterday! Hehe.

Posted: **Sat May 24, 2008 10:25 am**

for the record- i love this map

Posted: **Sun May 25, 2008 1:37 am**

st johns island at +5 is kinda ridiculous to me.... but it may be worth that much because it will be a hotspot if someone does get their hands on it early in the game

i still would like it reduced though....

Posted: **Sun May 25, 2008 5:18 am**

This map looks great, nice and clean, but its a little lifeless. /I think you should put a boat or two in there, to give it a small but welcoming populace.

Posted: **Sun May 25, 2008 8:03 am**

Love the boats idea.
Also, maybe this could be added in somewhere:

May very well just clutter the map, but it's worth a try. In the ocean, though, it may get in the way of the boats...

EDIT: Forgot to say what that actually is :roll:

It's the seal of Charleston.

Posted: **Sun May 25, 2008 9:14 am**

mibi wrote:This map looks great, nice and clean, but its a little lifeless.

That's the general idea I'm getting here. It's overall too plain & flat. It may be the colors are too washed out. But I've got some ideas that I'm going to work on. Thanks for the feedback guys.

Posted: **Sun May 25, 2008 12:04 pm**

Why is this still only in map ideas?
It looks great!

Posted: **Mon May 26, 2008 10:08 am**

Rj can you put the number of continents and the image size on the first post please?

Posted: **Mon May 26, 2008 10:16 am**

gimil wrote:Rj can you put the number of continents and the image size on the first post please?

image size = 800x600
i think that it fills the space well, hopefully you'll get the idea stamp soon

i can hardly find anything wrong with it!
really can't, again - stamp soon i hope.

Posted: **Mon May 26, 2008 10:42 am**

gimil wrote:Rj can you put the number of continents and the image size on the first post please?

Number of territories has always been there, in big bold font. I added the large map size to it as well. Thats all I have so far.

Posted: **Mon May 26, 2008 10:44 am**

Not terriroties, number of continents

Posted: **Mon May 26, 2008 10:46 am**

gimil wrote:Not terriroties, number of continents

Number of Territories: 60
Number of Bonus Regions (Continents): 11
Large Map Size: 800 x 600

Opps.. Sorry. Done.

Posted: **Mon May 26, 2008 10:47 am**

Posted: **Mon May 26, 2008 10:48 am**

gimil wrote:

Thanks Gimil !!

Conquer Club

Charleston, SC [Quenched]

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)

Re: Charleston, SC (New Legend, Pg-5)