Conquer Club

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 11:09 pm**

danfrank wrote:IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Panama canal :-k

Posted: **Thu May 14, 2009 11:48 pm**

Danyael wrote:
danfrank wrote:IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Panama canal

While I appreciate seeing the concerns of more and more CC users being expressed here in the foundry, I must say that timing is important as well. This is a case of folks coming in WAY too late to point out something they don't like in a map. Everything that you guys have brought up was discussed months ago. Let's continue...

danfrank wrote:With all the petty scrutiny i read everday in the foundry , this map is proof that preferential treatment is given to certain members.

No, this is proof that not enough CC users take part in the mapmaking process. This map has been in the works for eight months, yet some critics choose to show up after the map has been quenched and make accusations about how this map received preferential treatment. Give me a break. I was the gameplay stamper on this one, and here is one of my many concerns about this map that received no support (from November 6):

oaktown wrote:I can't help but wince when I consider the real-life ramifications behind some of the land-sea connections. The Arctic's only landfall is in Alaska, while seagoing countries like Scotland don't? Quebec has access to the Atlantic while the Eastern US doesn't? The only Pacific port in North America is in Mexico? The only Pacific port in Asia is up where the ports freeze every winter?

Anything here sound familiar? I also lobbied for the addition of the Mediterranean Sea and the Panama Canal. I didn't see either of you guys backing me up on these suggestions. In fact nobody did. So the mapmakers proceeded, and rightly so.

The map is solid from a gameplay perspective. The graphics are clean and user friendly. Those CC users who were good enough to visit the thread and participate were comfortable with the connections as is. Those who did not participate in this map's production can now choose to play it or not. But please, before you go accusing folks of something, do your homework.

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 12:51 am**

oaktown wrote:The map is solid from a gameplay perspective. The graphics are clean and user friendly. Those CC users who were good enough to visit the thread and participate were comfortable with the connections as is. Those who did not participate in this map's production can now choose to play it or not. But please, before you go accusing folks of something, do your homework.

i agree with that the map is great and follows the good old KISS rule

Danyael wrote:
danfrank wrote:IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Panama canal

i followed the map but when i saw it i thought that is awesome nice and simple it stayed that way and enjoy that fact

the reason for posting that because its obvious and if you look at it realistically first thing comes to mind is panama canal is the passage from pa4 to at3 and the one that is in2 to pa1 huge boating passage between thailand and oceania it makes perfect sense!!

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 1:06 pm**

oaktown wrote:No, this is proof that not enough CC users take part in the mapmaking process. This map has been in the works for eight months, yet some critics choose to show up after the map has been quenched and make accusations about how this map received preferential treatment. Give me a break. I was the gameplay stamper on this one, and here is one of my many concerns about this map that received no support (from November 6):

This statement alone is proof of preferential treatment.. I havent read the thread all the way through but i will take your word for it.. No support since november 6th that makes 7 months to date aproxiamately.. Funny how there is a map in the foundry that consists of bow and arrows was not supported for a certain amount of time and had all stamps removed.. :?:

The last thing i want is toe to toe with you oak i like your maps but i would say you look better without that foot.. :lol:

Posted: **Fri May 15, 2009 5:34 pm**

Congratulations for the map!

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2009 1:51 pm**

danfrank wrote:But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Why not... ever heard of the panama canal?

C.

Posted: **Tue May 19, 2009 1:39 pm**

danfrank wrote:But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Many maps on Conquer Club are not "realistic" in any sense. World 2.1 doesn't have country in the world---it combines a number of to make certain regions. Caribbean Islands--the ships in the ocean should theoretically be able to assault any island, yeah? But they don't---some things are altered for game play reasons.

--Andy

Posted: **Wed May 27, 2009 7:45 pm**

Just started a game on this map and one player started with all 3 Oceania territories for an instant bonus of +2.

Seems like this is an ideal spot to have at least one starting neutral.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2009 8:43 pm**

Possibly fix the borders for ocean parts that touch land territories that they can't attack (example: IN2 and EU7.)

Their touching is unnecessary and confusing. Change the borders a bit, and for certain other instances (AT5/AT7/AF5 border, etc. etc.)

Other than stuff like that, good map. Maybe less confusing territory names than just the "codes," though.

Posted: **Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:35 am**

danfrank wrote:With all the petty scrutiny i read everday in the foundry , this map is proof that preferential treatment is given to certain members.. The graphics for starters is not up to par with what is being expected in the foundry.. Is this map drawn to scale? Much of the water territories are huge and therefore they take from areas where the circles dont even fit in the region.Also how were the attack routes figured out.. No part of the US can even attack the water .And the east coast of africa not attacking the water either. Now thats just silly. But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!

Due to my lack of slight inactivity I couldn't get to this earlier. I have always been very open minded about critical feedback however you post above isn't critical and I find it highly offence and insulting. If you are going to acuse me of benefitting of favoritism at least do it with some kind of critical thinking and not through your own biased (it would seem) opinion.

Sorry for being direct and a little offensive but you as a member of the community have offended me when all I have ever done it contribute to this site.

I hope you understand.

Posted: **Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:05 pm**

Voryn wrote:Possibly fix the borders for ocean parts that touch land territories that they can't attack (example: IN2 and EU7.)

Their touching is unnecessary and confusing. Change the borders a bit, and for certain other instances (AT5/AT7/AF5 border, etc. etc.)

Other than stuff like that, good map. Maybe less confusing territory names than just the "codes," though.

Any thoughts on this comment?

--Andy

Posted: **Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:30 pm**

AndyDufresne wrote:
Voryn wrote:Possibly fix the borders for ocean parts that touch land territories that they can't attack (example: IN2 and EU7.)

Their touching is unnecessary and confusing. Change the borders a bit, and for certain other instances (AT5/AT7/AF5 border, etc. etc.)

Other than stuff like that, good map. Maybe less confusing territory names than just the "codes," though.

Any thoughts on this comment?

--Andy

I don't really understand what he means. The edge of all land areas touches water. The connections between land and sea are shown with arrows and reinforced with a comment in the legends.

Unless I have misunderstood the comment?

Posted: **Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:08 pm**

Just finished my first game on this map - love the gameplay: great for escalating - all the crash of open runs & the complexity of bonuses thrown in - nice work.

Posted: **Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:03 pm**

AndyDufresne wrote:
Voryn wrote:Possibly fix the borders for ocean parts that touch land territories that they can't attack (example: IN2 and EU7.)

Their touching is unnecessary and confusing. Change the borders a bit, and for certain other instances (AT5/AT7/AF5 border, etc. etc.)

Other than stuff like that, good map. Maybe less confusing territory names than just the "codes," though.

Any thoughts on this comment?

--Andy

First of all, the arrows are the deciding factor so I don't see how it can be confusing. I think the request is arbitrary because IN1 touches EU5, AF4, and AF5 but that doesn't present a problem. Same goes for the opposite (lands touching the ocean). Arrows are distinct and clear.

Having the full names of territories being placed onto the map will make the image look very cluttered especially on the small map. Having the full names in the XML after the coded names is a good way we've added a bit more "flavour" and less confusion to the map. If you don't know your world map then I guess it doesn't help that much but it'll help you learn and it's something that'll be learned quicker than just the codes.

Posted: **Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:16 pm**

I just played this map for the first time. 3 game series on it. I won 2-1 due to dice in a 1 vs 1, but both players made many mistakes thinking that each area touching the water could attack it. Seems logical that it should be that way, but if not I understand this map is not about realism rather just another map to play. Reminds me of the not often played Extreme Global Warming.

Posted: **Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:53 pm**

Bruceswar wrote:I just played this map for the first time. 3 game series on it. I won 2-1 due to dice in a 1 vs 1, but both players made many mistakes thinking that each area touching the water could attack it

to me, that's a not reading the legend issue. we can't do anything about that. I think we've put everything in place for people to understand the map without too much thought. arrow means attack. people know the world and where land is and where water is. oreo.

Posted: **Fri Jun 05, 2009 5:35 am**

edbeard wrote:
Bruceswar wrote:I just played this map for the first time. 3 game series on it. I won 2-1 due to dice in a 1 vs 1, but both players made many mistakes thinking that each area touching the water could attack it

to me, that's a not reading the legend issue. we can't do anything about that. I think we've put everything in place for people to understand the map without too much thought. arrow means attack. people know the world and where land is and where water is. oreo.

Ahh yes the legend that part of the map people tune out. Nothing against it, but reality is 9/10 people never take the time to read it. Fault of the people, sure, but a map maker might be better off if he prepared for it. (In your case not 100% sure how you could achieve that other than to have what is natural to people) That is all water touches land and can be attacked both ways. But then again that changes the game play.

If some new player reads the legend in say AOR 2, then goes and plays a good game. 2 things usually happen.
1. He is reported as a multi
2. The other player is usually not nice in chat.

But hey all he did was follow the legend...

Posted: **Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:27 pm**

Much debate occurred about the arrows, and I think they are suitably understandable for game play. Other's thoughts?

--Andy

Posted: **Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:20 am**

I haven't been keeping up with the discussion so I apologize if this was already said... Perhaps make them a bit darker and more noticeable?

Posted: **Mon Jun 08, 2009 6:29 am**

Gilligan wrote:I haven't been keeping up with the discussion so I apologize if this was already said... Perhaps make them a bit darker and more noticeable?

I don't think the issue is that the arrows arn't noticable gill. I think the issue is that people are making the assumption that all land and sea territories are connected. Which means people arn't reading the legends, or arn't reading it efficently.

The only solution to this is some kind of distinction between connecting and non connecting terrs (which the arrows are suppose to do). Unfortunatly no matter what solution we have it will have to be put on the legends. If people arn't reading the legends that is their problem since no matter what alternative solution we come up with for differentiating between land and sea connectings people will still beed to read the legends to understand them anyway.

Posted: **Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:19 pm**

you could change to arrow colours so instead of them being all the same make sea to sea connections blue to blue land to sea conections green to blue

Posted: **Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:28 pm**

I don't think there's any problem with the arrows at the moment. People just aren't reading which we can't do anything about. It's been made more than clear with both words and visuals.

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:02 pm**

AndyDufresne wrote:Much debate occurred about the arrows, and I think they are suitably understandable for game play. Other's thoughts?

--Andy

i think this map is terrible... The graphics are sub par for what is expected in the foundry..

Posted: **Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:13 pm**

MrBenn wrote:This map has developed nicely, and is very clean and crisp. Getting a map to this stage is no mean feat, so you can be proud of your achievement over the past however-many-months :-p

Anyway, here's my take on the graphics - the intention here is to help you put some thought into making some tweaks to bring the map up to the next level... please take any criticism in the constructive manner in which I mean it

1. Territory Borders

For the most part, the borders are crisp and clear; but in some places there is pixellation/fuzziness (eg. Newton/Cloverdale).
In a couple of spots, the borders don't meet cleanly (eg. Boundary Bay/Burns Bog or Aldergrove/Campbell Valley/Glen Valley).
Where territory names overlap the borders, it might be worth moving some borders to make it more clear where the name blongs (eg you could redraw the bottom of UGC so it isn;t overlapped by the K of Kerrisdale; or in Edmonds, you could move the border to be above the text). There are countless examples of maps where the borders have been slightly distorted to assist legibility, and I think you may have to make some similar geographical sacrifices here

2. Territory Names

As mentioned before, there are a number of places where the text overlaps territory names. You could either resolve this by moving some borders slightly, reducing the font size a little, or possibly even finding a new font altogether?
Some of the text on pale areas of the map (Burnaby) is difficult to read. It might be worth playing around with an outer glow on the text instead of just a drop shadow.

3. Textures

The sea/rivers feels a bit fluffy - have a look at some other maps around (Charleston springs to mind) for some ideas of how to highlight the transition between land and water
In spite of the texture on the land, the map still feels very flat; the texture doesn't feel very 'landy'... it might be worth having a bit of a play around a bit...

4. Train Lines

The purple (pink?) line runs very close to the coast in the yellow area; if you can pull it away from the terrtory edge a little, it will be more obvious that the territry extends beneath it, and that the train line isn't a border. You could possibly add (or increase the distance) of the drop shadow, to make it feel more like the line is above the territory space.
The colouring you've used on Downtown is a little bit confusing, and really doesn;t help visibility of the army number. Consider extending the colour around parts of the circle edge (you could split it almost three ways) - check out the train lines on NYC to see how the double-line-stations are done on there; I'd suggest trying to emulate that style as much as possible as people should be familiar with that concept.

5. Title

A good title should feel like part of the map, and at the moment it feels like it doesn't really belong there and is just filling a convenient space. If you're happy with it, that's fine, but It would be nice to see if there's any way to make it come alive a little bit

6. Legend

The legend is broadly functional, although I'm not sure how easy it is to match up the coloured blobs with the region colours.
The train line symbols aren't clearly differentiated from the other blobs - at first I was looking for another railway line across the Coast Mountains
The order of regions on the legend doesn't seem to correspond with their positions on the map.
The ports symbol doesn;t do a great deal for me, and looks more like a snowflake - this is entirely subjective really I know (think?) you had an attack line over the sea in an earlier version, but it would be nice to see how a narrow dashed/dotted line works now - you could use the current border line colour instead of white?

7. The Small Map

The train lines (at least the stations) will have to be moved a little bit on the small map in order to keep the army numbers centered properly. At some point it would be helpful to see a small version (even if it's just a shrunken large one) to get an idea of any further adjustments that are going to be necessary

All in all, your doing well. Keep up the good work

Why Does this map not have a critiqueing like this one ???????? The graphics on vancouver is 100 times better than land and sea.. The two big blue blobs in the center of the map :lol:

Looks like the artic is growing :-s

Also people have legitimate claims about attack routes and there dismissed as if it does not matter :-s

Posted: **Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:47 am**

I understand your concern, danfrank. I encourage you to become more active in the Foundry Process so you can help shape and form maps.

--Andy

Conquer Club

Land and Sea [Quenched]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]

Re: Land and Sea [Beta]