[Official] Classic Revamp [Quenched]

[RedBaron0]

The only city you could use for a more authentic "Kamchatka" would be Magadan, but the population is barely 100,000, unless you move a little farther inland and pick Yakutsk with a population over 200,000, but since that is a territory on the wrisk map, that won't likely fly. I don't think it matters that much if there's a territory the matches the placement on the original map, it's more than close enough.

Good job Sully!

[jiminski]

genuinely no offence intended but in my opinion the graphics need to be completely revamped and a new narrative discovered.

Again forgive my lack of diplomacy but i will post only once in here so i can not afford to beat around the bush.

-The landmasses lack texture and gravitas.
-The whole character of the image reminds me of a primary school encyclopaedia which introduces the brand new reader to the cities of the world. "Say 'Hola!' to Pedro .. he from Bathelona!"
-The image of the skyscrapers also looks like an after-thought... or perhaps constructed to appeal to the childs eyes.
-The territory links are obtuse and clumsy.
-The arbitrary flags as border are lazy, bold and distracting.

How would i fix it? .. good question and not easy to address! .. but as i have been blunt to the point of rude (i apologise Sully you are a decent chap who certainly deserves more consideration and tact!)

-Landmasses could use a hint of reality, a topographical allusion. That would lend the overall feel of the image some grandeur
-Texture, refinement and detail will add adultness and engagement with ones intellect.
-Take the peripheral graphics out from their cartoonlike theme... it demeans the impact, perhaps some more detailed artistry, line-drawn, architectural, Watercolour?... i am not sure as it needs to partner a new tone for the whole persona of the entire cartographic image.
-No idea how to alter the links to make them work .... i realise you can not use territory borders due to copyright ... but at present they seem like a compromise; something there through necessity.
-The flags as a border could work .. but rough em up a little, they are blocky and naive. (intentional and in keeping with the map i understand but they and the tone is not indicative of the flagship of the site)

In truth i always i envisaged the replacement of the godfather of maps, the reason pretty much all of are or were ever here, as a wondrous experiment in artistry. Something to titillate the ocular taste buds. An image which at once lays siege to our sense of comfort and settles in wistful, joyful reminisce. A map which lives-up to an idealised and sainted perception of its predecessor.
....something along the lines of the of what we saw for the Brazil map!

Here, and again i truly apologise for my uncharacteristic lack of temper Sully, we have an image which simply fills the place as better than nothing. (better than the abominable classic shapes) In my opinion it lacks derision, as commentators are just grateful for anything... where they never believed anything could come!

Gampelay: practically perfect!

bye,

jim

[azezzo]

The current version (division on the Pacific) was chosen because it will be more recognizable to new players and more familiar to players who knew the original Classic. I know there are several advantages to the Pacific split in terms of cities (America and Oceania get more, for example) but the benefits of having a recognizable and familiar map outweighed the other options.

To be a revamped Classic this is the orientation we must proceed with, I don't think that point can be up for debate.

makes perfect sense to me, when do we expect to be able to play it?

[lackattack]

[*]Adjust the red in the title. I initially liked the light red because it fits well with the pastels of the city line, but a brighter color will go better with the CC logo. Shooting for a middle ground in the next draft.[/list]

Yes, please do what you can to portray that this is the official map of Conquer Club. As well as using something more similiar to the CC logo you can also use our "official" flag icons (I'm sending you a an email now with hi-res flag icons attached) instead of the current flags.

It seems you already are doing this but I'd try to choose cities from the continents of our old Classic whenever possible, to help keep this revamp recognizeable.

Also, I think jiminski has a point about the city line being a bit on the juvenile side. Do you think you can do something more sophisticated? Sorry to be critical, but this is our flagship map and all!

[laddida]

if this is revamping the classic shapes isnt the game play suppose to be about the same? Looks like spots are pretty much moved all over the place

[maasman]

are you looking for exact gameplay from classic or something really close? because the territories in asia are a little wrong i believe

[ender516]

if this is revamping the classic shapes isnt the game play suppose to be about the same? Looks like spots are pretty much moved all over the place

The spots may have moved, but the connections are equivalent. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the cities here and the classic regions, and all connections here match up with connections on the Classic Shapes map or with borders on the Classic Art or Hasbro map, so all your strategies will work just as well here as on the old maps.

[captainwalrus]

Why not Mecca instead of Dubai? It has more cultural importance, even if it is not as important in the business world.

[maasman]

No, something is not right.
If you look at classic shapes, A5 has 6 border connections
Chengdu and Delhi have 5 connections respectively (the most connections in Asia on this map), but NOT 6
There are border connections that need to be addressed.

[john9blue]

The spots may have moved, but the connections are equivalent. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the cities here and the classic regions, and all connections here match up with connections on the Classic Shapes map or with borders on the Classic Art or Hasbro map, so all your strategies will work just as well here as on the old maps.

The board game is different than Old Classic (Kamchatka and Mongolia were connected) which is different than this map (Hong Kong and Mumbai should be connected). I think other than Asia all three are the exact same, but changes need to be made.



EDIT: And what maasman said. And maybe more.

[maasman]

I think if you are going for complete identical-ness then you need to delete the current borders in Asia and redraw them

[sully800]

I can rearrange the Asia borders quite easily. The gameplay is intended (and required) to be identical to Shapes/Art so I must have made a mistake when arranging the cities. But as I said, that's a pretty easy fix.

[maasman]

I didn't think it would be a problem, just wanted to let you know

[stahrgazer]

The version of the map that is laid out here is the one that has been authorised by lackattack to replace Classic Shapes.

WHY?

Why not just ADD this map?

Some of us actually do enjoy "Classic Shapes." So what if the attack pattern is the same? Some like C Arts which I can't stand. Some can't stand the Classic Shapes that a few others have wisely mentioned (other threads) is very easy for teaching purposes (same reason i like it: it's SO simple to find what you want.)

I'm not downing the map, it's wonderful to have a map-looking map.

But really, WHY does it have to replace the others that ppl are used to?

[ender516]

The spots may have moved, but the connections are equivalent. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the cities here and the classic regions, and all connections here match up with connections on the Classic Shapes map or with borders on the Classic Art or Hasbro map, so all your strategies will work just as well here as on the old maps.

The board game is different than Old Classic (Kamchatka and Mongolia were connected) which is different than this map (Hong Kong and Mumbai should be connected). I think other than Asia all three are the exact same, but changes need to be made.



EDIT: And what maasman said. And maybe more.

You know, to be honest, I never checked all of Asia's connections (and at this time of night, I'm not going to.) It's just that these same questions about gameplay have come up time and again in the development of the World Cities map, and I thought I would pitch in to give sully800 a rest.

The version of the map that is laid out here is the one that has been authorised by lackattack to replace Classic Shapes.

WHY?

Why not just ADD this map?

Some of us actually do enjoy "Classic Shapes." So what if the attack pattern is the same? Some like C Arts which I can't stand. Some can't stand the Classic Shapes that a few others have wisely mentioned (other threads) is very easy for teaching purposes (same reason i like it: it's SO simple to find what you want.)

I'm not downing the map, it's wonderful to have a map-looking map.

But really, WHY does it have to replace the others that ppl are used to?

I agree completely.