Brace Yourself...Mapmakers.

[Mr Changsha]

Am I alone in thinking CC should remove any map that is any way derivative? That CC should reduce the number of maps to just those that are unique, and the best examples of a game if there are countless other attempts?

Take the basic geographical maps. Classic is the original and 2.1 expanded upon it. I fail to see the point of any of the others. What do they add?

CC should, in my view, take about 10 core maps and make them as beautiful as possible. CC has had 5 years to experiment with a multitude of possible games and styles. I think now is the time to actually start considering the development of online Risk, by deciding which of these many maps (and game styles) actually have some fundamental strategic value and which either don't, or are but mere copies of another game.

I would say that Classic is the original, is the genesis of all that has since come. The classic map is fundamental.

2.1 expanded on Classic and made it a better game.

I would add that I consider Waterloo, Feudal, and New World to also have developed the game. There may be others I am missing but I think you take my point. At this stage of online Risk's development, I simply don't see the value of a hundred+ maps that, in my view at least, actually manage to dilute the game.

At the moment CC simply cannot say "This is Risk." It is a juvenile mess. If the game is to continue to develop then CC must take some hard decisions on where the game is going.

[Army of GOD]

I disagree. I like having a lot of maps, even if I don't touch any of them. Sites with only 10 maps aren't as appealing. If I want a map that looks a certain way, then I can find it on here.

Take Japan on this site for example. It doesn't have any intense gameplay, but the map is so beautiful, it draws me in.

[Dukasaur]

Changsha, I read a lot of your strategy articles and stuff, and 90% of the time I agree with you, but in this case I have to disagree. There are a few maps that I personally see little value in, but the key word there is "personally." Every time I hear someone say, "I hate this map!" I hear someone else say, "that's my favourite!" The multitude of maps and settings satisfies a multitude of different people's interests and playing styles, and that's what makes an online community vibrant and successful.

We can't say "this is Risk?" Who cares? Risk was a juvenile introduction to wargaming; mature wargamers always went on to play something more interesting. In the pre-computer age that mostly meant more advanced wargames like Third Reich or any of the Avalon Hill games. After personal computers came out, well, I won't even waste time listing all the options that have become available. The only thing keeping Risk alive is a certain nostalgia because, for most of us, it was the first wargame we ever played. That's all that makes us smile when we think of it, just as you probably still smile when you remember the first girl you kissed, even though now she's probably a postmenopausal old hag with lumbago and you would run away if you ever met her again.

Your favourite map, World 2.1, personally bores me to tears, but I have no desire to deprive you of it. A successful online site is a community, and as in any community, the beautiful things happen when we all decorate our houses differently, not when they just came from the cookie-cutter.

[grifftron]

At the moment CC simply cannot say "This is Risk." It is a juvenile mess. If the game is to continue to develop then CC must take some hard decisions on where the game is going.

CC HAS NEVER CLAIMED TO BE RISK! actually at the bottom it says "RISK is a registered trademark of Hasbro Inc. Conquer Club is not associated with RISK or Hasbro in any way."

CC is BETTER then RISK , more game styles, tons of players to play with any time, quick time games, speed games and of course TONS OF MAPS!

You my friend have played less then 25% of the maps on this website... how can you say most maps on this site suck and mess with the "true" meaning of "RISK" when you have never played on them before?

But in all honestly... if you want to play a few maps.. find a different website, there are tons of lame "risk" gaming sites with like 4-5 maps... i even found a "risk" game on my itouch the other day, it has 1 map! so knock yourself out!

worst idea off all time.

PS. OH and just like the post above, I HATE WORLD 2.1! AND CLASSIC TOO!

-griff

[Bruceswar]

I agree with Changa here, not 10 maps, but about there being too many maps out. Something needs to be done to "weed" out maps. There are too many out there if you ask me. Something has to be done if you ask me.

[Army of GOD]

What's the problem of having "too many" maps?

I think the pros far outweigh the cons

[grifftron]

I agree with Changa here, not 10 maps, but about there being too many maps out. Something needs to be done to "weed" out maps. There are too many out there if you ask me. Something has to be done if you ask me.

Why? Its a great variety of maps that most people like, if you don't like a map, just don't play it, whats the big deal?

[jefjef]

lol. Yeah. Lets "develop" CC into a 10 map snooze fest.

Personally I think CC should dump the "random" map. It has so many glitches you never know what you're gonna end up with.

Keep up the fantastic work foundry crew!

[Master Fenrir]

I would add that I consider Waterloo, Feudal, and New World to also have developed the game.

How is New World different enough from Feudal War to earn one of your 10 spots?

[grifftron]

I would add that I consider Waterloo, Feudal, and New World to also have developed the game.

How is New World different enough from Feudal War to earn one of your 10 spots?

What he means is he would add only the maps he likes, since he only plays on 10 regular maps, and has only played on no more then 40 maps over the 4 years he has been around... why keep the rest?

-griff

[Mr Changsha]

I would add that I consider Waterloo, Feudal, and New World to also have developed the game.

How is New World different enough from Feudal War to earn one of your 10 spots?

What he means is he would add only the maps he likes, since he only plays on 10 regular maps, and has only played on no more then 40 maps over the 4 years he has been around... why keep the rest?

-griff

Well if you are pointing out how consistant my views are then I thank you.

I'm saying that while new maps may be fun they rarely actually expand upon the original game. I'm saying there is little value to most of the maps on CC because they are mere copies (gameplay-wise) of other maps. Actually, they are often copies of copies. You can play on England, or Wales, or Africa or any other geographical map, but as far as I know they add no new gameplay dimension at all from the original. Therefore while they look different, and may be great in themselves, they aren't actually adding anything to the site...for they aren't helping online Risk to evolve in any way at all.

By the way I'm not (of course) suggesting that the maps I like should be kept. Give me a little more credit than that. I am saying that some maps have introduced interesting new gameplay elements and these should be kept. I'm sure there are others I haven't come across. I would guess that if one came to consider it you would find about 10 unique gameplay styles. The best of each style should be kept, even developed, the rest junked.

This is all about quality, not quantity.

I'm aware that I am very far from qualified to decide which CC maps have intrinsic value. My record speaks for itself. I was wondering if those of you that have played all the maps are able to take about 10 that are great and would all have unique features.

[jigger1986]

I couldnt disagree more with this idea. I love the fact that there are lots of maps. I havent played them all, and although basic gameplay doesnt change much between "standard" maps, its more about the art. Some of these "mere copies" have incredible detail, graphics, themes historical accuracy and are all around beautiful works of art.
Even maps with the simplest of gameplay offer very appealing visuals.
Just for the record if CC starting removing maps because they werent "helping Risk evolve" I would leave, and Im sure many others would as well.
In fact any additional map/setting or gameplay variation, however large or small, is a cross-section of evolution.

-jig

[Mr Changsha]

This reminds me of when I suggested that CC should lower everyone's rank by about three spots to make it more realistic.

Heh heh heh...

Quality, not quantity. If it isn't innovative then scrap it.

[natty dread]

I agree in the sense that we have enough standard-gameplay maps. I don't endorse removing any maps that are already in play, because each of these maps are part of CC history and deserves to be included to the site.

But when it comes to new maps, standard gameplay maps simply shouldn't be made anymore. What indeed is the point of having a zillion maps with the same dynamics as classic, but slightly different territories and bonus areas?

What I'd like to see is more maps with new, exciting and innovative gameplay dynamics. Maps that push the envelope, so to speak.

I, as a mapmaker, have always tried to steer clear of the standard gameplay model, and introduce at least something new in each of my maps. There are also other mapmakers who I greatly admire who continue to make maps with new and exciting gameplay. Good current examples are South Africa, King's Court, Middle Ages... and of course Research & Conquer that is hopefully soon in beta. And if I may advertise somewhat, me & Isaiah40:s Antarctica...

I'm not saying that every new map should have an exceptionally convoluted gameplay, but at least some deviation from the standard model. South Africa is a good example of this, it has mostly standard bonus areas, but an interesting twist to the gameplay, with the doubling bonuses.

Then we have King's Court, which has exceptionally well-designed dynamics. It plays like it was based on some other completely different board game than Risk.

And Research & Conquer... well, that's just epic. The map has been in development for years, and it will probably blow the minds of players when it finally comes out.

So, we do have lots of good maps with unique gameplay in development. There's no need to worry about that.

We do have lots of maps, but that's an asset to the site IMO. What I'd like to see from CC would be some way to group the maps in categories, because the "start a game" page is starting to become huge, and it's hard to find the maps you want from it...

[Mr Changsha]

I agree in the sense that we have enough standard-gameplay maps. I don't endorse removing any maps that are already in play, because each of these maps are part of CC history and deserves to be included to the site.

But when it comes to new maps, standard gameplay maps simply shouldn't be made anymore. What indeed is the point of having a zillion maps with the same dynamics as classic, but slightly different territories and bonus areas?

What I'd like to see is more maps with new, exciting and innovative gameplay dynamics. Maps that push the envelope, so to speak.

I, as a mapmaker, have always tried to steer clear of the standard gameplay model, and introduce at least something new in each of my maps. There are also other mapmakers who I greatly admire who continue to make maps with new and exciting gameplay. Good current examples are South Africa, King's Court, Middle Ages... and of course Research & Conquer that is hopefully soon in beta. And if I may advertise somewhat, me & Isaiah40:s Antarctica...

I'm not saying that every new map should have an exceptionally convoluted gameplay, but at least some deviation from the standard model. South Africa is a good example of this, it has mostly standard bonus areas, but an interesting twist to the gameplay, with the doubling bonuses.

Then we have King's Court, which has exceptionally well-designed dynamics. It plays like it was based on some other completely different board game than Risk.

And Research & Conquer... well, that's just epic. The map has been in development for years, and it will probably blow the minds of players when it finally comes out.

So, we do have lots of good maps with unique gameplay in development. There's no need to worry about that.

We do have lots of maps, but that's an asset to the site IMO. What I'd like to see from CC would be some way to group the maps in categories, because the "start a game" page is starting to become huge, and it's hard to find the maps you want from it...

Good point all Natty, but I have to tell you that I can't abide mess and disorder. Once it is agreed that all those standard gameplay maps are a waste of space and add little to the site then they'll just have to go. Otherwise, every day players would be going to browse maps and thinking "Yep, Mr C said that's derivative crap...why can't they just remove it? It makes me ashamed to be here..."

So no half measures Natty. No compromise. If it wasn't, isn't and will never be innovative then it is for the chopper.

I have less experience of other gaming styles and am thus not qualified to judge their value. Hence the thread. But I do know ('cause you know I pretty much only play standard Risk) that most of the standard-game geographical maps may have taught CC'ers the finer points of geography but have done little to help evolve online Risk.