Moderator: Community Team
Mr Changsha wrote: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.
Bruceswar wrote: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.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Mr Changsha wrote:I would add that I consider Waterloo, Feudal, and New World to also have developed the game.
Master Fenrir wrote:Mr Changsha wrote: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 wrote:Master Fenrir wrote:Mr Changsha wrote: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
natty_dread wrote: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...
natty_dread wrote: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?
Commander62890 wrote:I agree with Changsha's point - that most of the maps here have basic gameplay and are basically useless to the experienced player. The endless geographical maps with basic gameplay are incredibly boring.
However, I totally disagree with his view that we should scrap them.
I do not feel that there is any "mess and disorder."
I have a mental image of every map, and can therefore easily sift through a list of maps and find the ones I want.
Natty pretty much nailed it here:natty_dread wrote: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?
This is the best you're going to get, Mr C. There's no way we're going to scrap maps.
natty_dread wrote: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?
saxitoxin wrote:Serbia is a RUDE DUDE
may not be a PRUDE, but he's gotta 'TUDE
might not be LEWD, but he's gonna get BOOED
RUDE
natty_dread wrote:The problem is, you'll never get people to agree which maps should go and which should stay. All the maps have some people who like to play it. And everyone can think of reasons why their favorite map should be allowed to stay on the site.
natty_dread wrote:So if mess and disorder are your only concern, what's wrong with just grouping the maps into categories so they will be easier to find? What's wrong with letting people play the maps they want to play?
Mr Changsha wrote:natty_dread wrote:The problem is, you'll never get people to agree which maps should go and which should stay. All the maps have some people who like to play it. And everyone can think of reasons why their favorite map should be allowed to stay on the site.
I believe a closed forum group (of no more than 3 people) should be set up to evaluate each map in turn on the famed Changsha basis of 'democracy and equality for all.' These three players should, and they have chosen on an entirely objective basis, be...
Agent 86 Manwiththeplan and Spoongod
natty_dread wrote:So if mess and disorder are your only concern, what's wrong with just grouping the maps into categories so they will be easier to find? What's wrong with letting people play the maps they want to play?
Are you advocating the wisdom of the masses?
All I see here is dumbing down and rank communism.
As the American people has proved beyond doubt, if you give people different kinds of pizzas, burgers and fries they'll just keep on eating. "More...is good." Sometimes the really good stuff gets lost in the gluttony.
Let's have some long-term thinking here. 'Every map ever should stay...part of CC history.' What about when there are 200 maps?
A genuine look should be had at lots of these maps. If they are not obviously innovative (or popular...I give you all that) then they should be scrapped.
Btw, I have absolutely no expectation of anyone with any actual authority taking a blind bit of notice of me. Hence this is not in the suggestions forum. I'm just getting my ideas out there. In this case...
'Quality, not quantity.'
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users