[Abandoned] Pixel World

[BelJoDoe]

I think I've dealt with most, if not all of the issues raised by people in this thread.

Here's the map in its current state:


Additionally, having changed the map into the above, I'm presented with 2 clear choices of where the map can go in the XML and both of which sound quite interesting to me. I'll outline them below by copy-pasting the updated text in my opening post:

As some of you that have been following the map idea, I would like to create a map where the players begin only in those rich areas, with the rest of the map being grey-neutral, size 3 armies that can be conquered but which do not provide anything other than a bridge to another part of the world and also a territory bonus (which on a 300+ map, could prove significant).


If people would like me too though, I might create 2 versions of this map. One with the 'sea of grey' on and the other being a normal map.

There are benefits to both possibilities:
1) Using a sea of grey will reduce the starting deployment, for a 6-player game, to 3 armies, as per usual. Players will fight normally in their region and, with 14 regions, each the same size, each player should have similar chances to obtain and hold a region. After that, players will have to wade through the grey territories to reach and attack their neighbours. Some players may choose to simply carve out mini kingdoms and soak up that often over-looked territory bonus, which, if you conquered every territory, would produce a deployment of 107 armies (not including the bonuses).
... personally, the above game play possibilities turn me on.

2) If every territory is 'playable' from turn one, in a 6-player game, each player will have 17 armies to deploy on turn one. This will create a bloodbath right from the start and continuing until the game ends, where ever escalating cards will be unlikely to out-do the territory bonus possibilities.


The first game possibility would create a more 'epic' game, I think, while the second might be much more fast, furious and bloody. As mentioned then, if there is interest in the map, I would like to turn it into two, differently playable versions, using the XML.

>>> May I have your opinions, please?

[Coleman]

Should I continue working on this or stay with CC:MoM?

Stay with CC:MoM only, it's nearly there... 40% [ 12 ]
Start working on Pixel World, CC:MoM can wait... 10% [ 3 ]
You have time to work on both, you lazy bum 50% [ 15 ]

Total Votes : 30

[lt_oddball]

"2) If every territory is 'playable' from turn one, in a 6-player game, each player will have 17 armies to deploy on turn one. This will create a bloodbath right from the start and continuing until the game ends, where ever escalating cards will be unlikely to out-do the territory bonus possibilities"

... which means that the last turn player(s) is(are) screwed and put back at a huge distance. Which is unfair, as the ruleof equal opportunities for each player is violated. And thus should not be further explored.


Take the 1) game option.
There is nothing wrong with "epic" fights.
If players want fast play, then they should not pick a large field game anyway! Besides the option of the 5 minutes game play version.
So , there is no argument to have the 2) gamestyle (except for being masochists ).

[BelJoDoe]

Regarding option 2:
Lt_Oddball, I would agree in part but the same is true of World 2.1, only with World 2.1, where everyone begins with 6 armies for 18 territories (in a 6 player game), if a single territory is taken from a player, his deployment is reduced by 17%.
For Option2-'bloodbath'-Pixel World, if one territory is taken, only 1.9% of deployment is lost. In order to lose the same 17% deployment bonus that can be lost from just one territory in World 2.1, 9 starting territories must be lost, before your first turn... But even then, the last player would still deploy with 14 armies which, if deployed and used cleverly, should still ensure a significant chance in the game.

[yeti_c]

The poll for this is immaterial to the Graphics at this point...

The "Sea of grey" can be turned on at a later date...

I'm loving this map and reckon it's ace...

C.

[edbeard]

you really put some work into this. good job.

sorry for not checking the maximums, but does this fit under the specs for the small maps? Hopefully it does but if you need to cut some width you could alway move the title to the bottom left.

could you get rid of the white in the diagonal bridges? I think it'll give a cleaner look if the colours are more abrupt than with the white in between them.

I know it's a pain, but could you make those dots that go inbetween all the territories uniform? Seems weird that some are like dots and others are closer to lines or some are dots with little lines coming out of them.

I don't know that anything can be done about this, but I suppose that M3 connects to L2 but it doesn't seem intuitive that it is the case because of the wall there. But, it's probably just a gameplay quirk that people will have to get used to. Or, maybe I'm just confused and this is supposed to stop a diagonal attack?

[BelJoDoe]

Thanks for showing an interest in the map.

To Edbeard: I built the map with the design specs for small maps in mind, so I'm fairly confident that it meets the specifications.
When I get back home, later this evening, I'll try a map without the white bits, on the 'bridges'. I'll also see about making the dots more uniform (or, I might make one style for land based territories and another for the unplayable areas of the map (the sea).
On the connection question, yes, M3 does connect to L2. The thin black line you can just about make out is there only to further differentiate between one of Europe's bonus territories and a normal European territory.


To Yeti_C: For this first stage of the map, I've been trying to make it playable and fun. Like all maps, the game play features, bonuses, borders etc are linked to how the game plays, so, even though the XML is long way away, I decided to gauge opinion on the game play by directing people's attention to the broader game play aspects. Once people are happy with the overall game play and the map gets moved to the final foundry, I'll concentrate on graphical elements, etc. I'm glad that the map inspires words like "ace" from you though... it makes me feel all warm inside


Does everyone like the bonuses, as I've described them in the legend?

[yeti_c]

Definitely a fair comment...

I like the Sea of Grey idea... (Makes the first person to play less likely to win)

There are 3 choices of army numbers you can choose...

1) All 1's so that they're easy to conquer (will only get you territory bonus and not continent bonus)

2) Border of 5's rest 1's - All territories that border the mainland have 5's and the rest are 1's... this way you contain the gameplay a bit more to the mainlands... but someone might want to break out to the sea...

3) Increasing or Decreasing armies... i.e. you start with 1's and then increase to 2's and 3's the further you go out to sea... (Of course this option could be flipped round.)

C.

[DiM]

Definitely a fair comment...

I like the Sea of Grey idea... (Makes the first person to play less likely to win)

There are 3 choices of army numbers you can choose...

1) All 1's so that they're easy to conquer (will only get you territory bonus and not continent bonus)

2) Border of 5's rest 1's - All territories that border the mainland have 5's and the rest are 1's... this way you contain the gameplay a bit more to the mainlands... but someone might want to break out to the sea...

3) Increasing or Decreasing armies... i.e. you start with 1's and then increase to 2's and 3's the further you go out to sea... (Of course this option could be flipped round.)

C.

i say go with 3 on each neutral. despite the fact it would me more interesting to have various numbers i think this will cause confusion and it will need an explanation somewhere on the map. (remember the neutrals in battle for australia?). and since there's such little spare place i'd say go for uniform neutrals.

[BelJoDoe]

Regarding the Sea of Grey:
I quite like Yeti_C's suggestion of a size 5 border with the rest of the neutral territories being size 2 (size 1 might be just too easily conquerable and people might complain, "Why is my home country only a size 1? Do you think we're weak or something??"). I think your suggestion, Yeti_C, is clever and would make for a really interesting game. I don't think that I'd need to explain 'why', on the map. People would just accept it, I think... Perhaps this is something that will require a poll, later in the map's development.

[DiM]

Regarding the Sea of Grey:
I quite like Yeti_C's suggestion of a size 5 border with the rest of the neutral territories being size 2 (size 1 might be just too easily conquerable and people might complain, "Why is my home country only a size 1? Do you think we're weak or something??"). I think your suggestion, Yeti_C, is clever and would make for a really interesting game. I don't think that I'd need to explain 'why', on the map. People would just accept it, I think... Perhaps this is something that will require a poll, later in the map's development.

cairnswk thought the same until he was forced to modify the map and add an explanation because of the numerous complaints in the bug reports section.
people kept thinking it's a bug to have neutrals in the same place everytime

anyway as you said this is something that will be dealt with at a later stage.

[insomniacdude]

Graphically, here are my thoughts.

I think it would help clarity in finding your territory if you put the numbers and letters on all four sides of the grad. The numbers count down the left and the right sides, and the letters stretch across the top and the bottom. that way people don't run the risk of "lining a territory" up to the wrong coordinate.

I also think the borders from X to A should be made more clear. You have some things noted, but I'm a very visual guy, especially if I'm playing in an evening when I have many turns. I won't want to triple check and make sure that the territory I want to deploy on can actually attack over. One way to potentially fix this is to have the same bold/unbold/diagonal bridge system as everywhere else on the map. Currently the left side of the A line is completely solid, while the right side of the X line is not as solid. Maybe bold the connecting territories that don't connect and keep the lines soft if they do. As for the diagonal land bridges, I'm not sure - that whole system in general is a good idea but currently not shown as clearly as it could I think.

It's a great concept of a map. I don't know about the gameplay ideas being thrown around....I'll have to sleep on them, but keep up the work.

[BelJoDoe]

Here's the updated version of the 'small' 600 px wide map.


I did the following:

1) reduced/removed the white, showing on the 'bridges', replacing this with a blended colour as the 'bridge' moves from one tile to another. Also, I added more 'visual' bridges to the map's wrap-around attack territories. Together with the existing textual notes, these new 'bridges' should help remove doubt as to where those territories on the edge can attack.

2) I made the 'dots' more uniform, land dots are similar, ocean dots are similar but the two are dissimilar from each other. That should aid users in reading the map.

3) I reduced the opacity of the thin black lines to avoid confusion between them and their thicker counterparts.

4) Rather than clutter the outsides of the map with a repeated axis, I elected to add guide-lines, periodically tagged with their identifying axial position. These guides are in a very thin cyan colour and only pass over ocean/sea tiles and as such, shouldn't obscure or become obscured by player-armies, during play.

Thank you for your suggestions, guys.
Is everyone happy with the bonuses and how they're decsribed by the map?

[DiM]

the new gradient bridges are great.

i'm not quite happy with the cyan lines but if people consider them helpful they should stay. i wouldn't need them to establish coordinates but others might.

also duplicating the markers on the right and on the bottom is a bad idea and it can't be done because you will exceed the size limits.

also i'm mildly disturbed by E, J, O, T letters because they aren't on the ame level. unfortunately nothing can be done to alleviate that. but perhaps a minor improvement would be to move J and E 1 square up.


and make the right perimeter line as bold as the other ones.

as for the bonuses i think they are ok. each zone has 10 terits and despite the fact the number of borders varies i think the bonuses are fair.

[BelJoDoe]

Update:
I made the cyan lines slightly less visible and I moved some of the tags, as DiM suggested, so that they line up a little more.

I over-wrote the previous map, so the new image is above, in the last post ^

[yeti_c]

I'm a bit confused here...

I thought that the "Sea of Grey" was for the water territories... but you can't actually get to the water territories - as all the borders are non attackable?!

C.

[BelJoDoe]

When I say "The Sea Of Grey", I mean that the 'bonus' territories begin as player-owned, while the rest of the land is grey-neutral. Thus coccooning the 14 bonus regions, allowing players to fight internally in them until they're ready to cross the grey-neutral territories in order to reach another bonus region. Perhaps in-future I should refer to it as a "Wasteland of Grey"... Hmm, but then people might complain that I'm referring to their home-countries as a "wasteland"

[DiM]

after giving more thought to the sea of gray idea i'm starting to think there's no real incentive for attacking them.

let's take africa for example and presume i own the souther most bonus blob. aside from this i don't have any more terits and i'm surrounded by neutrals. so i have 10 terits and get 9 armies per turn. what reason do i have for taking all those neutral lands? let's do the math. there are 36 neutrals that means i would get to 46 terits thus getting 21 troops per turn. so is it worth it? is it worth killing 108 neutrals just to get 12 armies per turn? considering how many troops i'd have to lose i'd say definitely not. i'd rather go to antarctica and from there to australia and get another bonus zone.
all those neutrals from up north offer me a pretty nice defence. and i'm certain most people won't bother to kill them. probably they'll just carve paths through the neutrals but not take them all.

i think there are 2 ways from preventing this to happen.
1. make all the neutrals start with 1 instead of 3 or even more
2. give a bonus for holding whole continents. so remove the paired thing but instead offer 18 for holding the entire continent.



on a side note i'm also starting to think that perhaps giving 6 for each bonus region is a bit imbalanced.
it's much easier to hold both europe bonus zones than both africa bonus zones.

[yeti_c]

When I say "The Sea Of Grey", I mean that the 'bonus' territories begin as player-owned, while the rest of the land is grey-neutral. Thus coccooning the 14 bonus regions, allowing players to fight internally in them until they're ready to cross the grey-neutral territories in order to reach another bonus region. Perhaps in-future I should refer to it as a "Wasteland of Grey"... Hmm, but then people might complain that I'm referring to their home-countries as a "wasteland"

Ah I see - Right... I understand now - and that makes more sense with the sea routes too...

What a cool map it would be that had all the sea as territories too!?

Then you could remove your land bridges - and you'd just create your own!!

DiM makes a good point - how about you swap the idea... the NON bonus areas are starting points and the bonus areas are neutral... that way you'd have more inclination to attack the neutrals...

C.

[BelJoDoe]

That's not a bad idea at all, Yeti. Good suggestion (players starting in the non-bonus territory, I mean... For clarity's sake, I'll call this suggestion the "Islands of Grey").
Maybe I should make 3 versions of the map? I might ask a friend to consider writing a program that could write the XML for me, otherwise, 3 different versions of the same map would probably drive me insane

To DiM, regarding the 'Sea of Grey',
Actually, I agree 100% that if the neutrals are size 3, there's no incentive to push out into the 'sea'. If we had an area in the foundry to playtest these ideas on, we could probably arrive at a good size for those neutrals as well as being able to test all the other gameplay issues *sighs*... oh well.
I think, as was suggested a couple of days ago, a size 5 border, seperating the bonus region from the rest of the 'sea', with the rest of the 'sea' being size 1 armies... thus meaning they'll be far easier to conquer and allow a larger zone to be carved out, thus giving more of a bonus and as such an incentive.

[DiM]

That's not a bad idea at all, Yeti. Good suggestion (players starting in the non-bonus territory, I mean... For clarity's sake, I'll call this suggestion the "Islands of Grey").
Maybe I should make 3 versions of the map? I might ask a friend to consider writing a program that could write the XML for me, otherwise, 3 different versions of the same map would probably drive me insane

To DiM, regarding the 'Sea of Grey',
Actually, I agree 100% that if the neutrals are size 3, there's no incentive to push out into the 'sea'. If we had an area in the foundry to playtest these ideas on, we could probably arrive at a good size for those neutrals as well as being able to test all the other gameplay issues *sighs*... oh well.
I think, as was suggested a couple of days ago, a size 5 border, seperating the bonus region from the rest of the 'sea', with the rest of the 'sea' being size 1 armies... thus meaning they'll be far easier to conquer and allow a larger zone to be carved out, thus giving more of a bonus and as such an incentive.

i'm actually oscilating between 1s and 2s for the neutrals. 1 might be too little 2 might be too much. indeed a play testing area would clearly give us the answer.

having 5 only at borders and 1's in the rest still makes for a shitload of neutrals to kill. in the african continent if you have 3 on each it's a total of 108 neutrals. if you put 5 on borders and the rest with 1 then you have exactly 100. so it's basically the same.

for south america. with 3 you have 87 neutrals. with 5 on borders and 1 in the rest you have 117 so 30 more neutrals. even worse.

[yeti_c]

Yeah - but you'd only take out the border once - then flood into the 1's to take for territory build up...

C.

[DiM]

Yeah - but you'd only take out the border once - then flood into the 1's to take for territory build up...

C.

not really. if you look in south america 22 out of 29 are borders.
you break 1 and then flood in to what? 7 terits with 1? not worth it. and you can't even flood into all from 1 border you have to take 2 borders. so 2 borders plus 7 terits with 1. that means you have to kill 17 troops to get 9 terits.
so assuming you lose the same as you kill you still need 5-6 turns before it becomes profitable.

[yeti_c]

Yeah - but you'd only take out the border once - then flood into the 1's to take for territory build up...

C.

not really. if you look in south america 22 out of 29 are borders.
you break 1 and then flood in to what? 7 terits with 1? not worth it. and you can't even flood into all from 1 border you have to take 2 borders. so 2 borders plus 7 terits with 1. that means you have to kill 17 troops to get 9 terits.
so assuming you lose the same as you kill you still need 5-6 turns before it becomes profitable.

Fair point - so some "neutral" areas are more profitable than others - so you could make the bonuses on the continents around them bigger?

Although I quite like the "All regions are the same" bonus - simplifies everything...

C.

[gimil]

Hi BelJoDoe, I havent been keping up to well with your map becasue ive been busy, but here what i think of hte latest image.

1. Make the sea area darker to help the land area stick out better. At the moment its all to balanced and confusing (for me at least)

2. Are the sea areas playable? If not would you consider taking out the seas grip lines, this will again clear things up a little and may even reduce the need to darken the sea area.

3. The blues line going across the board are a good idea. But i think you should make them constant rather than not bing visable across the coninents. Also id make them thicker (maybe 2-3px) And make them a transparent grey. Again this is clear things up a little better

Im not really sure what else to comment on at the momnet. Ill wait till te image clears up a little more for me.