Conquer Club

Outer glow added to the river edges, (and yes its outer glow and not beveled) sea foam added to, although its limited how much sea foam a creek can contain

I am satisfied

Sent to lackattack!

And updated!

Thanks

Final Stamp this guy! Nice map flappy.

Last Call

If anyone has any other comments on tweaking the gameplay/graphics, now is the time to speak up! If there are no other concerns within the next couple of days, this map will be quenched!

thenobodies80

Congrats Flapcake...beautiful map.

It's a great map, Flapcake, a lot of fun to play. Nice job, man!

No problems from my end. Quench this map. Good job flaps.

Great map, plays very nice

I like the graphical style of the minimap better than the main one. Should the two be more consistent?

Bonuses in the east look hard to keep (not a bad thing). Haven't played because, you know, four games at a time.

CafeT wrote:I like the graphical style of the minimap better than the main one. Should the two be more consistent?

Bonuses in the east look hard to keep (not a bad thing). Haven't played because, you know, four games at a time.

I do not agree on any of your isues, graphical got all the consistest as it can get, the minimap has been worked out through a process in the foundry where the current design attained an understanding that its the bedst looking and optimal for the amounth of space available.
Bonus in the east pays of by its difficult level.

Flapcake wrote:

CafeT wrote:I like the graphical style of the minimap better than the main one. Should the two be more consistent?

Bonuses in the east look hard to keep (not a bad thing). Haven't played because, you know, four games at a time.

I do not agree on any of your isues, graphical got all the consistest as it can get, the minimap has been worked out through a process in the foundry where the current design attained an understanding that its the bedst looking and optimal for the amounth of space available.
Bonus in the east pays of by its difficult level.

thenobodies80 wrote:Last Call

If anyone has any other comments on tweaking the gameplay/graphics, now is the time to speak up! If there are no other concerns within the next couple of days, this map will be quenched!

thenobodies80

it's fine that you think that the graphics are in the best state possible, but the call on the home page for more comments justifies my comments (they weren't inappropriate at this time despite the foundry process).

they could be a lot more consistent: both use inner glows or both use bevels, both use black text or both use black-outlined white text. not saying that would be better, but u saying they can't be more consistent doesn't agree w/the evidence i just presented. still asking everyone whether they should be more consistent, it might be good the way it is.

i like the map. just being nitpicky with the graphical style, and i could say more but it looks like everyone wants this out the door.

CafeT wrote:it looks like everyone wants this out the door.

thats is not what this is about, this map have been in beta for 3 months, I think your consern for what you like to be changed will course so huge changes that your critics would had be more appropriate when the map was in Main foundry.

so yes i feel you are littel late with so major issues, what I would like to see it that you make some comments in the foundry, thats what we realy need, more people who helps out mapmakers in the early progress.

But you comments are heard, and only if the majority of CC agree with you changes can be done.

Flap, sorry for being late to this, but can I ask you to have a quick look at your text at the bottom of the small legend [Osterseen + Kattegat are not part of any bonus], to see if you can sharpen it up a tad. Apart from that, great work and lets see this quenched.

CafeT wrote:Bonuses in the east look hard to keep (not a bad thing).

They seem that way but they are being taken.

As for the changes in the style of mini map to the large, I have not noticed the differences till now that they have been mentioned. Not a huge thing to mention now and not really anything worth holding this up. Quench it.

Flapcake wrote:so yes i feel you are littel late with so major issues, what I would like to see it that you make some comments in the foundry, thats what we realy need, more people who helps out mapmakers in the early progress.

sure, i'll go there more often.

Flapcake wrote:But you comments are heard, and only if the majority of CC agree with you changes can be done.

thanks, but ok to ignore them, looks good in its own right and better than a lot of other quenched maps.

Flapcake wrote:thats what we realy need, more people who helps out mapmakers in the early progress.

Well duh, but try convincing the site admin of that... they pretty much don't give a shit about the foundry at this point, as long as maps keep coming out... But I digress...

I don't think this map needs any serious graphical changes at this point, in fact unless any gameplay flaws show up that haven't been addressed yet I think this can be pushed out the door.

Nice work on the map guys!

I just have a small remark to do. The autodeploys from the shields might be too much. And not only because of the isolated bonus 'per se', but especially if you combine them with the bonus zones (continents) where they're inserted:

Ost Jylland has 5 borders and gives 5 troops bonus where you can had a +2 bonus from the autodeploy (a/d) well placed on one of its borders. That is +7 for 5 borders. Even more profitable if you take Alborg, which will substitute 1 border for an extra +2 a/d. And that will make +9 troops for 5 borders...

Same for Syd Jylland and Ost Sjaelland.

I'd recommend notching those bonuses down to +1 (reducing shield's neutral starters from 3 to 2 could also be acceptable...eventually)

Kabanellas wrote:
I just have a small remark to do. The autodeploys from the shields might be too much. And not only because of the isolated bonus 'per se', but especially if you combine them with the bonus zones (continents) where they're inserted:

Ost Jylland has 5 borders and gives 5 troops bonus where you can had a +2 bonus from the autodeploy (a/d) well placed on one of its borders. That is +7 for 5 borders. Even more profitable if you take Alborg, which will substitute 1 border for an extra +2 a/d. And that will make +9 troops for 5 borders...

Same for Syd Jylland and Ost Sjaelland.

I'd recommend notching those bonuses down to +1 (reducing shield's neutral starters from 3 to 2 could also be acceptable...eventually)

Thx for your comment Kabanellas. The reason that we went from +1 to +2 autodeploy on shields was to inspire players to go for the winning condiction, as ther was a lack of it with the +1 version, It have shown that it works very vell. players use the condiction more now. The 3 neutrals was also in effect from the +2 to give it some kind of balance.

I like thise condictions much more than the previous ones.

Flapcake wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:
I just have a small remark to do. The autodeploys from the shields might be too much. And not only because of the isolated bonus 'per se', but especially if you combine them with the bonus zones (continents) where they're inserted:

Ost Jylland has 5 borders and gives 5 troops bonus where you can had a +2 bonus from the autodeploy (a/d) well placed on one of its borders. That is +7 for 5 borders. Even more profitable if you take Alborg, which will substitute 1 border for an extra +2 a/d. And that will make +9 troops for 5 borders...

Same for Syd Jylland and Ost Sjaelland.

I'd recommend notching those bonuses down to +1 (reducing shield's neutral starters from 3 to 2 could also be acceptable...eventually)

Thx for your comment Kabanellas. The reason that we went from +1 to +2 autodeploy on shields was to inspire players to go for the winning condiction, as ther was a lack of it with the +1 version, It have shown that it works very vell. players use the condiction more now. The 3 neutrals was also in effect from the +2 to give it some kind of balance.

I like thise condictions much more than the previous ones.

Good call! +2 is needed to give them enough importance. I don't think the victory condition is worth going for in 1v1 but definitely in larger games.

Btw your spruces are pretty darn cool ! Did you use any special tool?
The reason I'm asking is that I need to work on my vegetation in Nigeria and if I could get my trees to look that good, I'd be very happy with them !

Gillipig wrote:Good call! +2 is needed to give them enough importance. I don't think the victory condition is worth going for in 1v1 but definitely in larger games.

Btw your spruces are pretty darn cool ! Did you use any special tool?
The reason I'm asking is that I need to work on my vegetation in Nigeria and if I could get my trees to look that good, I'd be very happy with them !

In 1v1 bonuses arent even attractive, that goes for almost any map, the victory condiction are reasonable attractive in multi player games.

Trees, try find some clip art ones, then model them with colours, shadows and ohter effects, to make them different induvidual.

I also see no issues with the map. The autodeploys are good. The graphics are good.

A minor thing: on the map is svendborg, in the xml is svenborg

thenobodies80 wrote:A minor thing: on the map is svendborg, in the xml is svenborg

Good spotted, its has been corrected in the XML file, as "Svendborg" is the rigth way to spell it


New XML file: http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/3/20/3280817/kingdomofdenmark.xml