Maps, What do YOU want? (Question 1 - Territory Count)

[kingpin01]

I think we need more 1v1 maps, in the 20-35 terr range. Ingochina is not good for 1v1, because it's all about the one small terr in the south. The new ones like portugal and italy are okay, but there aren't many that were designed specifically for 1v1

[frogger4]

I like the middle ground where the game isn't decided by one dice roll but it's also not too big so you don't know what to do.

I am not saying I am good, but it is not that hard to figure out what to do in 2.1

[Iliad]

I like the middle ground where the game isn't decided by one dice roll but it's also not too big so you don't know what to do.

I am not saying I am good, but it is not that hard to figure out what to do in 2.1

Not hard per se, that's not exactly what I mean to say. More like ...I just don't like really big maps, there is usually just too much buildup. In an average map usually the fight if for a big continent and once someone has he usually wins, but in a big map what happens often is everyone gets a big continent and there is a big buildup and I just don't like that.

[Elwar]

I don't care about the territory count - I'd just rather there were less maps being approved in general.

Care to elaborate?

Less maps approved - should - provide higher quality maps (graphically and functionally). But more importantly, it should hone a sharper quality in the competition on the maps available. At the moment we're seeing an accelerated level of pure blah coming out based on mediocre themes (and lets not forget the half-thought out country maps). These aren't improving the experience, just diffusing the skill.

And its only getting worse as theres some sort of notion its equitable to approve anything as long as effort has went into it (minor squabbles about the perfect pixel placing of the legend notwithstanding). I look at whats coming out and its like shit, do we need all of these? Do people actually want all of these? Has effort actually been expended into balancing the map, both in terms of starting territories, bonuses as well as team play?

Because the answer is seemingly no.


Theres a lot of cool stuff out and coming - and theres a lot of drudge been dragged along with it.

[Wild_Tiger]

massive maps, but not like the battle of actium.. it needs to be a good map.

[RobinJ]

I like the middle ground where the game isn't decided by one dice roll but it's also not too big so you don't know what to do.

I am not saying I am good, but it is not that hard to figure out what to do in 2.1

Not hard per se, that's not exactly what I mean to say. More like ...I just don't like really big maps, there is usually just too much buildup. In an average map usually the fight if for a big continent and once someone has he usually wins, but in a big map what happens often is everyone gets a big continent and there is a big buildup and I just don't like that.

I agree with you there. I play mostly escalating games but I find that huge maps take that part of the strategy out of the game, at least for the first few rounds. Similarly, on small maps the game can be over before the cards have any value.

[frogger4]

I like the middle ground where the game isn't decided by one dice roll but it's also not too big so you don't know what to do.

I am not saying I am good, but it is not that hard to figure out what to do in 2.1

Not hard per se, that's not exactly what I mean to say. More like ...I just don't like really big maps, there is usually just too much buildup. In an average map usually the fight if for a big continent and once someone has he usually wins, but in a big map what happens often is everyone gets a big continent and there is a big buildup and I just don't like that.

I agree with you there. I play mostly escalating games but I find that huge maps take that part of the strategy out of the game, at least for the first few rounds. Similarly, on small maps the game can be over before the cards have any value.

good point, I didn't think of it that way

[rebelman]

It's no secret the foundry is kind of a messy, even scary place to visit. We are crazy serious people and very argumentative which may turn many of you off on the idea of stopping by to see what's going on.

I'm going to be conducting a series of questions out here in general to try to figure out what people who don't typically visit the map foundry actually want to see. There has been a lot of bitching about the recent maps and it's starting to look like we are not meeting the demand correctly, at all.

So, without anymore of my ridiculous babbling.

How Many Territories Do You Like To See?

Coleman,

I would like to see more maps of all sizes, there is a huge need I believe for more mega maps like 2.1 and bigger, but that said maps like doodle can be fun too so please keep making maps of all sizes but especially some very big ones.

as for the bitching part of the reason for this has nothing to do with territories, it's to do with maps coming out that are buggy or that look like nobody has tested or discussed them in advance other than the elite group of insiders. Off the top of my head in recent maps the following occurred after they were quenched all of which should have been sorted before the maps entered the public arena.

Doodle Earth - Wrong bonus for Africa
D Day - illegible red numbering (still can't understand why this was not spotted in advance)
Italy - city bonuses wrong and all territories in annoying capital letters
Pearl Harbour - bonuses wrong and planes being bombarded to 0
Portugal - bonuses wrong
AoM - very obvious typo in legend
NA Trains - extremely confusing especially in chicago to determine which station goes with which train

None of these maps should ever be quenched until issues like these are discussed and resolved. Possibly ye need some testers that are not foundry regulars to help in this or make us feel more welcome when we do comment on maps. I have done no general research on errors on maps when they are quenched but the above sample is actually startling in that it shows that almost all maps quenched in the last while had problems thus demonstrating the current foundry process is not working in terms of debugging maps prior to quenching or ensuring the maps are designed with the players in mind not the artists.

[Coleman]

The problem is with most of these listed glitches is that right now we only have two people, yeti_c and myself, that seem to ever bother to look at the xml to see if it is messed up or not.

I have no clue how to change that. I'm sure lack and Andy have thought of something and will let us know soon enough. A big community suggestion is some sort of play testing area.

Anyway, beyond that the other complaints about graphics are valid enough. I think a very easy solution would be getting more people involved in early production. It seems a lot of people don't show up until Final Forge, and most map makers are beyond completely disinterested in making major changes at that point.

I think Map Ideas has helped this, but something more would be best.

Ultimately, all the cartographers would do well to be more open to suggestions for change, but I can't change personalities.

[BaldAdonis]

I'd like huge maps if you could make them with a smaller territory bonus, that is, have the base amount of 3 for holding, say, 21 territories, then increment from there. As it is, the initial bonus for playing first in a two player game is too much. With 10 armies, one player can easily take 3-4 territories, and the other has to play catch up.