seamusk wrote:A. graphics.
to keep it short, they suck. they suck big time. very simple with no particular style or artistic impression. and yet they are very very cluttered. you have to look at the map for like 10 minutes before you actually realize what's going on. my advice is to scratch what you have and start fresh
I don't think they are nearly as bad as you are claiming. They aren't supposed to be final graphics either. I'm not totally closed to the idea of re-doing the graphics but others have said they like them and I like them a lot. I'm not going for artistic impression or for a "style". The legibility is another issue and on that I am constantly working. I have another update well into production already...
yes they are truly bad. compare the graphics on this map with any of the recent quenched maps. unless you are blind (or highly subjective) you'll see a HUGE difference.
also i'm looking at the original draft and the one you have now and frankly i see no improvement. the graphics are still as bad as the first one. for me this is a clear indication of you graphics skill. if you were great then you would have already made a great version. you didn't this means you aren't great at graphics. but i look forward to the next update, who knows? perhaps your a photoshop master and you'll blow my mind, but i doubt it.
as for people telling you the graphics are good, trust me, some people are here just for the spam they would say a piece of crap on a stick looks good.
seamusk wrote:B. gameplay.
again i'll keep it short. it sucks too. sorry but it does. at the moment if you go first you are sure to win. imagine a 1v1 game. each player gets 3 goalies each goalie with a 3 army start and another 3 bonus. plus another 3 troops for terit numbers. that means he has 3 goalies with 6 armies each plus another 3 troops to deploy. well simply deploy 1 on each of the goalies to make each have 7 armies. then he'll be able to take a minimum of 4 fullbacks. and have at least 4-5 troops on each fullback. now the second player begins his turn. he deploys like player 1 and has 3 goalies with 7 armies each. simple math tells us player 2 will probably fail at killing all the fullbacks player 1 has and at most he'll conquer 1 or 2 of them. or he'll go for the remaining fullbacks. either way player 1 will begin his second turn with a bonus and then it's all just like a ball of snow getting bigger and bigger and bigger with player 2 not having a single chance at winning unless somehow he gets perfect dice and player 1 gets shitty dice.
Here you are just plain wrong. No, that isn't how it is going to happen. There are 8 start positions on goalies with a +3 bonus. Now look at the attack lines. There is no situation where the first player could get the advantage you speak of. It is impossible. The mechanics were adjusted before the map was ever proposed to make this impossible. All of the scenarios in a 2 player game, for example, would require player one to be able to hold TWO territories that Player two can attack and hold them with at best the same amount of deployment. Now there are scenarios where 1 of 3 starting positions can be blocked in, but those scenarios put the other player at a supreme disadvantage. It is impossible to know entirely how good the gameplay will be (which is why you play games before you publish them), but I am confident that the scenario you describe where one player has a huge starting advantage is impossible. I was careful to make it so.
The gameplay is just good. I played a test game and I couldn't believe how much fun it was. I'm a pretty good player. And I'm biased for sure. But if your entire opinion is based on what you wrote above, you need to completely re-assess.
the gameplay is not good and 1 test game will not help you at all. play 10-20 and you still might miss a lot of gameplay problems.
i have a pretty good grasp on gameplay as i've been playing risk for more than 10 years. also all my maps have had weird gameplays so i both have the skill and the imagination to assess what a map is going to be played. if you want more then read through the foundry where i posted various gameplay comments and you'll see in 99.99% i'm right.
back to this map. in a 1v1 each player has 3 goalies, right?
player 1 will have direct attack routes to an average of 4 fullbacks. he takes them with ease since all of them have 1 neutral and then he will place an average of 4-5 armies on top of each of those 4 fullbacks. that gives him a +4 extra troops.
player 2 now needs to take the other 2 neutral fullbacks as well as break some bonuses from player 1. since player 1 has 4-5 troops it's obvious player 2 will not be able to break all the bonuses, so now player 1 starts with at least a +2, advantage that he will keep and also increase round after round because player 2 is always fighting an uphill battle.
seamusk wrote:C. theme.
because i like consistency i'll use the same word for the theme. it sucks too. wtf do hurling and risk have in common?
note that the theme thing is just a matter of personal taste. some may like it. but points A and B are perfectly valid. graphics are horrible and the gameplay is stupid and flawed
wtf does nyc and risk have in common? or races on a track? or chinese checkers? or railroads? or 8 thoughts? or conquer man? or conquer 4? I could go on and on.
All Risk is is a series of mechanics with a theme pasted on top. That is what all board games are. In this case, CC is derived from Risk but has a combination of mechanics which can be applied to a wide variety of themes. Sure, warfare is a good theme for them. That doesn't mean other themes won't work or aren't good choices. And it is pretty naive to think otherwise. Especially when you consider that hurling was invented to train warriors. It has a lot more in common with Risk than many of the other maps.
i already told you the theme sucking thing is subjective. it's just my opinion. i don't like the theme. plain and simple. it does nothing to appeal to me.
seamusk wrote:Look I appreciate your input. Your attitude kind of sucks, but hey, we can't all have it right. I suggest that you take another look.
yeah my attitude always sucks because i'm generally the bearer of bleak news. i never come into a map thread and say "ZOMG this is GREAT" i usually come and point flaws and tell people where the maps suck. i can live with it. others can't
i advice you to either solve problems (thus giving me no reason to come and tell you the map sucks) or abandon it (and thus giving me no reason to come and tell you the map sucks).
welcome to the foundry, the place where people will tell you how much you suck until you improve...or leave
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
damn good question. I work better this way. I just do. Thanks Rocky!
