nagerous wrote:reckon someone made up this guy as a joke, or does he really exist?
Hah! I'd think that if forum accounts weren't linked to player accounts, and so one would endanger his/her player account when pulling this joke (unlike most games, where the player and poster's accounts are separate). Also, the map is not downright unplayable - it's just... more bad than good.
I wasn't going to post anything, since Mr. Klobber has been so stubborn, but since I haven't posted in the thread yet, I'll give him a vote of confidence and reply constructively. Since there's no suggestion to give that hasn't already been done, I'll refute to the refutals to his suggestions. Maybe that'll work. Who knows?
1. Map Size –
I was thinking about the size too, but I compared the size of the cells to the size of the circular shadow regions on the standard map, placing them right next to each other on the same computer screen, and by the application of sufficient intelligence, I can understand that they will fit perfectly. Feel free to check it using the same method, if you are equipped to do so, and when you’re finished, come back and tell me what you can understand from it, if anything.
In accordance with the Foundry’s guidelines, which state that the map should be no more than 350 pixels high so that players will not have to scroll down to play, I have limited it to 350. This map will avoid that scrolling annoyance.
While I can see, from the naked eye, that what you see is true, the army circles fit perfectly on the cells, I don't think that's good. The number would kind of disappear in the background if, say, the yellow player was in the yellow comb. This could be fixed by making the cell
slightly larger than the army circle.
Regarding the height of the map, I agree that it should be kept near the minimum if at all possible, for I am a person with dial-up connection and a a broken mousewheel. However, as several other posters pointed out, it is possible to make the map larger by decreasing the size of the legend. You'll probably need to increase the overall picture size, but having it 400 pixels tall won't kill you.
2. Color Distinction –
This is an aspect of this map to which I have dedicated a great deal of valuable time, careful thought, and deep contemplation. There is a scaled-down guide to the left, in the exact shape of the playing board, in which the colors are extremely distinct, unique, and vibrantly contrasted to one another. This guide is one of the great features of this map not available on any others, and being an exact replica in shape, this will be an excellent guide to keep players well-informed of their options in regards to continents and bonuses.
The ten regions (combs) on the playing board, in and of themselves, are quite clear and easy to distinguish from one another. In addition to this, there is a unique and innovative continent guide just centimeters to the left of the playing board, and so even newcomers to the site will have no trouble at all playing this map in an efficient and well-organized manner – yes, even newcomers.
As if that were not enough, the shadow regions will cover the cells almost entirely, and when the cells of each comb are thus tinted a darker color, they will appear even yet more distinct from the cells of the other combs than they already do, which is saying a lot.
Very similar to the small guide in World 2.0, so you didn't really invent it.
Um, that's all I got. Sorry, he's right. The colors are similar, but thanks to the symmetrical nature of the combs and the guide it's possible to tell them apart. The only opposition I can make is: stupid people will also play your map, and stupid people are stupid. (Then again, that didn't stop Siege, which is a crazy fun map.)
3. Impenetrable Borders –
It was perhaps Gimil who repeated this suggestion the most colorfully when he ejaculated the following compellingly emotional, though inaccurate, appeal:
"the 1st thing the foundry asked you to do is add boundrys...." [sic]
I would like to point out that some maps on this site have impenetrable borders, and others do not. Actually, there is simply no such requirement. Also, I would like to point out that the Classic Map, which is the single most popularly played map on the site, does not include any impenetrable borders at all.
You are completely missing the point here. Impassable borders exist because some maps are based on real places, and if you just copy-and-pasted the political map of the place and turned then into territories the map would be unplayable. Impassable borders make it so you can have a continent be a location that, in real life, borders lots of other continents, but would be impossible to defend on the game, so you add some borders to cut its borders down to a manageable number, thus making it desirable to hold.
This, of course, doesn't apply to you, but what the problem with yor map is symmetry. Everything's the same, so games eventually become huge build-up wars that are completely symmetrical. If both I and my opponent are getting the same number of bonuses, (and we're playing No Cards so there's no need to attack), the best move is to hold back until you have so much armies you can attack easily and has no need to stay back. That's what we in the know call a Bad Game Design Situation. (Yeah, I'm not really in the know. But I totally sound like it, right? Plus, it's true.) Unpassable borders would solve that situation, by allowing you to change the number of borders of certain combs, thus making bonuses more flexible and making standing back and building up on armies less effective. You may argue that the central comb is the only one to give a greater bonus, but it's very possible to get to a game situation in which 3 players control each 3 combs, and even though the central one is contested it's a better move to stay back and build up than to charge and try to take control of it (since it'd be taken back immediately, and you'd risk losing lots of armies on a bad roll).
That said, I loathe unpassable borders, and I'd love it if you could pull out this map without adding them, but you still need to do
something to remove the symmetry.
4. Legend Size –
Note: This is not a serious suggestion; it is actually rather silly, but I have included it in this short list only for the sake of thoroughness of my response.
The legend will not interfere with game play at its present size, nor would it interfere with game play if it were even larger. Also, the Foundry requires a legend to be part of the map.
Rather silly? The legend is very important, and not to be overlooked, young grasshopper. When your map is opened on an eager player's computer, you want him to be able to see
everything that can happen in your map right away. If he can't read the legend, he can't know that. The legend is the only way to tell him of what your map can do - the site doesn't do any of it on its own.
Then again, I did say the legend should be made
smaller on this very post. Yes, but the font could be made larger, and the legend could be more vertical (taller and less wide) to give more room to the map.
As you can see, I have carefully read your rebuttals and taken them all under serious consideration. I trust that you won't take this as a chance to write even more rebuttals, but rather as a sign that I, and the forum as a whole, aren't demeaning your map because we are assholes, but rather because we see flaws on it which you need to fix, not defend with your amazing empirical logic. Fail to yield, and your map will never be quenched - though, after this parade of "persistence" (the positive synonim for stubbornness), your chances have already dwindled, for most mapmakers are now ignoring you.
Good luck, and I hope I succeeded, against all odds, in getting to you.
