Hurling: Fastest Field Sport - VACATION

[seamusk]

gimil,

there are 5 posts of support from 5 different people on the first 2/3 of page one alone. ANd there are more throughout the thread. You can attempt to manipulate the results however you see fit, but the fact that I am good at regularly updating the map is possibly one of the worst excuses I've heard.

[t-o-m]

i think that one of the reasons that this isnt moving forward is that you also have a poor attitude toward the CA's and to anyone who posts something slightly negative.
you reject anything that goes against you, as i told you when you constantly PM me, (which is quite annoying btw)
you always say that you're going to continue but you reject advice, so what are you going to do
carry on oblivious to what the CA's advice you to do?
please carry on with this by all means, (and im not being sarcastic there)

[TaCktiX]

You are posting a lot, and strictly speaking, you are not spamming your topic much (exception to your test game +1 posts, which could be handled via PM), you are adding information about your map. The problem that gimil tried to underline, and the stats put concrete evidence on, is that you're posting too much, too fast for anybody to respond to it. People are only able to give bit-part feedback, or generic support as they're not able to process things as fast as you're moving forward. You're not giving people enough time to give you the feedback you need to bring the map forward. No map is perfect within the first couple of versions (not even DiM's super-fast-quenched AoR: Magic). In essence, you're smothering your own map in your loving arms, while not letting anyone comment on how adorable it is (baby analogy ftw!).

The more recent compilation of the XML shows great initiative, but foolhardy initiative. If at any point the map image changes that moves army locations, or you decide to change how bonuses are accumulated, or pretty much anything gameplay-related, then you have to rewrite it, sometimes in its entirety. XML is saved for Final Forge so that a mapmaker can make image revisions with no reservations about "extra work".

So you are not being held back by others, you are holding yourself back by not letting anyone else help you with the map. We really do want to help, else we wouldn't post anything.

[seamusk]

You are posting a lot, and strictly speaking, you are not spamming your topic much (exception to your test game +1 posts, which could be handled via PM), you are adding information about your map. The problem that gimil tried to underline, and the stats put concrete evidence on, is that you're posting too much, too fast for anybody to respond to it. People are only able to give bit-part feedback, or generic support as they're not able to process things as fast as you're moving forward. You're not giving people enough time to give you the feedback you need to bring the map forward. No map is perfect within the first couple of versions (not even DiM's super-fast-quenched AoR: Magic). In essence, you're smothering your own map in your loving arms, while not letting anyone comment on how adorable it is (baby analogy ftw!).

The more recent compilation of the XML shows great initiative, but foolhardy initiative. If at any point the map image changes that moves army locations, or you decide to change how bonuses are accumulated, or pretty much anything gameplay-related, then you have to rewrite it, sometimes in its entirety. XML is saved for Final Forge so that a mapmaker can make image revisions with no reservations about "extra work".

So you are not being held back by others, you are holding yourself back by not letting anyone else help you with the map. We really do want to help, else we wouldn't post anything.

But you accused me of spamming my own thread earlier anyhow didn't you? Please stay on topic of the map. If you have comments on when xml should be done, there is a map foundry discussion forum for that. If you have comments about me personally please PM them to me. I am trying to run a map thread here without y'all spamming about off topic material.

[seamusk]

i think that one of the reasons that this isnt moving forward is that you also have a poor attitude toward the CA's and to anyone who posts something slightly negative.
you reject anything that goes against you, as i told you when you constantly PM me, (which is quite annoying btw)
you always say that you're going to continue but you reject advice, so what are you going to do
carry on oblivious to what the CA's advice you to do?
please carry on with this by all means, (and im not being sarcastic there)

This is off topic AND a personal attack. If you have comments on my attitude towards CAs please continue that discussion in the foundry discussion. If you can point to negative feedback which I can possibly do anything about within this thread that I ignored cite it. Otherwise, please remove your off topic posts from my map thread.

[seamusk]

Lets correct some assumptions specific to this map:

1. Of every post that isnt yours only 4 showed supportfor the map.

7 unique posters have expressed support for the map in the thread, not 4. Check your stats. Other have done so privately no surprisingly.

2. Tack has averaged all his maps to get "Spam 23.13%" with you currently sitting over that at 30.99%

Yes, because the test play games go down as spam. I guess you are right though and I shouldn't work to improve gameplay.

3. 50.34% or posts are by YOU the map creator, according to every other stat this is the highest percent on map making posts in their own thread. Conqueropoly has alot less than that and it has three people who were working on it.

Because I am the MOST consistent updater in the forum. I should be commended for responding to every point of input promptly.

4. Another average stat, "Feedback: 67.10% of post not by the creator", you currently sit at 48.38%. Nuff said.

These numbers are clearly distorted by the fact that I am a fequent updater. But instead of getting rewarded for it you are making up excuses to justify a decision you have no rationale for. If support is an issue, how come you didn't mention it when you were in here a few days ago or when I PMed asking you to check back? I would have had the very complimentary person who PM me yesterday post. And the others too. But as this map has more support than others you just stamped I never felt it necessary, nor did they probably feel it necessary.

Now that fact that you post SO much on your own map is boosting its post count. This bring it to my attention and when I look over it, all I see is your username posting over and over again. The average map gains adv. idea in 5-6 pages of posts. them stamped not long after that. Some take longer some dont. But right now with the level of post by a single user im not seeing enought quality posts to warrent an adv idea tag. I was going to wait until I seen a little more by other posters.

Now compare these with the statements of support for another map you just stamped (nubia egypt chosen at random). Two posts of support when stamped. Otherwise this had equal support and opposition in the poll I ran as that one did. The only difference being that this one is more legible (to be honest and fair).

[TaCktiX]

Several clarifications:

- Support, as defined by the Map Stats project, is a "generic reference to the map, it being "good", "can't wait to play", etc. Nothing specific is mentioned about the map proper." 3 of the 7 posters also included things that I would consider feedback on any map. There is no double-category, it's one or the other.
- Feedback > support. Period. A map thrives on suggestions to make it better, and straight-up dies in time without feedback. Ask anybody who has had to abandon a map why they did so, and they will point to a lack of feedback 99% of the time.
- Posting a lot != doing the map any good. You have a tendency to reply to each person's concerns in one post each, which creates more posts than you really need to to get your point across. People expect long quote and response posts from mapmakers, so don't shy away from wall-o-text when it comes to responding to feedback. A sizable portion of your posts are busy talking about the map development process or rebutting people responding to your talking about the process. The one post/person rule kicks in here too, and inflates your percentage.
- Averages don't lie. Even the standout exceptional maps moving through the foundry right now fall into ranges that are very close to the averages I produced earlier. Maps like Oasis, San Marino, and Maze Craze are all falling near the average, and they are progressing through the foundry as expected. This is a place where it's a bad thing to be above or below the average by a significant margin, and that's statistical truth. Deny it if you wish, but it doesn't make it less valid.

[seamusk]

Responding ONLY to issues specific to this map...

Several clarifications:

- Support, as defined by the Map Stats project, is a "generic reference to the map, it being "good", "can't wait to play", etc. Nothing specific is mentioned about the map proper." 3 of the 7 posters also included things that I would consider feedback on any map. There is no double-category, it's one or the other.

That only makes my point stronger. Since there was only one post of support in the approved example. There was also less feedback per day than in this thread. I don't care how long it takes for this map to move, I only care that the criteria by applied and be applied fairly to this map, as it has to others. Otherwise I will continue development as it is a good map idea as expressed by the interest in it, the support, and the level of feedback. But it is also a simple map that requires less detailed nit picking than, for example, my Allegheny Forest map. So I would expect there to be less feedback posts.

[t-o-m]

i just did a quick count, these are the posts that ive seen: (probably inacurate)

i see 76 posts, 42 of those were made by you in double posting or more than double posting.
You made more posts than 42 but i only counted the ones that were consecutive.

So if you are wanting the ideas stamp or even an adv idea then those stats dont look promising.
along with tack's stats and those stats above with 42 of your posts in this thread being at least 1 after the other, this doesnt really meet the criteria for the ideas stamp, and isnt nearing readyness for the ideas stamp (which is marked by adv idea)

we're not trying to say give up, we're just asking if it is worth continuing?
maybe do a poll...that is the way to find out who wants this map being continued/ who thinks it will work?


Maybe ask this question:

Qn A) Do you want this map to continue? Qn B) Do you think this map will work?

then have answers of:

QnA) Yes, continue
QnA) No, dont continue

QnB)Yes, it'll work.
QnB)No, it wont work.


im just giving suggestions now?

[seamusk]

i just did a quick count, these are the posts that ive seen: (probably inacurate)

i see 76 posts, 42 of those were made by you in double posting or more than double posting.
You made more posts than 42 but i only counted the ones that were consecutive.

So if you are wanting the ideas stamp or even an adv idea then those stats dont look promising.
along with tack's stats and those stats above with 42 of your posts in this thread being at least 1 after the other, this doesnt really meet the criteria for the ideas stamp, and isnt nearing readyness for the ideas stamp (which is marked by adv idea)

we're not trying to say give up, we're just asking if it is worth continuing?
maybe do a poll...that is the way to find out who wants this map being continued/ who thinks it will work?


Maybe ask this question:

Qn A) Do you want this map to continue? Qn B) Do you think this map will work?

then have answers of:

QnA) Yes, continue
QnA) No, dont continue

QnB)Yes, it'll work.
QnB)No, it wont work.


im just giving suggestions now?

I appreciate the suggestions but you do realize that I already did a poll and that most people voted in favor of the map?

[TaCktiX]

What poll where? I just doublechecked the topic and I see no post of a C.A. posting poll results (standard procedure).

[seamusk]

What poll where? I just doublechecked the topic and I see no post of a C.A. posting poll results (standard procedure).

I am not familiar with that requirement. But here are the poll results:

Re: Hurling Gaelic Sport Map- 5/31 UPDATED GRAPHICS
I just posted version 1.5 of the map. Based on feedback I changed the top part of the map (the rules section). I changed it entirely to photos and samples pretty much. Feedback on whether or not this is clear enough is helpful.

I also took the poll down. It was my first poll and it came back with roughly 9 in support and 6 not in support. Since the i hate irish people option was a joke I don't even know how to interpret. I'll put up a new poll in a day or two which will provide more useful guidance to me and the decision makers.

As you can see I had intended to put a new poll up but I had so much support and was getting regular feedback so it never seemed necessary.

[t-o-m]

I had so much support

dang, that explains why you posted about 7times in a row and started doing the XML.
joke

anyway, i think it would be beneficial for you to put another poll up since you have almost the entire foundry glued to the thread.
pop up my poll and i think you'll get a good turn out.

[seamusk]

I had so much support

dang, that explains why you posted about 7times in a row and started doing the XML.
joke

anyway, i think it would be beneficial for you to put another poll up since you have almost the entire foundry glued to the thread.
pop up my poll and i think you'll get a good turn out.

I also have them all mad at me.

I think we should let cooler heads prevail here.

[oaktown]

Hey Seamusk, I don't spend a lot of time in Map Ideas simply because I don't have much time after my CA duties and trying to make some maps of my own, but since you asked me directly a few days ago and since this thread seems to be the source of some concern, I thought I'd stop into this thread and address the status of this map. And know that I visit as a member of the foundry - not as somebody who is in a position to stamp it for anything - so I hope my opinion is taken as such.

My first thought is that this is a subject that doesn't grab me at all. I don't know what Hurling is, and nothing about the map itself makes me want to find out what Hurling is. It's a green rectangle with some circles that I can't place. It could be a Lacross field or a rugby field or a soccer field - all of which would at least give me some basic frame of reference as to what I'm supposed to be doing - but it isn't, so my first instinct would be to play another map.

Since I don't know the game, in playing the game I am afraid that I might be at a disadvantage. I have to rely entirely on your legends for gameplay, and I will have to do so throughout the game because very little on the playing field itself is self-explanatory. For instance, I've never played a game with four players identified as Goaltenders, so I'm not entirely sure what they can do - I'll be constantly referring to the legends before I make any move with them and even then I'll be second-guessing myself.

Gameplay questions abound... can't a game end in a stalemate? Once the goalies bombard and eliminate the scoring players, nobody can get them back. In fact, all you have to do is eliminate the full forwards and it becomes impossible to win.

And what happens if, through luck of the drop, I don't get any offensive players? Imagine a six player... wait...

Sorry, just read that the only starting positions are the goalies. According to the legends the goalies can attack the fullback and one cornerback, who in turn can attack the halfbacks, who can't attack anybody. ??? Clearly you're going to have to double the number of legend images to make sense of who can do what, which means half of your image is going to be explanation - speaking for myself only, I don't want to play a map that has more rules than I can make sense of in one or two readings, and this will require extensive instructions.

Graphics: you've got circles inside of a rectangle, accompanied by fuzzy text. If I thought that this map held promise in either the area of gameplay or graphics I'd say it should be at least considered an advanced idea, but as it has neither I can't get excited about it right now.

Interest level: weak. I've read through the thread and was puzzled that ten of the posts on page 5 were yours, and many of those were responses to criticism.

A final concern I have is that you are getting way ahead of yourself on this one. I see you've got the XML started for a map that, in my opinion, may never make it out of Ideas. I appreciate that you are excited about this map and you intend to see it through, but you are also sending the message that you intend to make this map regardless of the voices of the Foundry. By posting the XML for us to check you're suggesting that you have worked out the gameplay and it is perfect, and that you don't feel the need to listen to future advice, concerns, and criticisms. Maybe that is not your intention, but it is the message you are sending.

I left a post in one of your others topics saying that I liked that other idea more than this, and that you should put more energy into that one. That was my round-about way of saying that this map idea may be a dead-end. Now I'm saying it more directly, because I think that without the occasional "tough love" reality check some mapmakers could easily spin their wheels working on a dead-end project. I've spun my wheels on a few projects that, after several weeks, I've realized were duds, and later I wished somebody had just told me at the beginning to bag it.

Have I been wrong before? Sure. I never thought Doodle Earth would have such an audience, and clearly my maps aren't even close to being the most popular at this site. And I've stamped at least one map that has required an entire gameplay overhaul, so I can be wrong.

My advice to you would be to step away from this project for two or three weeks, work on something else entirely, and come back to it with fresh eyes. You might then see some flaws in your design, and either attack them with renewed vigor or decide that your energy is better spent working on something else.

[multiplayertim]

i think attack instructions could be made easier by allowing attacks to only go down either wing or center and across the full back/forward line ie. goalkeeper choses to attack Left corner back he then can only attack Left wing back to go forward (he cannot attack the centre back) then midfielder closest to his side, midfielder then has choice to attack centre forward of left wing forward, the left corner forward could then attack the full forward. I hope this would help clear up confusion about attacks without filling map with legend.

I think you could try sending PM's to a few other irish players as they would probably be the most interested in this map

[seamusk]

i think attack instructions could be made easier by allowing attacks to only go down either wing or center and across the full back/forward line ie. goalkeeper choses to attack Left corner back he then can only attack Left wing back to go forward (he cannot attack the centre back) then midfielder closest to his side, midfielder then has choice to attack centre forward of left wing forward, the left corner forward could then attack the full forward. I hope this would help clear up confusion about attacks without filling map with legend.

I think you could try sending PM's to a few other irish players as they would probably be the most interested in this map

This is an idea. Though I'd have to look at the gameplay a little closer to see if that would overly limit interactions between players. I don't think that the confusion is necessarily what oaktown thinks it is though as pretty much no one in the test games is familiar with hurling and they haven't had the kinds of difficulties he has described. I don't think the movement is too dissimilar from soccer or rugby from a cc gameplay standpoint. I like the idea of PMing more Irish folks.

EDITED to add that I may make a slight change along these lines. I think you intended to allow the corner-back to attack the fullback right? So this could work. It is what folks are doing in test games to a degree anyhow.

[seamusk]

This post at least tries to address the map and for that I am greatful.

My first thought is that this is a subject that doesn't grab me at all. I don't know what Hurling is, and nothing about the map itself makes me want to find out what Hurling is. It's a green rectangle with some circles that I can't place. It could be a Lacross field or a rugby field or a soccer field - all of which would at least give me some basic frame of reference as to what I'm supposed to be doing - but it isn't, so my first instinct would be to play another map.

You know, I'm not sure I follow. A hurling pitch is very similar to a soccer pitch. And looking at this map, the similarities ought to jump out at any soccer fan right away. As for first instinct, I think as you will see below is that 1) most players will give all new maps a try even once (even ones with broken gameplay as three had in last quench) and 2) even if you don't get the rules right away you will adjust very quickly since the gameplay will feel like just about every other field sport out there. Right now though, if it doesn't look enough like a pitch that can be addressed. You are the first to say so though.

Since I don't know the game, in playing the game I am afraid that I might be at a disadvantage. I have to rely entirely on your legends for gameplay, and I will have to do so throughout the game because very little on the playing field itself is self-explanatory. For instance, I've never played a game with four players identified as Goaltenders, so I'm not entirely sure what they can do - I'll be constantly referring to the legends before I make any move with them and even then I'll be second-guessing myself.

This is largely speculative. Even if the examples with arrows demonstrating who a position player can attack (basically all adjacent players on field) are not clear enough, that will be clear enough by round 3 of your first game. Luckily, unlike many maps quenched recently, you will not be out of the game by then, but can still be an effective player thanks to the balancing components that I've built into the gameplay. Otherwise, a goaltender is a goaltender and their options are clearly demonstrated in the examples. If the goaltender examples are unclear in any way, please say so so I can fix.

Gameplay questions abound... can't a game end in a stalemate? Once the goalies bombard and eliminate the scoring players, nobody can get them back. In fact, all you have to do is eliminate the full forwards and it becomes impossible to win.

No, this would be impossible. A simple read of the thread would have answered this for you.

Sorry, just read that the only starting positions are the goalies. According to the legends the goalies can attack the fullback and one cornerback, who in turn can attack the halfbacks, who can't attack anybody. ??? Clearly you're going to have to double the number of legend images to make sense of who can do what, which means half of your image is going to be explanation - speaking for myself only, I don't want to play a map that has more rules than I can make sense of in one or two readings, and this will require extensive instructions.

The example makes it clear that the basic attack structure applies to "Position Players". No one has been confused in test games enough to think that the half-backs cannot attack anyone. Doubling the legends has not shown to be necessary. Remember that in an actual live game you would figure this out very quickly thanks to a drop down menu if any clarifications were necessary. Not saying that the examples couldn't be clearer. Maybe a more generic position example would help more. Or some kind of dotted lines in the field of play (I once had them).

Graphics: you've got circles inside of a rectangle, accompanied by fuzzy text. If I thought that this map held promise in either the area of gameplay or graphics I'd say it should be at least considered an advanced idea, but as it has neither I can't get excited about it right now.

I have fuzzy text which can easily be fixed. Your conclusory statements about gameplay and graphics are not justified as demonstrated by test games, the thread, and what I've written above. It seems you are looking for reasons to not like the map instead of looking at it objectively. Now, I can make the text less fuzzy. I can also make changes to the field of play to make it more gamelike. I think those would be good ideas. But I think you are stretching things by the conclusions you draw from that.

[MrBenn]

I've taken the effort to read through the 7 pages of this thread, and I can't see a lot of discussion about the map at all. Most of it seems to be your test plays, which are pretty difficult to follow if you don't understand the map/game.

If you are going to proceed with the idea, then you need to get less clutter in the map thread - people generally will read the first 3-5 pages, or the last 3-5 pages... in both cases, there is lots and lots of off-topic/unecessary stuff which detract from your development. I have struggled at times with my Europe map to get discussion going, but I've found that hanging off and waiting can work wonders... so too does taking on board suggestions and not reacting negatively.

Personally, the map at the moment has little to pull me into it - I've said the same about tactix's Periodic Madness map. I want to see something with stunning graphics, or a theme/concept that grabs me and makes me want to try it. The rules seem complex... I expect that's because I haven't sat down and tried to figure them out.

Incidentally, it might be worth putting your poll up again, and keeping it open for longer

[seamusk]

I've taken the effort to read through the 7 pages of this thread, and I can't see a lot of discussion about the map at all. Most of it seems to be your test plays, which are pretty difficult to follow if you don't understand the map/game.

If you are going to proceed with the idea, then you need to get less clutter in the map thread - people generally will read the first 3-5 pages, or the last 3-5 pages... in both cases, there is lots and lots of off-topic/unecessary stuff which detract from your development. I have struggled at times with my Europe map to get discussion going, but I've found that hanging off and waiting can work wonders... so too does taking on board suggestions and not reacting negatively.

Personally, the map at the moment has little to pull me into it - I've said the same about tactix's Periodic Madness map. I want to see something with stunning graphics, or a theme/concept that grabs me and makes me want to try it. The rules seem complex... I expect that's because I haven't sat down and tried to figure them out.

Incidentally, it might be worth putting your poll up again, and keeping it open for longer

Thanks for taking the time. To be fair, it wouldn't be as cluttered looking if it weren't for the off topic posts I keep having to respond to. I did ultimately have people give me their moves by PM reducing the test game posts to two each (which would be 6 total posts if I did this to start). But as cluttered as it is this map hasn't been here very long and if you look at the map feedback posts within that context they are actually comparable to most maps.

I'm not going for stunning graphics on this one. I think any kind of graphics effort that makes them "stunning" would take away from the gameplay and simplicity I am going for. What I have found is that the theme grabs sports fans of all kinds, whether they've heard of hurling or not, and obviously doesn't grab non-fans. No surprise there really. The same can be said of all sports maps.

I am working on some graphics now that will help improve the field and gameplay readability. The gameplay is actually quite simple. It is unique though which must explain it. Other game testers will have to speak for themselves but I had a blast in the test game I played. The whole concept of trying to score is interesting and leads to a lot of opportunities to build upon internally and externally. I think that some folks are really underestimating the potential for this map because they aren't sports fans and the opportunity to run tournies with score tiebreakers and such is pretty cool.

I appreciate your comments. They are insightful. I wish there was a way to keep a scoreboard. So when someone took a goal it would show up on the map. I tried thinking if there was a way to do that in the xml. Like by creating 8 territories that cannot attack anywhere but which somehow have army numbers equal to their scores.

[seamusk]

Updated map here. Made more realistic field texture, changed position labels to help with fuzzy text (I hope), and added blue and orange attack lines for position players. I also made a sample of the attack lines. Should there be attack lines from goalies too? Bombard and attack of goals and points will have to rely on the examples.

Version 2.0 - posted 6/11/08

Click image to enlarge.

[AndyDufresne]

The game play still has no hook for me. What are the scoring territories worth 5 points? I'd say more about the game play...but as I mentioned...I've got nothing really to say about it.

===

As I've mentioned before in some other maps over my time, there is a fine line between "simple" graphics and "generic" graphics. Take for instance...Italy, NYC, and South America. When I look at these maps...they have very "simple" presentations, but yet are eye catching because there is generally pretty darn good execution of those simple graphics. So when working on the graphics, always keep consider and ask yourself "Is this simple, or is this more generic?"

One thing that has been bothering me, the green of the field vs the green of the background flag. One of these has to give I think. Maybe dulling the colors of the background (or making it look like a real flag as opposed to a computer image of a flag) would help with the field, or altering the field so as not to interfere with the oh so bright green. I think I'd be more in favor of doing something with the background.

The slight color difference between the legend and the flag white is nice, but maybe even more so.

Also, the image at the right of the legend...its arrows just seem much to thick and overpowering for the small graphic. Perhaps a touch more thin arrows.

The text on the field is at times hard to read...because of the strong colors. More orange than blue surely also. Would a black outline help alleviate that?


--Andy

[seamusk]

The game play still has no hook for me. What are the scoring territories worth 5 points? I'd say more about the game play...but as I mentioned...I've got nothing really to say about it.

one 3 pointer + 2 1 pointers or 5 1 pointers or 2 3 pointers. Maybe if it says "5 or more points" that will make that abundantly clear.

So when working on the graphics, always keep consider and ask yourself "Is this simple, or is this more generic?"

I agree with this in principle. I'm definitely up to giving it more pizaz (sp?).

One thing that has been bothering me, the green of the field vs the green of the background flag....

see sample update at bottom of post...

The slight color difference between the legend and the flag white is nice, but maybe even more so.

can do...

Also, the image at the right of the legend...its arrows just seem much to thick and overpowering for the small graphic. Perhaps a touch more thin arrows.

Yeah, too true. Will fix.

The text on the field is at times hard to read...because of the strong colors. More orange than blue surely also. Would a black outline help alleviate that?

Just tried it and I'm not sure it will do the trick. I have been trying to think of a good way to move these off the field or something. But i haven't figured it out.
here are some changes. Thanks for the great feedback.

Click image to enlarge.

EDITED to add that I think the map needs a frame.

[multiplayertim]

new attack routes look much clearer.
i just noticed a potential problem- 3 digit numbers
maybe stick a famous hurler in the space above posts to left and below posts to right eg.

[seamusk]

new attack routes look much clearer.
i just noticed a potential problem- 3 digit numbers

You know, that is a good point. Easily solved I think with some adjustments of where the position circles are.

I like the idea of photos but folks didn't like them when I had some up before. So, I need to think about if it could work.

EDITED to add that I think I figured out a way to get the position labels off of the field. I think this will help a lot.