Conquer Club

Map Name: Yggdrasil (Abstract)

Link to Thread: I guess you could go here, but you won't find anything that isn't here also.

Mapmaker(s): Riskismy

Map Size: 89 territories, small map size - something like 600x600

Your aims/design style: The general idea is to have a uniform and symmetrical map, suitable for team play. Should provide for starting positions as fair and equal as possible, while still offering some variation in experience depending on whether you start on the inside or outside.
It's loosely based on an abstract understanding of the world tree Yggdrasil. Inspiration.

Uniqueness: There's currently no Yggdrasil map. Other than that, I suppose it will offer little in way of gameplay that isn't already available on existing maps.

Relevant Experience: First timer, but I have some little experience with Gimp. I plan to make the map myself, which I expect to be the greater challenge of this process. I consider it a learning experience and have armed myself with patience.

I've made a draft for discussing gameplay. Seeing as I'm not at all familiar with drawing tools, I'd like to settle the matter of gameplay as much as possible, so I don't have to make more changes to the graphics than absolutely necessary.



Version 4.5

Version 4.4

Version 3.1

- Stars denote starting positions. You'll start with that single territory only. 8 players max, and damn the future!
- Arrows are one-way attacks, of course.

I've had a hard time incorporating 9 worlds into 8 starting positions in a mythology which places those worlds into 3 layers, while keeping a stern eye on equal opportunities and team play. So I'd like to make very clear that the purpose of the map is not to portrait Yggdrasil as a tree with roots in various worlds, or in any significant way related to how the 'Asetro' religion might perceive the order and relation of these worlds. Rather, my aim is to create a map which provides exiting and fast action no matter the number of players. I'm aware that the map, as is, has very little resemblance to how traditional (and not-so-traditional), nomenclature describe Yggdrasil. As I said, I'm aiming for balance and fairness in starting positions. That said, I have tried as best I could to take into account the attributes and relations of the various realms.

Perhaps some time in the future we could make a map which is more representative of these aspects. For now, I like to think of this map as a very abstract idea of Yggdrasil, which may or may not make sense in the scheme of the Norse mythology.

Now, as to the map. I think it speaks mostly for itself:
You have 4 'outer realms' representing elemental or evil forces. Each comprise a single continent.
You have 4 'inner realms' representing good or neutral forces. Each comprise a single continent.
Between those 8 realms you have the great World Serpent Jormungand, encircling 'earth'.
In the center we have 'Ginnungagab', the 'yawning emptiness', the parallel to a primordial ooze, from where everything ultimately sprang. My preliminary thought is that Ginnungagab 1-way attacks the outer realms (the outer-most territory), and resets to some non-trivial number of neutral troops.

Now, the outer realms has an easier time defending their continents, though they have 1 more territory to conquer and hold. Meanwhile, the inner realms have an easier time getting their continent bonus, but are probably more prone to attacks from the outer realms. That's my intention, anyhow.

To that end, there could be many options in regard of paths of attack. For example:

- The paths on Jormungand might not be one way.
- The paths from outer realms to Jormungand might go to/from more than one territory. It might go from the two 'flank territories' to two separate territories on Jormungand, for example.
- The paths between Jormungand and inner realms might be one-way from Jormungand to inner realms - leaving only the center as a path from the inner realms to the outer.

That's pretty much it for now. The objective is to eliminate all opponents.

What do you think?

Depending on where you put your "1 way attack" spot, there needs to be more neutrals for the people closest to it. Other than that, the people on the outside that something to put their backs to... giving them an advantage

Hey Qoh, thanks for the comment!

I was planning to put the 1-way attack in the center - possibly from outer realms to Jormungand as well.

I've replaced the original draft (well, will in a minute). Another territory has been added to the inner realms, which allows them to reach eachother without having to go through Ginnungagab (G). Ginnungagab will reset to, say, 10 neutral - and 1-way attacks the outermost (corner) territories of the outer realms.
All in all, this should provide enough of a threat between the inner realms, and enough of a center obstacle, for them not to overwhelm the out realms before they've had a chance to prepare and themselves create threats on the inner realms (via Jormungand).
As for bonuses, I figure a standard +1 for every 3 territories, and perhaps +3 for outer realms, +2 for inner realms. Something of that order.

hm. I'm a bit confused about the process here. Do I need to post the above brief to the [Official] Design Brief thread as well?

Thanks.

Yes, but we don't accept drawings as maps. You need to have a full fledged draft first, and then you usually need to have a following.

To have a draft, it must be a computer generated image. You need every territory labeled and a legend illustrating the bonus scheme and any other possible features. Any impassables should also be listed as well.

The biggest problem you face is that most abstract maps aren't met with much enthusiasm. Most of us like to fancy that we're Patton or Napoleon and I never saw them plow their way across a field of abstract shapes. That said, however, some abstract maps are quite cool. 8 Thoughts comes to mind as a successful one. I think you need to lean more towards conquering a representation of Norse Mythology.

Many thanks for the help Industrial Helix. I appreciate your time, but I hope you won't mind if I try to steal a bit more.

I suspected that you don't accept drawings as finished maps, but surely we can discuss the gameplay without fancy graphics?

I've noticed the many historical and real-world maps, and they're all great, but I personally like the symmetrical and 'orderly' maps a lot as well. Chinese Checkers comes to mind, as well as Conquer Man. I know Conquer Man at least is a very popular map, so I think there's plenty of people who would play on similar maps, even if the people who frequent this forum don't particularly like the sort.

Returning to the graphics, would it be acceptable to draw the map, or at least parts of it, by hand and then 'computerize' it to look nice?
I ask because the weaving and interlacing of the picture I draw inspiration from, would be very tough for me to do inside the drawing tool. I would do those by hand to get the basic pattern in place, then use a tool like gimp to add effects and such. I think it would make for a very 'real' or organic look, as if it was natural roots or branches.

Thanks again!

Could someone please, *please*, for the love of whatever god(s) you hold sacred, explain to me the need for pretty graphics before we can talk gameplay?
I find it quite frustrating to deal which such a blatantly foolish rule, and it boggles the mind that so many mapmakers would suffer a workflow like this. If I proposed anything even resembling this, I'm sure both colleagues and friends alike would just laugh aloud as they walked away.

You don't need to have "pretty" graphics, you just need to have a working draft that is clear and readable. It's hard to discuss gameplay over a pencil-scribble.

A working draft is a draft that has a working gameplay. It needs to have territory names for all territories and a legend that explains all bonuses and special rules. You don't need to draw the final graphics, although it is considered a plus if your draft also demonstrates your ability to create passable graphics, especially when you're a new mapmaker.

Experienced mapmakers (those who have succesfully quenched at least one map) are given a bit more leeway in this, because they have already established that they can create graphics that match CC's standards. I know it seems unfair to you now, but remember that we have all been new mapmakers too and we have had to go through the same thing.

As for the foundry process, it is the best process we can have as long as the foundry is ran by volunteer power. The foundry is what it is. You can either work with it or fight against it, but only one of those ways is likely to get your map anywhere...

First and foremost, thanks for your reply. Reading back my latest post, I realize the tone doesn't exactly invite to a calm and reasoning discussion. As I said, I just find these written and unwritten rules very hard to cope with. They themselves really aren't very reasonable, and I'll try to explain why.

natty_dread wrote:You don't need to have "pretty" graphics, you just need to have a working draft that is clear and readable. It's hard to discuss gameplay over a pencil-scribble.

I guess it comes as no surprise that I disagree. At the very least, it's just as easy to discuss game mechanics over a simple drawing. Usually, it will speed things up quite a bit, as even substantial changes can be done in a matter of minutes without the need for specialized tools.

natty_dread wrote:A working draft is a draft that has a working gameplay. It needs to have territory names for all territories and a legend that explains all bonuses and special rules. You don't need to draw the final graphics, although it is considered a plus if your draft also demonstrates your ability to create passable graphics, especially when you're a new mapmaker.

I can see how having territory names and a legend makes sense for comlplex or large maps (lots of territores that aren't uniform -like real world maps). In that case it's sensible to name the various objects being discussed.
However, that's not at all the case here. There's only 10 separate 'entities' to keep track of in this map: 4 inner realms, 4 outer realms, 1 center territory and finally the ring of territories that separate inner and outer realms. Really, it very simple and the descriptions that I included with the draft explained the gameplay quite adequately, I think.

natty_dread wrote:Experienced mapmakers (those who have succesfully quenched at least one map) are given a bit more leeway in this, because they have already established that they can create graphics that match CC's standards. I know it seems unfair to you now, but remember that we have all been new mapmakers too and we have had to go through the same thing.

Ah. I see what you're saying. Since your big brothers bullied you when you were little, it's only reasonable that you inflict the same kind of torment on your new kid brother.
I'm sure you know that doesn't make sense.

natty_dread wrote:As for the foundry process, it is the best process we can have as long as the foundry is ran by volunteer power. The foundry is what it is. You can either work with it or fight against it, but only one of those ways is likely to get your map anywhere...

Well, I clearly am at odds with the foundry, and I think that's a healthy thing. The foundry is what it is, sure, but that doesn't mean that it's all that it could be. Unless you're religious, there's no such thing as perfection, and everything can be improved upon. If we all just went about our lives thinking 'It is what it is', where would we be?
No, there's certainly room for improvement here, and I think a good place to start is to take a long hard look at the foundry process and what is rquired at the various stages. For example, I've noticed that in nearly all stages of the process are topics discussed that belong to just about any part of the process. While there should be room for graphics discussion during gameplay and vice versa, it should be the exception to the rule rather than the norm, as it is currently.

Again, thanks for your time. I hope we can get something constructive out of this.

As natty said we need a computer image. No hand drawing will be considered or commented or supported. Then, map threads are not supposed to discuss if the process is fair or not, so if you have any concerns about the process, please throw me a PM or post in the foundry discussion subforum, not here.

Now please draw something using a graphic software and we can start to work to improve/balance the map.

Nobodies

Nah, I don't think I will. I'll go put my energy to better use.

You can stick this thread whereever you like, and I'll just assume you know where I'd prefer you stick it.

Ahoy there, Riskismy! I assume this is what you were upset about. I realize it's frustrating the requirements of the Drafting Room, with a workable computerized graphical image, but the way I see it, you'll have to that in graphics, anyhow, am I right? Think of it as a head start. I know your a smart guy and I have the utmost respect for your commenting in other areas of the Foundry, and it would be sad to see such talent drop off from the face of the Foundry... Just give a graphical draft a shot, I, as well as the Cartographers are here to help you through this process. Feel free to PM me or post in the Foundry Discussions forum any further concerns you have.

Cheers,
Sully

Hi Sully,
Thanks for the empathy and kind words. Much appreciated and reciprocated as well.

However, I've had it for now. I'm busy at work and simply refuse to waste my time setting up graphics which people will demand I change - changes, that is, which could easily be made now in a matter of minutes. And this workflow is enforced with all the reasoning power of a teletubby. I have still to see a single valid explanation for this inane practice, and I won't be dragged down to that level. Luckily I don't have to.

If at some point in the future the administration gets a clue, please do let me know.

Regards,
Riskismy

At this point, I gotta say...

BOO FUCKIN HOO.

You know how many times I redid the entire graphics of my first (first succesful) map? Go take a look. Here, I'll give you a link: viewtopic.php?f=358&t=101345&start=0&hilit=nordic+countries

Look, we all know the Foundry is not perfect. It's the best system we have though.

You know how many "drafts" we get every month that are basically nothing but a drunken scribble on a bar napkin? If we would just tell all of them "oh go ahead, do what you want, we don't want to stifle your creative flow" we'd have the gameplay forum literally littered with them. Either way, 99% of them never go anywhere because mapmaker either gets bored or finds out this stuff isn't as easy as he thought it would be.

So you want more freedom in the foundry? You got to earn it. Show us that you have talent for something other than drunken bar napking scribbles, and we will be glad to support you and give you all the help you need with your map. It's hard, you have to work hard to get your map up to standards, and even so, many times you still won't make it and have to scrap everything and start all over again. When you're a new mapmaker, you very likely have to redo your whole map several times before you get one quenched. When you get more experience, it becomes easier to do it with one shot... no one has that experience at start, though.

So either lose the attitude and start working with us, show that you have what it takes to become a mapmaker. Or, let's just say goodbye now. It's ok, not everyone has to be a mapmaker. It's a pain in the ass a lot of the time, and all you get out of it are some imaginary medals. And praise and respect sometimes, but hey, praise and respect won't feed your family. So anyway, your choice.

natty_dread wrote:At this point, I gotta say...

BOO FUCKIN HOO.

Nice. Constructive much?

natty_dread wrote:You know how many times I redid the entire graphics of my first (first succesful) map?

I don't, and don't care to know.
We've covered this. Just because you let the admins bully you with foolish rules, doesn't mean that I have to let them, or that I'll let you do it to me.

Look, we all know the Foundry is not perfect. It's the best system we have though.

I'm glad you've come around on this point.
The foundry is certainly not perfect. The difference between you and me is that you just shrug at this realization, while I try to better the situation. Admittedly in vain, but at least I try.

You know how many "drafts" we get every month that are basically nothing but a drunken scribble on a bar napkin? If we would just tell all of them "oh go ahead, do what you want, we don't want to stifle your creative flow" we'd have the gameplay forum literally littered with them. Either way, 99% of them never go anywhere because mapmaker either gets bored or finds out this stuff isn't as easy as he thought it would be.

I don't believe I've proposed that you allow any scribble further on down the process without scrutiny and due contemplation.

So you want more freedom in the foundry?

That's not it at all, no. I want sensible workflow rules that doesn't demand that I waste my time making graphics, as people suddenly think of gameplay changes that could have been easily incorporated before those graphics were made.
What I find incomprehensible is that you actually have set up a process where first the idea is examined and accepted or rejected on grounds of it being original and entertaining on the face of it.
Then it's supposedly time to discuss the details of the gameplay - to hash out the how's and why's of the strategy, in order to settle on the mechanics of the game. But this is where the wheel starts to come off. Well, this is where is does come off - it came lose when you start discussing graphics and legend and typography even at the point of inception.
Then, according to the foundry plan, it's time to put the graphics on top the mechanics. Finally it's time to implement XMl and test the map. Let's leave that for now.
What bothers me so much, is that you have the right order of tasks, only you somehow fail utterly and completely to adhere to that order. Why have a plan if you don't follow it? It makes no sense at all to me.
You do not need pretty graphics to reflect on the proposed mechanics. As long as the drunken scribble is clear and legible, it will do just fine for discussing these topics. I understand your point that you need to weed out the less-than-serious proposals, but I suggest that you do so at the right time - namely when it's time for the graphics. I posit that having an earnest discussion of the gameplay before the graphics will lead to more maps getting completed, and all it has cost you is the time it took to review the gameplay. I think it's a fair exchange, but clearly I'm a minority here.

Failing to take to heart these complaints, you should at least take the consequence of that, and re-arrange the work flow to accurately portray the actual process, namely graphics ahead of gameplay. That, in turn, should limit the amount of these drunken scribbles, as you put it. Either way, you win.

[mapmaking] is hard, you have to work hard to get your map up to standards, and even so, many times you still won't make it and have to scrap everything and start all over again. When you're a new mapmaker, you very likely have to redo your whole map several times before you get one quenched.

I don't mid that at all. I'm not one to shy away from hard or even tedious work.
What I mind is doing pointless work which could have been easily prevented.

So either lose the attitude and start working with us, [...]

With an opening remark like that, you really wanna compare attitudes? You'll lose any day of the week mate.
Also, I am trying to work with you. The way I see it, you and others are the ones that put up roadblocks where none are required.

show that you have what it takes to become a mapmaker. Or, let's just say goodbye now. It's ok, not everyone has to be a mapmaker. It's a pain in the ass a lot of the time, and all you get out of it are some imaginary medals. And praise and respect sometimes, but hey, praise and respect won't feed your family. So anyway, your choice.

I think I've already made my choice clear.

To be honest here, I can't make heads or tails of your pencil scribbles. If you would do a rough computer generated draft I, for one, would be able to make sense of it. Without it, I'm sorry but there isn't much for me to comment on.

As for the comment about doing the graphics first, if you do the graphics first and get them looking all pretty and such, and then you get into the gameplay, they will have to be changed to fit the gameplay. That is why we have you do the gameplay first and do the graphics around the gameplay so that when you get into graphics it will (in most cases) just be doing the nitpicky things. Sometimes, mapmakers have had to do a complete graphics overhaul at this stage, just ask RedBaron0 about his Japan map. What you will find is that a lot of your graphics make the gameplay clearer, not the other way around.

When you are in the gameplay forum, you will be discussing BOTH graphics AND gameplay. This is how it works, and has worked since pretty much CC has been around. That is why we have the discussion of gameplay BEFORE graphics not the other way around.

So please don't get upset with us in asking you to do a rough computer generated image (not scanning in your sketch) so we can comment on it and give you more ideas and suggestions. You will find that we all are easy to get along with when you give good reasons as to why you won't use ideas or suggestions. If you have a good reason for why you did something a certain way, then no problem. But telling us that you are not going to do that way is not the way to start. Get it done and then we can get this idea going. I personally think it is a good idea, I just need to see something that I can make sense of.

Ok, at this point, I'm not even telling this to you, so you don't have to bother to respond, I'm just posting this so other potential new mapmakers who might be following this thread do not get the wrong idea.

---

Again: the point is not that you have to make "pretty graphics" at this phase. Riskismy is beating a strawman here.

The issue is this:



This is fine for a sketch, but it's not something that would be moved to gameplay. In order to make it to gameplay, a draft must fulfill certain requirements, which are territory names, bonus area names, legend that explains all the rules of the map. In other words, you must have a working draft. One that you could play a game on. It doesn't have to be pretty. It does have to be legible. What we have here does not satisfy any of these requirements.

Even an idiot can see the reasons for these requirements: it is common courtesy towards those who come to the gameplay workshop and have to evaluate and comment on gameplay. Designing gameplay is hard enough, but if you can't figure out the current gameplay because the map looks like it was drawn by a drunken monkey, then those people will have twice as hard time doing their job.

---

Finally, Riskismy, this part is for you: we get guys like you now and then. You stroll in like you own the place, start demanding that the process - a process which no one else has any problems following - be bent and twisted to accommodate your needs, fight against every part of the process, don't listen to anyone's advice or feedback... 100% of the time, those people's maps never go anywhere. So you can fight the windmills as much as you like, but it will never get you anywhere.

isaiah40 wrote:To be honest here, I can't make heads or tails of your pencil scribbles. If you would do a rough computer generated draft I, for one, would be able to make sense of it. Without it, I'm sorry but there isn't much for me to comment on.

If that's the truth, you're simply not even trying. If you put together the map with the explanations I posted alongside, I like to think there's little room for confusion. Even though my esteem for the admin could be higher, I have a hard time imagining you got that blue color without having the capability for such a trivial exercise of the mind.

As for the comment about doing the graphics first, if you do the graphics first and get them looking all pretty and such, and then you get into the gameplay, they will have to be changed to fit the gameplay. That is why we have you do the gameplay first and do the graphics around the gameplay so that when you get into graphics it will (in most cases) just be doing the nitpicky things.

This is what I've been saying all along, and it's NOT AT ALL what you're doing. Now I'm sure you're not even trying.
This has been my contention all along: You ask that people discuss gameplay first, then move on to graphics - but in practice you don't. You require graphics, and only then do you move on to gameplay.
My map and explanations more than adequately allows for a discussion of the gameplay, but this discussion has been denied me time and time again, on the grounds that there isn't enough graphics (whether pretty or not, they have been a requirement).

Sometimes, mapmakers have had to do a complete graphics overhaul at this stage, just ask RedBaron0 about his Japan map.

Yes, I'll agree that this may be inevitable in some situations. But as you clearly state yourself, agreeing on the gameplay before anything else should limit these situations to the very rarest of cases.

What you will find is that a lot of your graphics make the gameplay clearer, not the other way around.

It might, but at what cost to the mapmaker? I posit that we will have more maps done when the mapmaker doesn't have to redo graphics on grounds of gameplay issues, which might have been resolved with a scribble like mine.

When you are in the gameplay forum, you will be discussing BOTH graphics AND gameplay. This is how it works, and has worked since pretty much CC has been around.

So your argument is that nations around the world should continue warring because that's how it's been done since humankind has been around?
No, we need to move forward and look for better ways to do things, and so does CC.

That is why we have the discussion of gameplay BEFORE graphics not the other way around.

Again, you do not.
You may think so because the guidelines says so, but in practice that's certainly not the case.

So please don't get upset with us in asking you to do a rough computer generated image (not scanning in your sketch) so we can comment on it and give you more ideas and suggestions.

I'm positive that you and everyone else here, are fully capable of commenting on my sketch. When you chose not to, it stems from completely other reasons than incomprehensibility or illegibility.
Apparently, one of the more important of these reasons, is simply that "That's not how we usually do it".

You will find that we all are easy to get along with when you give good reasons as to why you won't use ideas or suggestions.

True, I've seen nothing to the contrary. Except perhaps a couple who have a tendency to express themselves like drill sergeants. Volunteers often have a hard time coping with people who order them "Now do this, then do that!".
Also please note that I have NOT rejected a single - in fact, THE single - suggestion that pertained to actual gameplay. Everything else has been attempts to make me adhere to workflows that only people in a mirror world would find acceptable.

If you have a good reason for why you did something a certain way, then no problem. But telling us that you are not going to do that way is not the way to start. Get it done and then we can get this idea going. I personally think it is a good idea, I just need to see something that I can make sense of.

I have not ever said that I wasn't going to do it (the graphics). I've said that I'm not going to do it NOW - not before we've significantly homed in on the gameplay.

natty_dread wrote:Ok, at this point, I'm not even telling this to you, so you don't have to bother to respond, I'm just posting this so other potential new mapmakers who might be following this thread do not get the wrong idea.

No, by all means, let's keep them slaving under ridiculous rules.

This is fine for a sketch, but it's not something that would be moved to gameplay. In order to make it to gameplay, a draft must fulfill certain requirements, which are territory names, bonus area names, legend that explains all the rules of the map. In other words, you must have a working draft. One that you could play a game on. It doesn't have to be pretty. It does have to be legible. What we have here does not satisfy any of these requirements.

Territory names: aw shucks.
Once again, with a map like this, what would be the point? But If that's all it takes, I'll happily go put in a series of number or letters so we can easily specify the territory in question.

Bonus Area names: Check.
Both inner and outer realms have names as well as suggestions for bonuses.

Legend explaining rules: Check.
So what if it isn't written on the map itself? Don't be anal, it smells.

My sketch is both legible and just as playable as any map moved from the drafting room.

Even an idiot can see the reasons for these requirements: it is common courtesy towards those who come to the gameplay workshop and have to evaluate and comment on gameplay. Designing gameplay is hard enough, but if you can't figure out the current gameplay because the map looks like it was drawn by a drunken monkey, then those people will have twice as hard time doing their job.

Please, if you can't make out the gameplay from the first couple of posts I made, you're the idiot.
How about some respect for the mapmakers and their time? Forcing these silly requirement on them is simply a big, warm glop of spittle in their eye.

Finally, Riskismy, this part is for you: we get guys like you now and then. You stroll in like you own the place, start demanding that the process - a process which no one else has any problems following - be bent and twisted to accommodate your needs, [...]

So on the one hand there's people who come by every now and then to complain about the requirements - but still no-one has a problem with them? You see the problem with that argument, I'm sure.
Well, perhaps not, seeing as you can't make sense of my scribble. Let me know, I'll gladly explain both to you.

[...] fight against every part of the process, don't listen to anyone's advice or feedback... 100% of the time, those people's maps never go anywhere.

I have listened to what advice and feedback that has pertained to gameplay, and the only part I'm fighting is this de-facto rule of graphics before gameplay.
I think I've made quite clear why this is a bad practice, while you and the admin have yet to make a single valid argument as to why you enforce backwards and time-robbing requirements on mapmakers.

So you can fight the windmills as much as you like, but it will never get you anywhere.

If you don't think I've gotten anywhere yet, you're sadly mistaken.

Riskismy wrote:My sketch is both legible and just as playable as any map moved from the drafting room.

Lol, no it is not. It looks like something a drunken monkey scribbled with his own fecies, and I'm hesitant to say this because it's sort of offensive to drunken monkeys. I'm sure they could produce much better art than this piece of illegible crap.

Riskismy wrote:Please, if you can't make out the gameplay from the first couple of posts I made, you're the idiot.
How about some respect for the mapmakers and their time? Forcing these silly requirement on them is simply a big, warm glop of spittle in their eye.

Personally, during all of the 6 maps I've worked on through the Foundry, I have not found the rules of the Foundry onerous in any way. I find them very reasonable and flexible.

Fine, here you go people. If you can't see the exact same stuff going on in my feces sketch, you have no place posting here. Your requirement of computer graphics is nothing but pig-headed snobbery, born from a mentality of visiting the sins of the father on the son. It's complete idiocy, but I guess I'll have to learn to live with it.



Also, natty, f*ck you too. You're clearly completely incapable of having a discussion based on arguments, resorting to childish name-calling and insults when cornered.
Try again when you've grown up.

You still need territory names.

What else can you think of?

thenobodies80 wrote:Now please draw something using a graphic software and we can start to work to improve/balance the map.

Sully wrote:Just give a graphical draft a shot, I, as well as the Cartographers are here to help you through this process.

natty_dread wrote:Show us that you have talent for something other than drunken bar napking scribbles, and we will be glad to support you and give you all the help you need with your map.

isaiah40 wrote:Get it done and then we can get this idea going. I personally think it is a good idea, I just need to see something that I can make sense of.

So how about it guys? I'm playing nice, time for a treat, no?

It's fine.
I move this back to the drafting room but please be sure to have always your latest image into the first post.

Thanks
Nobodies