Conquer Club

Ok, I've got an idea for a new map, but I wanted to kick it around with you folks a bit before I started the actual development of it.
I'm a HUGE fan of Circus Maximus, so it made sense to me that this map would follow the same general idea (it being a CIRCLE of life, after all).

So first, let me discuss my terminology here, and I'll use the Circus Maximus map as a reference for my terminology (since it's familiar to everyone):
When I refer to a "section", I'm referring to the equivalent of all three parts of (for instance) IMPERIUS on the Circus Maximus map.
When I refer to a "part", I'm referring to one specific aspect of a section, for instance IMPERIUS INNER on the Circus Maximus map.

Ok, so on to the new map itself:
1. It's a rotational map like Circus Maximus, except perhaps having a "Tree Of Life" in the very center of it, which can access any parts of the inner-circle path (I haven't decided on that yet, but I think I like it). Perhaps it would have a negative bonus, like MIND in 8 Thoughts.

2. As well, I'd like to have at least 10 or so "sections" of of the map, and I'd like to have between five and seven "parts" to each section (with possibly a three and four in there, as well). My thinking is that this could actually be DIFFERENT NUMBERS for the different sections.

3. Here are the specific sections (and corresponding parts) that I've come up with:
Single-Cells: Bacteria, Virii, ???
Fungii: Mushrooms, Mold, ???
Grasses: Various specie of grasses
Trees: Various specie of trees
Insects: Various specie of insects
Herbivores: Various specie of herbivores
Omnivores: Various specie of omnivores
Carnivores: Various specie of carnivores
Death: Dirt, War, Murder, Suicide, ???
By-products: Oil, Coal, Tar, Shale, Gems, ???

Perhaps have a bonus for holding all of the parts for a given section (which would help to make it different than Circus Maximus), with the bonus based on how many parts there are to it AS WELL AS how many parts are in the "just behind it to access it" section.

So...good idea or dumb idea?

viewtopic.php?f=241&t=80246

Sorry, beat you to it. But if you can make this into a totally separate idea (and it sounds like you are going for more complexity than I am) then go ahead. Might want to post a draft first, though.

john9blue wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=241&t=80246

Sorry, beat you to it. But if you can make this into a totally separate idea (and it sounds like you are going for more complexity than I am) then go ahead. Might want to post a draft first, though.

Heh, you sure did...and only by three days! <laughing>

But I think our ideas may be different, in that yours is ocean-centric whereas mine is not.

I'm frustrated though by the fact that you've got SO MANY replies to your idea whereas I have only your one post, even though mine was started only three days later. A lot of folks have read mine, but apparently nobody thought strongly enough one way or the other about it to bother commenting. <sigh>

Woodruff wrote:I'm frustrated though by the fact that you've got SO MANY replies to your idea whereas I have only your one post, even though mine was started only three days later. A lot of folks have read mine, but apparently nobody thought strongly enough one way or the other about it to bother commenting. <sigh>

If you had an image that would help. It is ALWAYS better to have a rough draft to help explain things.

WM

WidowMakers wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I'm frustrated though by the fact that you've got SO MANY replies to your idea whereas I have only your one post, even though mine was started only three days later. A lot of folks have read mine, but apparently nobody thought strongly enough one way or the other about it to bother commenting. <sigh>

If you had an image that would help. It is ALWAYS better to have a rough draft to help explain things.
WM

Well, that was sort of the point. I was hoping to get an idea if most would consider it a silly/stupid idea or not before I bothered to try to put one together.

Woodruff wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I'm frustrated though by the fact that you've got SO MANY replies to your idea whereas I have only your one post, even though mine was started only three days later. A lot of folks have read mine, but apparently nobody thought strongly enough one way or the other about it to bother commenting. <sigh>

If you had an image that would help. It is ALWAYS better to have a rough draft to help explain things.
WM

Well, that was sort of the point. I was hoping to get an idea if most would consider it a silly/stupid idea or not before I bothered to try to put one together.

I understand what you mean. But sometimes you need to spend some time making a n image to see if there is interest. I have many map that I started and stopped due to lack of interest. But i still made drafts.

Also, making a draft will help your skills anyway.

Well, thanks to the complete apathy I'm seeing here, you've all (except for WidowMakers, thank you sir) managed to kill any enthusiasm I had for creating this map. I guess it's really just too difficult to use your imagination a bit to provide some input rather than having to rely on a picture. How sad. Feel free to move this one to the "dead pool".

Woodruff wrote:Well, thanks to the complete apathy I'm seeing here, you've all (except for WidowMakers, thank you sir) managed to kill any enthusiasm I had for creating this map. I guess it's really just too difficult to use your imagination a bit to provide some input rather than having to rely on a picture. How sad. Feel free to move this one to the "dead pool".

If we used our imagination, we would probably be picturing something different than what you are....

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Well, thanks to the complete apathy I'm seeing here, you've all (except for WidowMakers, thank you sir) managed to kill any enthusiasm I had for creating this map. I guess it's really just too difficult to use your imagination a bit to provide some input rather than having to rely on a picture. How sad. Feel free to move this one to the "dead pool".

If we used our imagination, we would probably be picturing something different than what you are....

You mean my description at the beginning of this thread is less descriptive than a picture cut-and-pasted from the internet with a few circles added to it (which seems to get butt-loads of responses)? Really?

I find that difficult to believe, to be honest.

Besides, I thought "Map Ideas/Suggestions" was for just that...ideas, while the "Drafting Room: New Projects" was for the beginnings of the particular map?

Woodruff wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Well, thanks to the complete apathy I'm seeing here, you've all (except for WidowMakers, thank you sir) managed to kill any enthusiasm I had for creating this map. I guess it's really just too difficult to use your imagination a bit to provide some input rather than having to rely on a picture. How sad. Feel free to move this one to the "dead pool".

If we used our imagination, we would probably be picturing something different than what you are....

You mean my description at the beginning of this thread is less descriptive than a picture cut-and-pasted from the internet with a few circles added to it (which seems to get butt-loads of responses)? Really?

A picture is worth a 1,000 words

Also, just because there is an idea that is cool and works well, does not mean that it would fit into a 630x600 image.
And by you working out the image, you show the rest of the viewers that you are serious about the project.

Again just my 2 cents.

WM

WidowMakers wrote:A picture is worth a 1,000 words
Also, just because there is an idea that is cool and works well, does not mean that it would fit into a 630x600 image.
And by you working out the image, you show the rest of the viewers that you are serious about the project.
Again just my 2 cents.
WM

A picture cut-and-pasted from the internet doesn't show seriousness at all, in my opinion. I COULD'VE EASILY done that, but felt that would be the opposite of actually being serious about the project.

Gay - stupid Laptop just ate my post.

My main points were...
a) Like the idea
b) dislike rotational
c) ordering makes no sense.
Herbivores attacking Omnivores?
or
Omnivores evolving into Carnivores?
or
Grasses growing into Trees?

What does it all mean?

C.

yeti_c wrote:Gay - stupid Laptop just ate my post.

I HATE it when that happens.

yeti_c wrote:My main points were...
a) Like the idea
b) dislike rotational
c) ordering makes no sense.
Herbivores attacking Omnivores?
or
Omnivores evolving into Carnivores?
or
Grasses growing into Trees?

a) Thank you.
b) Yes, it does seem that's a style that someone either loves or hates, that is true. I think it's the most enjoyable, but I do gather that I may be in the minority in that view.
c) Very good point. I was simply listing my thoughts on the various categories (really, I was looking for suggestions for better ones, as I started grasping a bit for the last couple), rather than putting them in the specific order.

I certainly agree that it would actually be reversed (carnivores-omnivores-herbivores-grasses/trees (not sure how to separate the grasses and trees yet)).

Good idea, not a dumb idea. I suspect that the reason you have not seen many comments is two-fold: the lack of a picture (although I am okay with that to begin with), and the fact that "Food Chain" which barely predates this idea is so similar, meaning a lot of readers may have felt that this idea had already been preempted.

Yes, john9blue graciously gave you the go-ahead on this, but I suspect a lot of viewers decided that since "Food Chain" had a picture, it would progress more than this idea would. Personally, I find a lot of people here in the Foundry get way too wound up about the graphics, which stalls the move to gameplay discussion, which I think is the most important part. However, judging by the literacy level of a lot of posts in all the fora, many folks around here are more visual than verbal.

If you want this idea to go forward (I think it should), you mght try putting in some more of the textual details which are required to make a working draft, that is, all the things that the guidelines require in the image (1. Territory Labels 2. Borders/Paths/Impassables 3. Bonus Areas 4. Legend) but in a text map form. Also, take note that the "Food Chain" topic has had no updates since April 10. Maybe the visual types don't have the perseverance to see these things through. (Just kidding, everyone, there was a lot of nice work on "Food Chain" and I have no idea why it stopped.)

Perhaps the ultimate answer is to combine the two maps, recognizing that ecologies can span both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Putting all the heads together might get enough brainpower to move these ideas to Quenchville.

ender516 wrote:Good idea, not a dumb idea. I suspect that the reason you have not seen many comments is two-fold: the lack of a picture (although I am okay with that to begin with), and the fact that "Food Chain" which barely predates this idea is so similar, meaning a lot of readers may have felt that this idea had already been preempted.

Good point...I guess I hadn't considered that because I (in my certainty of rightness <grin>) knew how different the two map ideas were, not thinking about how they might be perceived on a more general level.

ender516 wrote:If you want this idea to go forward (I think it should), you mght try putting in some more of the textual details which are required to make a working draft, that is, all the things that the guidelines require in the image (1. Territory Labels 2. Borders/Paths/Impassables 3. Bonus Areas 4. Legend) but in a text map form.

I have an additional question then...are there any particular parts of the idea that you (this being the "general you" for everyone reading) that you especially like or dislike about the idea? Anything make you cringe or get just a tiny bit "interesting" about it? Any particular thoughts on the things I hadn't decided on (whether the "tree of life" in the center would be a territory, possibly with the negative bonus, for instance)?

ender516 wrote:Perhaps the ultimate answer is to combine the two maps, recognizing that ecologies can span both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Putting all the heads together might get enough brainpower to move these ideas to Quenchville.

Hmmm...a possibility (from my perspective)...though interconnecting them might be a bit of a challenge (I guess if "man" is in there, then that resolves some of that problem).

Thanks, ender!

This is a really bad image that I found on a google search for 'Circle of Life' images, but represents the type of thing that I understand your suggestion/idea to be describing...


My thoughts are this:

1. I'm not a big fan of Circus Maximus... this may be partly due to the fact I have yet to win on it, but I appreciate that it offers different type of strategy. Having more layers/tracks/sections is a natural and logical extension to Circus Max, which some people dislike, and others love; accordingly, there may be a market for another map in the circular niche.
2. The other map the idea reminds me of, is 8 Thoughts, with overlapping bits/categories. Personally I prefer 8 thoughts to Circus Max, although am equally as unsuccessful at it
3. I think there's mileage in finding some sort of middle-ground between the circular aspect of the Circus Max, and the traditional style of 8 Thoughts.

MrBenn wrote:This is a really bad image that I found on a google search for 'Circle of Life' images, but represents the type of thing that I understand your suggestion/idea to be describing...

It is a bad image, but it is a starting point so I appreciate you posting it. I've already sort of started an image myself, though I stopped working on it when I didn't get any feedback here. And yes, you do have the right general idea of what I'm looking at.

My thoughts are this:

1. I'm not a big fan of Circus Maximus... this may be partly due to the fact I have yet to win on it, but I appreciate that it offers different type of strategy. Having more layers/tracks/sections is a natural and logical extension to Circus Max, which some people dislike, and others love; accordingly, there may be a market for another map in the circular niche.
   
   True enough.
   
2. The other map the idea reminds me of, is 8 Thoughts, with overlapping bits/categories. Personally I prefer 8 thoughts to Circus Max, although am equally as unsuccessful at it
   
   I actually see this as a combination of Circus Maximus and 8 Thoughts. The idea with the Tree of Life in the center acting similarly to the MIND territory in 8 Thoughts while everything else acted like Circus Maximus.
   
3. I think there's mileage in finding some sort of middle-ground between the circular aspect of the Circus Max, and the traditional style of 8 Thoughts.

Exactly! That's sort of what I was thinking. Is there anything in my description in the first post that you PARTICULARLY like or dislike? Other than it's being a circular map, of course <grin>). I'm asking that of folks so I can know what I definitely want to try to keep in (or definitely try to lose).

Thanks for the feedback, Mr. Benn.

I am very much a word man---I understand things in terms of words, phrases, sentences---except for when it comes to maps. Images really grab me...

However, with the limited ideas/graphics/words we've got so far...hm, I'm mildly intrigued. But I think I still need to see some sort of working image to fully get my head around things and see how it comes together visually.


--Andy

Woodruff wrote:

ender516 wrote:If you want this idea to go forward (I think it should), you mght try putting in some more of the textual details which are required to make a working draft, that is, all the things that the guidelines require in the image (1. Territory Labels 2. Borders/Paths/Impassables 3. Bonus Areas 4. Legend) but in a text map form.

I have an additional question then...are there any particular parts of the idea that you (this being the "general you" for everyone reading) that you especially like or dislike about the idea? Anything make you cringe or get just a tiny bit "interesting" about it? Any particular thoughts on the things I hadn't decided on (whether the "tree of life" in the center would be a territory, possibly with the negative bonus, for instance)?

I like the "rotational" idea. You would get a map without easily defensible corners that some initial luck could hand to someone, giving too much advantage.
I also like the idea of the struggle for survival in an ecosystem: nature red in tooth and claw, war without an apology for human nature.

Woodruff wrote:

ender516 wrote:Perhaps the ultimate answer is to combine the two maps, recognizing that ecologies can span both terrestrial and aquatic environments. Putting all the heads together might get enough brainpower to move these ideas to Quenchville.

Hmmm...a possibility (from my perspective)...though interconnecting them might be a bit of a challenge (I guess if "man" is in there, then that resolves some of that problem).

Of course, man does seem to attack anything and everything, but there are other crossovers: grizzly bears eat salmon, and polar bears eat seals. Water-to-land attacks are less obvious to me, but I might mention crocodiles spend a lot of time in the water, and attack prey on the land. And don't forget airborne creatures: herons eat fish, and some fish eat insects at or near the surface.

Another thing that came to mind to tie all this together: I was looking at MrBenn's image and thinking how far off the idea he was (no offence intended, MrBenn, but I am pretty sure Woodruff was going for more of a Lion King Circle of Life thing). So I went looking for better images, searching "carbon cycle" (not that that is the exact idea, but those sort of pictures might have the elements we want to depict). This is a little bit in the right direction, I think:

Of course, Woodruff's idea would have more examples of the plants, consumers, and what not. In fact, one might consider adding the atmosphere as another territory that can attack (or bombard?) everything (except perhaps the bacteria living at a "black smoker" ocean bottom vent).

Another thought: bonuses for groupings corresponding to ecological groupings or symbiotic relationships: lichen = alga + fungus; ranch = man + cattle + corn; ...

I think because there is no definitive circle of life it cannot be done

sailorseal wrote:I think because there is no definitive circle of life it cannot be done

Well, yes, it is definitely more of a web than a circle, but that should make for more interesting gameplay.

I must say it is nice to see the activity on this thread: MrBenn, Andy, sailorseal -- all names I have seen in many fora. I am sure Woodruff is gratified.

sailorseal wrote:I think because there is no definitive circle of life it cannot be done

Please don't take this the wrong way, but...

Is there a definitive house that "Madness" was taken from?
Is there a definitive set of shapes that Classic Shapes was taken from?
Is there a definitive school that CCU was taken from?

I guess I don't really understand what you're trying to say, since a number of our maps are "conceptual" rather than "actual" in nature. Have I perhaps misunderstood what you meant?

No, those are physical objects. This is a subjective concept. You cannot make a circle of life to hold in your hand, and there is no one true circle of life.

ender516 wrote:I like the "rotational" idea. You would get a map without easily defensible corners that some initial luck could hand to someone, giving too much advantage.

That is precisely why I love Circus Maximus, in fact.

ender516 wrote:Another thing that came to mind to tie all this together: I was looking at MrBenn's image and thinking how far off the idea he was (no offence intended, MrBenn, but I am pretty sure Woodruff was going for more of a Lion King Circle of Life thing).

I was, but I think you misunderstood MrBenn's thought with the image...I think he was just looking for a "circular groupings" sort of map starting point, rather than something that particularly fit the aspects of my idea. Then again, perhaps I misunderstood him. <grin>

But I very much DO like this image you have, and I think I can really take the concept you've got here and run with it a bit. Thank you very much for that.

ender516 wrote:Another thought: bonuses for groupings corresponding to ecological groupings or symbiotic relationships: lichen = alga + fungus; ranch = man + cattle + corn; ...

Hmmm...to make sure I understand what you're saying here...sort of like one World 2.1 where you have the minor groupings (for instance, the RUSSIA area) and the major groupings (for instance, the ASIA area)? I like that idea. Please let me know if that's not what you were getting at.

Oh wait, maybe I just figured out what you did mean...so for instance, a particular "territory" might actually be associated with more than one potential bonus (can the XML do that?)...so for instance, CORN might actually fit the ecological grouping (of plants) as well as a symbiotic relationship (with man and cattle)? If the XML can do that, I think it's an outstanding thought. Anyone know?

ender516 wrote:I must say it is nice to see the activity on this thread: MrBenn, Andy, sailorseal -- all names I have seen in many fora. I am sure Woodruff is gratified.

Oh, you have NO IDEA. I'm quite excited by this.

sailorseal wrote:No, those are physical objects. This is a subjective concept. You cannot make a circle of life to hold in your hand, and there is no one true circle of life.

8 Thoughts?
Feudal War?
Halloween Hollows?

I guess I don't really understand why "Madness" representing a physical object makes a difference in whether it can be represented as a map or not. Please don't misunderstand or get upset...I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to understand why it is that you think because I can't represent specifically "the circle of life" that it's a concept that can't become a map. I don't want you to stop continuing with the discussion.