Treasures of Galápagos [Quenched]

by **cairnswk** on Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:55 am

mibi wrote:ok gotcha, maybe you should denote thats its fresh water, since there is water everywhere which makes it a bit confusing.

mibi...i'm not trying to be smart, but you probably know that drinking lots of sea water will make you sick...fresh water is definitely preferable, however you can just survive on it.

by **cairnswk** on Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:03 am

Version 13.

cairnswk wrote:
gimil wrote:The white text in the top left seems to be a little hard to read, probably because of the white black contrast on such a thin font. Would you be able to add more beef to the font? or consider redusing the back intensity a little?

Sure gimil.....i'll look at that for you.

Gimil, i used a lighter charcoal grey on the text and i think it is puffed out a little more....did that make a difference?

cairnswk wrote:
oaktown wrote:I'm alright with pretty much everything about this map. The luggers stand out to me - though some are brighter than others on the page 10 post - and the bonuses seem fine.
Forgive me if I've missed this in the thread, but what's the plan for naming the territories? Right now you have two sets of "F" territories, and one wierd "Fl1" territory. And i would avoid using "I" for any territory names unless you come up with a font in which the I looks entirely different than a 1.

thanks oaktown...just the type of feedback i was fishing for.
I take all that on baord and c what i can produce.

Oaktown...i have gone through and checked all the tert names....they are all now two letter codes....different i hope.

Also the luggers have been given a solid drop shadow which i think makes them stand out more...yes?

by **cairnswk** on Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:06 pm

Comments anyone?

by **t-o-m** on Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:07 pm

i like it lighter, although the sea looks good darker, as i feel that it gives it more depth, as in the sea looks deeper and more realistic.

by **oaktown** on Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:24 pm

It's looking good. I'd like the non-playable areas of the water to stand out from the playable areas a bit more, but I can live with it as is. It also wouldn't hurt to show an example of the reef in the "Impassable" part of the legend, as you have the non-playable sea zones.

by **cairnswk** on Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:13 pm

oaktown wrote:It's looking good. I'd like the non-playable areas of the water to stand out from the playable areas a bit more, but I can live with it as is. It also wouldn't hurt to show an example of the reef in the "Impassable" part of the legend, as you have the non-playable sea zones.

Thanks Oaktown....i'll see what i can do.

by **mibi** on Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:22 pm

cairnswk wrote:
mibi wrote:ok gotcha, maybe you should denote thats its fresh water, since there is water everywhere which makes it a bit confusing.

mibi...i'm not trying to be smart, but you probably know that drinking lots of sea water will make you sick...fresh water is definitely preferable, however you can just survive on it.

well then it should say fresh water. since it currently denotes 'water' as does as the other blue on the map.

by **cairnswk** on Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:05 pm

mibi wrote:well then it should say fresh water. since it currently denotes 'water' as does as the other blue on the map.

OK mibi...here is your fresh water....totally new re-arrangement.

by **cairnswk** on Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Any comments on new image style in photo frame?

by **RjBeals** on Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:23 pm

cairnswk wrote:Any comments on new image style in photo frame?

Don't like it. Looks too thrown together & simple. It doesn't add to the map either for me. As for the map itself. I'm also not a fan. But you haven't lost me yet cairns. You still hold the title of best looking map on CC (Bamboo Jack).

by **cairnswk** on Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:54 pm

RjBeals wrote:
cairnswk wrote:Any comments on new image style in photo frame?

Don't like it. Looks too thrown together & simple. It doesn't add to the map either for me. As for the map itself. I'm also not a fan. But you haven't lost me yet cairns. You still hold the title of best looking map on CC (Bamboo Jack).

mmmmm....more work.

but in actual fact, it hasn't been thrown together, and it is meant to be a simple map and design....perhaps the photo frame doesn't fit with the overall map....tourist card look
There has been quite a lot of discussion on the attacking routes.

by **edbeard** on Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:59 pm

I don't like the photo frame either

I do like the map though

by **cairnswk** on Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:23 pm

edbeard wrote:I don't like the photo frame either

I do like the map though

by **gimil** on Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:11 am

Me to no like photo frame cairns

The map felt more complete without it.

by **cairnswk** on Sun Apr 13, 2008 4:07 pm

Version 15

Frame is gone....people not liking it which is fair.

So here is large and small///some minor tweaks still possible....

by **jasnostj** on Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:26 pm

Hey, I am missing the finches: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches
Old man Darwin wouldn't have liked that.

by **cairnswk** on Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:44 pm

jasnostj wrote:Hey, I am missing the finches: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches
Old man Darwin wouldn't have liked that.

appreciate your post and knowledge...is it vitaly important they be included?

by **Torter_of_Worlds** on Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:24 pm

Love it.

I like the bonuses...I wouldn't add anymore as suggested - you have more than enough. Adding more would make almost every attack yield more armies as it is currently laid out. A small map doesn't need a lot of bonuses to move quickly (Feudal War perfect example). Having too many bonuses takes away from the skill level required and refocuses the game on the luck aspect of: who can roll the best dice to get the bonus 1 or 2 rounds before the others. Accordingly, I advocate for fewer bonuses.

What's the plan for 1 v. 1 deployment? Start with 2 snorkels?

Regards

by **cairnswk** on Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:37 pm

Torter_of_Worlds wrote:Love it.

I like the bonuses...I wouldn't add anymore as suggested - you have more than enough. Adding more would make almost every attack yield more armies as it is currently laid out. A small map doesn't need a lot of bonuses to move quickly (Feudal War perfect example). Having too many bonuses takes away from the skill level required and refocuses the game on the luck aspect of: who can roll the best dice to get the bonus 1 or 2 rounds before the others. Accordingly, I advocate for fewer bonuses.

What's the plan for 1 v. 1 deployment? Start with 2 snorkels?

Regards

Thanks for your post...ToW. I imagine it would be like other 1v1 deployments...1/3 each which could mean 3 for each player and two for neutral.

Current version 15.

by **Torter_of_Worlds** on Mon Apr 14, 2008 3:49 pm

The comment below pertains to 1 v. 1 game play only! Please also note I am merely trying to provide constructive feedback

3 snorkels? hmmm; so all a player would need to do is capture one lug and he would obtain a 9 army bonus + 3 for territories next turn? Isn't this a little much for something that could happen so early in the game? Also consider whomever obtains this bonus could camp out one turn on the lug waiting to see if the opponent breaches another lug and possibly run through him. Better yet; if the opponent doesn't breach a lug, the lug owner could wait to attack next turn (or attack more lugs and stack the bonus) and then attack with a hefty stack against one still seeking a +1 treasure or a +4 fresh water (which could be too late...even though this would stack with the number of snorkels too...) which would prove useless within these two rounds alone.

Possibly the lug bonus alone could be its ability to attack all other lugs? Having this ability alone is beneficial.

Freshwater: perhaps instead of saying +4/snorkel; make it +4 flat rate.

More comments to come pending your response

by **jasnostj** on Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:00 am

cairnswk wrote:
jasnostj wrote:Hey, I am missing the finches: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches
Old man Darwin wouldn't have liked that.

appreciate your post and knowledge...is it vitaly important they be included?

Nothing vitally important on a game site like this, if you ask me.
Maybe a little Beagle somewhere...?

by **bryguy** on Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:05 am

what are those blue circles? btw some of them are circular, others oval sideways, and others oval upwards

by **Torter_of_Worlds** on Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:38 am

I think what you are referring to are the impassable reef boundaries...

by **ZeakCytho** on Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:48 pm

I'm having a bit of difficulty separating the playable territories from the ocean impassables. Could you either darken the impassable ocean bits or lighten the territories? Not a lot, but just a bit. I think lighter territories would probably look better, since this map is a bit dark for a tropical setting, but if that's more work than darkening the oceans, you could always do that too.

by **MrBenn** on Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

It's been a while since I checked in on this map - it's looking good, but a bit bluer than I remember (that's not a comment which you should pay any particular concern to!)
It might just be my eyes, but the head of the tortoise in the legend could be made a shade lighter so you can see it slightly better... it's fine on the actual map, but just a little difficult to see on the legend.