Vancouver [Quenched]

HungrySomali · Post by **HungrySomali** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:36 pm

Nice map. Reminds me of NYC which I love. Make it happen. =)

shakeycat · Post by **shakeycat** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:10 pm

General Bradley, don't worry about it. I already have XML, am just working on fine-tuning my coordinates.

Darreldpahl, I'm sure there's room for ski-hills above North Vancouver, but I'm not sure if I want to add them.

shakeycat · Post by **shakeycat** » Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:55 pm

In fact ...

Small: http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/gva/mar11s.jpg
Large: http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/gva/mar11.jpg
XML: http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/ ... couver.xml

Tester: http://www.conquerclub.com/mapmaker/index.php

The small map I'm having a bit of a time with despite 22px circles, but both are done as far as I'm willing to do today. Large is 24px now.

General Bradley · Post by **General Bradley** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:19 pm

It looks great. Now we need to get some "play testing" done.

lzrman · Post by **lzrman** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:13 pm

General Bradley wrote:It looks great. Now we need to get some "play testing" done.

I totally Agree!!

Play Testing All Around!

They should almost have a beta area to test new maps =P

TaCktiX · Post by **TaCktiX** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:59 pm

Could you post your images in [bigimg] tags so we can see them without having to click?

shakeycat · Post by **shakeycat** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:58 pm

Large is done, Small is still off.

Click image to enlarge.

Bavarian Raven · Post by **Bavarian Raven** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 5:32 pm

this map looks great, i can't wait to play it

thenobodies80 · Post by **thenobodies80** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:01 pm

General Bradley wrote:Im typing up the xml today. Should have it for you soon.

i think it's no time for xml now.
If you do thw xml now you have to modify it a several number of time...
Be patient, take gameplay and graphic stamps, then you could start to think about xml.

Same for armies versions, you could wait...but it's a good way to test colors

I have a critics for you:

Aren't these borders better?

General Bradley · Post by **General Bradley** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:27 pm

thenobodies80 wrote:
General Bradley wrote:Im typing up the xml today. Should have it for you soon.
i think it's no time for xml now.
If you do thw xml now you have to modify it a several number of time...
Be patient, take gameplay and graphic stamps, then you could start to think about xml.

Same for armies versions, you could wait...but it's a good way to test colors

I have a critics for you:

Aren't these borders better?

Langley city itself has round borders, so if anything, it might be a blend between the two so that Campbell Heights isn't quite so spiky.

I don't quite understand the delay in waiting for the gameplay and graphics stamps. It seems we are trying to polish the hell out of something that is already smooth.

lzrman · Post by **lzrman** » Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:51 pm

General Bradley wrote:
thenobodies80 wrote:
General Bradley wrote:Im typing up the xml today. Should have it for you soon.
i think it's no time for xml now.
If you do thw xml now you have to modify it a several number of time...
Be patient, take gameplay and graphic stamps, then you could start to think about xml.

Same for armies versions, you could wait...but it's a good way to test colors

I have a critics for you:

Aren't these borders better?

Langley city itself has round borders, so if anything, it might be a blend between the two so that Campbell Heights isn't quite so spiky.

I don't quite understand the delay in waiting for the gameplay and graphics stamps. It seems we are trying to polish the hell out of something that is already smooth.

Over polished. :O)

thenobodies80 · Post by **thenobodies80** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:05 am

i suggested you only to wait to do the xml.But if you like waste your time...

Anyways...my opinion on borders wasn't realist but only aesthetic

I don't want you misunderstood.. i like your map!

Good work

shakeycat · Post by **shakeycat** » Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:13 am

It did look a little funny with Campbell Valley so pokey. Is this better? I made Langley City round, because as General Bradley says, that is the shape of it.

Click image to enlarge.

I appreciate the feedback, as always, and thank you.

General Bradley · Post by **General Bradley** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:08 am

If we are trying for true shapes, White Rock is WAY too big as drawn. It is a very tiny community completely enclosed by South Surrey (with nice square corners on its two top edges. It stretches only up to 16th, from 136th to 160th.

Of course, correcting that in the picture will require xml updating as well, as it doesn't get anywhere close to Newton.

But, again, we are talking about polishing a diamond.

lzrman · Post by **lzrman** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:27 am

General Bradley wrote:But, again, we are talking about polishing a diamond.

Or a really "Big" rock

General Bradley · Post by **General Bradley** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:12 am

Big and White, I like it!

shakeycat · Post by **shakeycat** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:33 am

Updating the XML is no problem at all, so let's not be limited by that.

White Rock - yes, it is just a South Surrey enclosed bit of land, is its own city. I made the territory to encompass Crescent Beach and Ocean Park, everything south of King George/Highway 99. I figured those places would rather be White Rock than Newton or South Surrey, lumping all the beachy-waterfront spots together.

Would this be better?

General Bradley · Post by **General Bradley** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:50 pm

shakeycat wrote:Updating the XML is no problem at all, so let's not be limited by that.

White Rock - yes, it is just a South Surrey enclosed bit of land, is its own city. I made the territory to encompass Crescent Beach and Ocean Park, everything south of King George/Highway 99. I figured those places would rather be White Rock than Newton or South Surrey, lumping all the beachy-waterfront spots together.

Would this be better?

No, I'm with you. I think Blackie's Spit should be included as part of White Rock, and maybe drag Newtons border down to it.

shakeycat · Post by **shakeycat** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:07 pm

Why even change it then? The only difference would be whether it touches the US border or not, then, and that is inconsequential.

General Bradley · Post by **General Bradley** » Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:26 pm

shakeycat wrote:Why even change it then? The only difference would be whether it touches the US border or not, then, and that is inconsequential.

Agreed. Do we have to chase down a moderator to get the "gameplay" stamp? I am busy playing the Soviet Union map, and this one is SOOOOO much more clear (the mountains are hard to see in it.)

Post by **iancanton** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:32 pm

can u either reduce the number of non-neutral territories, maybe in the east, to 58 or 59? the reason for this is that, at the current 61 (or is it 60?), each player in a 2v2 game starts with 15 territories, so the first player can reduce the second player's deployment to 4 armies if he wins only one territory from him. one way to do this is to make horseshoe bay start neutral.

another way to solve this problem is to add more non-neutral territories till we have 66, perhaps by creating a downtown inset that has the required number of extra territories. there's space for this at the bottom left if that's the method u prefer.

ian.

shakeycat · Post by **shakeycat** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:15 pm

Ian -

I never considered this, thank you!

It is currently 60, since Sea Island and New Wesminster start neutral. I'll double check, of course. This would certainly be an easy solution to just make Horseshoe Bay and maybe something else start neutral by default. Maybe Downtown Station too. It would reduce the chance of an easy bonus on the initial drop.

As much as I'd like to add more territories to bump it up to 66, (what, 4 more?) I'm a bit apprehensive about putting in an inset map. I like straightforward gameplay, where it's all presented in one layout. Plus, I'd rather explore adding territories to Burnaby, Surrey, or Richmond before making things too much more complicated. I like the 66 idea because of an 8 player game, as somebody mentioned a few pages ago. I DID have more territories before in Burnaby (+2) and Vancouver (+1). I cut them because things were getting too tiny and messy.

Post by **iancanton** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:37 pm

oaktown wrote:I know this may be a bit cliche, but would you consider playing up the fact that the Olympics will be there in two years? Olympic rings in the title, sports venues, that awful two-lane road to Whistler, etc. This would give the map more international cred.

there isn't a single mention of the olympics. is this because the olympic village will be in an area that is already too congested?

if u were starting from scratch, then i'd have urged u to eliminate maple ridge and langley and concentrate ur map on the best-known and most interesting parts of the city. other than the transit lines, ur current map currently takes much the same approach as the neighbouring puget sound map: perfectly good in most respects, except that it doesn't quite have enough to grab the attention and make people want to play it more than some other map. someone else tried to make a london (uk) map that was based purely on its administrative divisions; not surprisingly, people lost interest before it hit the main foundry.

having said all that, i like the fact that this is a large map with a definite shape, where natural impassables are largely kept impassable. without an obvious thematic hook and assuming that the gameplay has no major flaws, ur map will eventually stand or fall by the quality of its graphics. good luck!

ian.

shakeycat · Post by **shakeycat** » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:52 pm

That's it exactly. In order to make an Olympic map, I would have to have one of Downtown, one of Cypress-Hastings-Bridgeport-UBC-Downtown and everything in between, and another of Whistler. Three full maps in one. There's only one logical road to Whistler, which makes for either interesting or ridiculous gameplay. I couldn't even find a map to base Whistler off of. I did explore the option, started to draw out what it could be, but it was not working. There is another thread where someone presented a 2010 idea, and I placed mine there too. Neither has gone anywhere.

http://www.atomation.com/~thazzard/fun/gva/oly1.gif - this is as far as I got on the idea. I thought an Age of Realms style may've worked.

It's hard to make a 2010 map without Whistler, since nearly all the mountain and luge events are up there. They could easily have called it the Whistler Olympics. Sure, I could put a token olympic village in, the Richmond speedskating oval, GM place. But it would feel half-done to just drop a few tokens around the city without cause.

Post by **iancanton** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:57 am

shakeycat wrote:Sure, I could put a token olympic village in, the Richmond speedskating oval, GM place. But it would feel half-done to just drop a few tokens around the city without cause.

lostatlimbo's rose city map does have just such a bonus, for the highlights of the city of portland. however, that map covers a much smaller area than urs, so maybe a good option after all is to play it straight without any olympic bonus, as u have done.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 75&start=0

ian.

Vancouver [Quenched]

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (10 Mar - p8)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (10 Mar - p8)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (10 Mar - p8)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (11 Mar - p9)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (11 Mar - p9)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (11 Mar - p9)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (11 Mar - p9)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (11 Mar - p9)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (10 Mar - p8)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (10 Mar - p8)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (10 Mar - p8)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (11 Mar - p9)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (19 Mar - p10)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (19 Mar - p10)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (19 Mar - p10)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (19 Mar - p10)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (19 Mar - p10)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (19 Mar - p10)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (19 Mar - p10)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (19 Mar - p10)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (19 Mar - p10)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (19 Mar - p10)

Re: Vancouver Map

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (19 Mar - p10)

Re: Vancouver Map [D] (19 Mar - p10)