
Moderator: Cartographers
WL_southerner wrote:unriggale you mean its not your cup of tea
WL_southerner wrote:coleman i work it out we could do with an extra 50 pixels on the width on the small map
then we could add the legend to the left side that way it would not look cram up, the large map theres no problem map 800x800 ,its not a problem on the large map
WL_southerner wrote:yup i do m8 thats was done on paint i not got my coral draw cd any more i left it at the old place plus your brains are needed
oaktown wrote:Grey v gray: my understanding is that one is the British spelling and one is the American... like color and colour. I've seen both all of my life so I don't actually know which is which... grEy is american I think? (This is the part where some brit tells us Americans we should learn to speak English.)
AndyDufresne wrote:One thing to keep in mind, there must be no over lap in regards to side by side three digit coordinates.
--Andy
spinwizard wrote:OK, so you are saying that...you do not object to the map but what needs work, the size and the legend?
if this is going to move forward you should do a bit of research into why people don't play the current crossword map so you avoid the same traps. This map could potentially have all of the problems of crossword PLUS all of the problems of symmetrical maps, which many users hate.
oaktown wrote:spinwizard wrote:OK, so you are saying that...you do not object to the map but what needs work, the size and the legend?
I was asked for my opinion on the new version of the map... my opinion is that it is too large for a small map, and the legend is unclear. I thought the earlier version was better (yours, Spin), but even that could be spead out to make better use of space. The alternative numbering system (87A, 42D, etc) may be better though... the old numbering system was confusing, because why are there two 3s and two 1s in green?
If you're asking me if I object to the map, my answer is no. I don't like it any more than the first Crossword map, but other people don't share my opinion so I certainly don't object to the map being made. Of course, if you'd like to know my opinion as to why I don't like it, read on...
On the first page of this thread I wrote:if this is going to move forward you should do a bit of research into why people don't play the current crossword map so you avoid the same traps. This map could potentially have all of the problems of crossword PLUS all of the problems of symmetrical maps, which many users hate.
I continue to have the same concerns about this project that I did six weeks ago. No matter how well you two make use of space or how good the graphics are, it will still be the same exact game play as Cross 1.0, the least popular map on this site. And the basic problems of that map have not been addressed in this one.
Some problems I have with this project include:
1. Lines that look like borders within a territory. Anything that has so much potential to confuse is not player friendly.
I agree but we will struggle to find an alternative.
2. You still haven't posted the basic required information on the initital post. I assume there are 90 territories based on the highest number on the map. How did you calculate bonuses?
Yep, it is 90, bonuses was done by common sence. Any suggestions?
3. The numbering is going to lead to misplacements. The army count for 45D will probably have to be below the 47A number, which will be extremely confusing. Unless, of course, you plan to squeeze the numbers in under the territory names, which gives you the problem noted above about numbers hitting each other (eg 56A-57D). Neither option is player friendly.
We were going with the first option...
4. If you're doing a crossword puzzle, the 26A word would include the letter in the box that sayd 27D, but based on the color I don't think it does on this map - just a border. Or it does, but it isn't shown, which isn't player friendly. Same problem with 13D, 14D, and about 25 others.
It's true...:(
5. Look at space #76... is that down, or across? I assume it is across because of the color, but couldn't it just as easily be down? Or is it just the square, which is weird because you'd never see that in a crossword puzzle. And which bonus is it a part of? Should be both, right?
Meh, I see what u mean.
6. The legend in the new version suggests that the attack bridges are territories that start neutral, which is odd because the Spin version makes them sound like attack routes. What are the new territories called? How do I place there? And if I conquer that continent, why on earth would I want to take out a neutral that creates a free wall between my neighbor and I? Bad use of starting neutral.
U could also use it as an attack route to your neighbour!.
7. 90 territories: first player in a six player game begins with 15 terits and a placement of five, hits the player that goes after him, and that player starts with only 14 terits and a placement of 4. First player in a five player game starts with 18 terits and +6, which is worse. First player in a two or three player game starts with 30 terits and +10. See the thread on rethinking the number of starting territories.
I read that thread but we cant change the territ number without changing the whole gameplay!
I know this map has many supporters, so I think it is worth continuing. But it is my opinion that this map is going to require a lot more work and perhaps a complete re-think to make it playable.
spinwizard wrote:reverend_kyle wrote:I hate it without the title at the top.
We have no room
reverend_kyle wrote:spinwizard wrote:reverend_kyle wrote:I hate it without the title at the top.
We have no room
i won't let it be quenched with the title as is. make room.
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users