Conquer Club

wcaclimbing wrote:I thought this already had the ideas stamp... or was at least advanced ideas.
it easily fills all the requirements, at least.

I'll see what I can do, I'll get back to you in a day or two.

At least this post bumps the thread again.
it'd help get more comments.

I've noticed how a lot of more abstract maps (especially when made by new mapmakers) take a longer time to move along in the foundry. I really don't know the justification behind this, but that's just the way it is. Hopefully this will be moved along soon. Especially after all the hard work you put into it.

Mr. Squirrel wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:I thought this already had the ideas stamp... or was at least advanced ideas.
it easily fills all the requirements, at least.

I'll see what I can do, I'll get back to you in a day or two.

At least this post bumps the thread again.
it'd help get more comments.

I've noticed how a lot of more abstract maps (especially when made by new mapmakers) take a longer time to move along in the foundry. I really don't know the justification behind this, but that's just the way it is. Hopefully this will be moved along soon. Especially after all the hard work you put into it.

Thanks you two. I can understand why maps made by the usual people progress much quicker, but it is a shame when ideas from new people get overlooked or not treated as seriously.

Ethitts wrote:

Mr. Squirrel wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:I thought this already had the ideas stamp... or was at least advanced ideas.
it easily fills all the requirements, at least.

I'll see what I can do, I'll get back to you in a day or two.

At least this post bumps the thread again.
it'd help get more comments.

I've noticed how a lot of more abstract maps (especially when made by new mapmakers) take a longer time to move along in the foundry. I really don't know the justification behind this, but that's just the way it is. Hopefully this will be moved along soon. Especially after all the hard work you put into it.

Thanks you two. I can understand why maps made by the usual people progress much quicker, but it is a shame when ideas from new people get overlooked or not treated as seriously.

Have you tried sending any PMs to Oak or Gimil? I know they've been busy lately so it probably couldn't hurt. Might get you moved a bit faster. Till then, why don't you work on a few things on the map.

I think you should make the clubhouse and the golf cart depot look a bit more cartoony. They way you have it now, it looks like you copied a Google Earth image and laid it on top of your map (did you actually make them?). Not only is it out of place, but it also looks like its floating above the grass (at least it looks like that to me). Just have it fit in with the rest of your map. Also, I would still like to see dirt pathways between holes. I know I've mentioned it before, but I just dislike the look of the stretched out fairways. I would make them the same color as your bridges, just a little more rugged. Why don't you try it on just a couple holes and if everyone thinks it looks good, you can do it on the rest.

Mr. Squirrel wrote:Have you tried sending any PMs to Oak or Gimil? I know they've been busy lately so it probably couldn't hurt. Might get you moved a bit faster. Till then, why don't you work on a few things on the map.

I think you should make the clubhouse and the golf cart depot look a bit more cartoony. They way you have it now, it looks like you copied a Google Earth image and laid it on top of your map (did you actually make them?). Not only is it out of place, but it also looks like its floating above the grass (at least it looks like that to me). Just have it fit in with the rest of your map. Also, I would still like to see dirt pathways between holes. I know I've mentioned it before, but I just dislike the look of the stretched out fairways. I would make them the same color as your bridges, just a little more rugged. Why don't you try it on just a couple holes and if everyone thinks it looks good, you can do it on the rest.

I'll hopefully get an update out this week implementing those suggestions. I have tried the paths before and it didn't look to good, I'll give it a few more go's though and see what I can come up with.

Ethitts wrote:So, have I done enough to get at least an idea stamp yet?

You have definately improved the look of the map, although the graphics still require a lot more work to reach the required standard... I'm sure you'll get there with the attitude you're displaying though

I remain to be convinced by the gameplay of this map though; it all seems a bit gimmicky.

Your legend seems to suggest that you only need the tee, green and bunkers to get the bonus for holding a hole, although it would be more logical that you need the fairway territories as well?

The golf cart only becomes useful once you're getting a big enough bonus to warrant using it, although at that point it would seem likely that you wouldn't need it?

The negative bunkers bonus makes sense, but I'm not convinced that you need it on the beach too. I know you're trying to make it a short-cut, but It won't really work like that. There is no bonus on the beach, so those armies will decay away or be moved, and will end up with all 1s on there by the time anybody would want to use it as a short-cut (to the golf-carts presumably?)

answers in green

MrBenn wrote:You have definately improved the look of the map, although the graphics still require a lot more work to reach the required standard... I'm sure you'll get there with the attitude you're displaying though

I remain to be convinced by the gameplay of this map though; it all seems a bit gimmicky.

I actually wanted this map to have almost no gimmicks originally. Just a classic map with a golf setting with the only gimmick being the sand bunkers. But the community seemed to prefer at least a number of gimmicks.

MrBenn wrote:Your legend seems to suggest that you only need the tee, green and bunkers to get the bonus for holding a hole, although it would be more logical that you need the fairway territories as well?

A bonus does include the fairways. I'll try make that more clear next time I do a big update

MrBenn wrote:The golf cart only becomes useful once you're getting a big enough bonus to warrant using it, although at that point it would seem likely that you wouldn't need it?

Kind of relates to the gimmick aspect of the map which may need to be discussed

MrBenn wrote:The negative bunkers bonus makes sense, but I'm not convinced that you need it on the beach too. I know you're trying to make it a short-cut, but It won't really work like that. There is no bonus on the beach, so those armies will decay away or be moved, and will end up with all 1s on there by the time anybody would want to use it as a short-cut (to the golf-carts presumably?)

Alot of people have the same view as you, perhaps it may have to be changed, but I've always liked the idea of each territory having decay

Which of these paths is better: (It still goes all messed up when I try create a poll . So no poll for this)
1st: Dirt path
2nd: Concrete path
3rd: Wooden path

[bigimg]http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/783/pathswr2.jpg[/bigimg]

Ver 10:
[bigimg]http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1411/ccclubgolfver9bx0.jpg[/bigimg]

Wooden!

L

A. Altough i prefer what you have now tough.

A might be a to light texture i would like you darkned it a bit so it looks like a forest path.

I like the paths on the full image the most. Maybe a slightly thinner version of those would work. I'm not a big fan of any of the three examples. If I had to pick one, though, the wooden ones would be my favorite.

wcaclimbing wrote:I like the paths on the full image the most. Maybe a slightly thinner version of those would work. I'm not a big fan of any of the three examples. If I had to pick one, though, the wooden ones would be my favorite.

So maybe these paths shouldn't be implemented? It has been only requested by 1 person that there be actual "paths", rather than the fairway just connecting. Damn I wish I could create a poll.....

If you could made look like relastic paths in the forest. (not straith ahead.) that would be cool:D

Androidz wrote:If you could made look like relastic paths in the forest. (not straith ahead.) that would be cool:D

I'll see the results of the poll after a day or two, then get to work on whatever the community wants. In the mean time I will try your suggestions and see what I can come up with, but won't post as updates.

Ethitts wrote:

Androidz wrote:If you could made look like relastic paths in the forest. (not straith ahead.) that would be cool:D

I'll see the results of the poll after a day or two, then get to work on whatever the community wants. In the mean time I will try your suggestions and see what I can come up with, but won't post as updates.

okey good=)

[adv. idea]

wcaclimbing wrote:[adv. idea]

Sweet! Thank you very much

I voted none. I don't like any of them very much. But I don't have any better ideas

ZeakCytho wrote:I voted none. I don't like any of them very much. But I don't have any better ideas

Yea, I'll have to work on some better drafts and put them up. I'm thinking that some of the paths could remain how they are (for example the paths between par harbour and omaha beach, AOR Tee and Cairns coral cart). But the rest as some other type of path.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one to say this yet, but... BJ tee? Probably not the best choice of names you could make...

I don't like any of the path options honestly. Maybe a dirt path that has more of a colour like the wooden path.

Overall the whole graphic feel of the map doesn't work for me because I don't like how the holes look. There's just tons of the same green when there should be at least different shades of it: fairway; light rough; deep rough; etc...you probably just haven't got to it yet but I'd rather everything be done at once instead of lets do the paths then lets do the holes then lets do the fairways then lets do the rough. One might look good alone but when you put it with the whole picture it doesn't work. Or, one might not look good until it's seen with everything else.

This map has a lot of potential but I feel like it's barely scratching the surface. It's not fair to compare this to Tiger Woods Golf but when I look at those courses you see tons of stuff going on. Right now this looks like a somewhat boring course. I also have to say that I agree with someone else who said that there should be at least one very short hole. A par 3 could be as short as 185 yards or something.

There's a lot of very good things about this map but some parts don't seem to keep up with the rest.

edbeard wrote:I don't like any of the path options honestly. Maybe a dirt path that has more of a colour like the wooden path.

Overall the whole graphic feel of the map doesn't work for me because I don't like how the holes look. There's just tons of the same green when there should be at least different shades of it: fairway; light rough; deep rough; etc...you probably just haven't got to it yet but I'd rather everything be done at once instead of lets do the paths then lets do the holes then lets do the fairways then lets do the rough. One might look good alone but when you put it with the whole picture it doesn't work. Or, one might not look good until it's seen with everything else.

This map has a lot of potential but I feel like it's barely scratching the surface. It's not fair to compare this to Tiger Woods Golf but when I look at those courses you see tons of stuff going on. Right now this looks like a somewhat boring course. I also have to say that I agree with someone else who said that there should be at least one very short hole. A par 3 could be as short as 185 yards or something.

There's a lot of very good things about this map but some parts don't seem to keep up with the rest.

Your pretty much asking for a revamp, in which case there won't be an update for a long time. I'd rather get more comments on the matter before I do any drastic updates. I would like to add though, that I haven't had any complaints about graphics before (other than there being alot of green which is expected on a golf course), in fact I have had a lot of comments saying that the graphics are great.

hecter wrote:I'm not sure if I'm the only one to say this yet, but... BJ tee? Probably not the best choice of names you could make...

I was waiting for someone to bring that up...

Have you ever considered to make this a conquest? Start on its own tees? In which cause edbeard can expect you redraw..

Ethitts wrote:

edbeard wrote:I don't like any of the path options honestly. Maybe a dirt path that has more of a colour like the wooden path.

Overall the whole graphic feel of the map doesn't work for me because I don't like how the holes look. There's just tons of the same green when there should be at least different shades of it: fairway; light rough; deep rough; etc...you probably just haven't got to it yet but I'd rather everything be done at once instead of lets do the paths then lets do the holes then lets do the fairways then lets do the rough. One might look good alone but when you put it with the whole picture it doesn't work. Or, one might not look good until it's seen with everything else.

This map has a lot of potential but I feel like it's barely scratching the surface. It's not fair to compare this to Tiger Woods Golf but when I look at those courses you see tons of stuff going on. Right now this looks like a somewhat boring course. I also have to say that I agree with someone else who said that there should be at least one very short hole. A par 3 could be as short as 185 yards or something.

There's a lot of very good things about this map but some parts don't seem to keep up with the rest.

Your pretty much asking for a revamp, in which case there won't be an update for a long time. I'd rather get more comments on the matter before I do any drastic updates. I would like to add though, that I haven't had any complaints about graphics before (other than there being alot of green which is expected on a golf course), in fact I have had a lot of comments saying that the graphics are great.

I don't really care for the graphics--as I stated early on. I don't hate the green stuff, but I do not care for the beaches or that annoyingly bright blue. It makes the whole map seem disjointed. Especially since they are non-complementary colors. Also, to play on the map as is, I'd have to lighten the opacity at least 20%.

I haven't said anything because I figured that was the type of stuff to be worked out in the Foundry. I also thought you'd have an idea stamp by now. You have a good concept, a decent initial rendering, and a high level of dedication. Regardless, there will be multiple major revamps before this is quenched, so doing one now might draw the attention you need.

Best,
Laci

The trees are definitely going to be an issue. For starters, there should be more tall ones than short ones, and they should be clustered rather than evenly spaced.

I would recommend getting in touch with TaCktiX to see how he did his trees for the Citadel map. They were changed like a zillion times, but turned out awesome.

L