Sol System Map

Whoops... Sorry, I forgot I need Vexer's permission for that. In these days I tend to skip over the procedures, I don't know exactly why. So I am planning to make a new post to explain better which changes I want to do and why, also showing some images. Just as I have the time, be patient please.

I love so much this map for its gameplay and nice looking and also artistic representation of the Solar system different from every other I ever seen. But still there is something not finalized at best in my opinion. First of all... Why "under the sun" there is no connection line between Asia and N.A.? I think back in this thread someone already asked, but there was so many inputs, Cbt got stressed and the thread confusing and he simply answered, if I am not wrong, that there was not enough place to draw that line. Really don't we need to draw the line exactly where the Bering strait is, the line can easy pass trough the Arctic ocean connecting for example Greenland and Siberia. I cannot see any hindrance. As a gameplay the change is minimal but it can be a faster way from Venus to Neptune and also it can reduce a bit the internal bottleneck effect in the green region where you are forced to go through Asia if you want to move from Earth to Moon. As a representation, would be surely good. I mean in most of maps America and Asia seem distant, here we can see the Earth in 3D as it actually is with its roundness but the connection is missing. I don't know let me know your feelings guys but personally every time I see this map I feel like that line is missing, like it is supposed to be there but someone forgot to draw it. Well and the second subject is about some small capital adjustement as I did mention before. But wait I prefer to discuss the subjects once at a time.

Before anyone posts feedback, here is the map for reference: [spoiler=Solar System][img]http://www.dominating12.com/image/map/48.large.jpg[/img][/spoiler]

I could definitely see just changing it from NA/Europe to NA/Asia. If you put in the NA/Asia line, I think the NA/Europe line should be taken out. I don't think there'd be any issue with not having enough space there. I've always thought that was a bit odd myself. But I also don't think it's a HUGE deal.

I actually do think it's quite a huge deal, considering the last game Naathim and I just lost on this map. The point was that Fendi had an easy starting shot at the neptune region, which was very hard to reach from Venus. With this extra line it will be only one hop less, but it'll be quite a significant one for 2 player games, where one extra territory (especially it it's neutral) can make quite a difference. So I do think it will affact gameplay. However, I do think it's an improvement (just be sure to check if distances between caps still match).

[quote=Matty]So I do think it will affact gameplay. However, I do think it's an improvement (just be sure to check if distances between caps still match). [/quote] 7, 8 and 9 player caps should be retouched a bit and I am study the matter, the others can stay, no distances affected.

Well, to resume the subject: I am proposing to add a North America to Asia connection like this: [img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/FromTo_zpsmwyegss6.png[/img] Naathim said a partial Yes but he also proposed to remove the connection to Europe, I don't know exactly why. Matty expressed full agreement but asked to firstly check how it affect the distance between the capitals. I cannot see any special problems from 2 to 6 player capitals. But the problems begin with 7 and higher where both Dark Side and North America are set as capitals. With the change in place they only are 2 hops distant rather than 3 like the other caps. Since I am proposing the possible adjustments. [spoiler=For 8 players the change is minimal:][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/8capsChange_zpslpsj709v.png[/img][/spoiler] 7 and 9 require to be modified a bit more, since I show them with double image: [spoiler=FROM][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/79capsNow_zpspre2nzg1.png[/img][/spoiler][spoiler=TO][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/79capsNew_zpsort6wx3g.png[/img][/spoiler] Really there are already 2 caps 2 hops distant in the 9 players placement. They need to be adjusted as well. My proposal also means to that.

I have made the graphic changes ready in case you wish to procede with the game-play changes. We will of course need to check with Vexer & Fendi that they are okay with us changing things on this map. Whilst I was adding a connection line, I made a change to the moon perspective, which was facing the wrong way and has been bugging me for a very long time. I couldn't get it where it needed to be without major changes to the map, but at least it is closer this way. It has not affected game-play or ability for a Circle & Cap placement. I also cleaned up some stray pixels and gaps on Earth. [spoiler=Amended Solar System][img]http://www.the-inkstore.co.uk/map_resources/Solar_System.png[/img][/spoiler]

The problem with making changes after the map is out of beta is that no one expects changes. This will affect all the games being played. There are three options. 1. Make a new map and deactivate the old (we did this with falkland islands) 2. Deactivate the map until all the current games are done and end the pending games before they start, then make the changes and reactivate the map. 3. Make the changes and watch the games being played to see if anyone is negatively impacted by the change and offer them their points back if they lose. Right now there are 3 games being played and 1 pending. I'd prefer not to have a duplicate map in the database. It's up to you to decide which option, 2 or 3 will be less disruptive. Let me know what you to decide and I'll either tell you when there are no more active games on the map or I'll give you the games you need to watch.

Thanks Aeronautic, you are always so... ready! I like how you rotated the Moon, maybe Dark Side should be a tiny bit darker, just my thought. And thanks Vexer for allowing this change to happen. I would say that the option #3 is feasible: if you give us the game ID's we'll type an alert message in the game-chat in advance. It doesn't seem to be a such a huge change to compromise the games, but Matty gave an example where the difference was crucial. Since I'm available to monitor the game in progress and block them in case of unfairness or complaints. In case I'll also advice them to do one (or more) F5 refresh to be sure they visualize the new version of the map. I would prefer to change the caps first and then the image, to avoid anyone starting the game with the new version and the old caps. Possibly all together but at any second someone can start a new game. And I had also the desire to adjust some other capital placement, for 2, 3 and 6 players. Also in this case the changes are minimal but important. I wanted type a long speech to explain what and why but while we organize the new version input I begin just showing some images. For 2 capitals I would avoid to use a territory like Western Belt (Jupiter) with 7 adjacences, I prefer Jupiter Minor with 4, one more of his African opponent. The latter has the advantage of the easier region, but he dosn't indirectly control any borders of it. Jup. Minor control 2 of his 4 borders. Paths scheme is good with 3 possible attack lanes, not completely separeted though. [spoiler=2 Caps][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/SSr2Caps_zpsmpxzlqpw.png[/img][/spoiler] For 3 capitals I would like something looking nicer. Since I propose this one, just moving all caps 1 hop from the current position. The paths scheme is excellent because every one has two different ways to reach each of his opponent. And every one has a bit of path overloading in one side. And there is a sort of compensation, tha cap in the smaller region has 3 adjacences, the average has 4, the one in the larger region has 5. [spoiler=3 Caps][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/SSr3Caps_zpsm3qvej1w.png[/img][/spoiler] For 6 capitals I just want them to be all internal, one per region, like in this image. A bit ugly, sorry. All distanced exactly 4 hops from the neighbour caps and 6 or 7 from the non-neighbours. All with 2 ways out only. Neptune seems to have a good control on the region borders since I want at least one other with same conditions, in this case is Aphrodite. A very slight invisible difference with the new connection in place [spoiler=6 Caps][img]http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/SSr6Caps_zpsxkvskpfn.png[/img][/spoiler] It's cool as this map has a low connectivity at local level, but still is highly connected in the wide. being easy to run from one side to the other. Finally I think I said all I wanted to say!

[quote=Vexer - Mar 30, 01:12 AM]3. Make the changes and watch the games being played to see if anyone is negatively impacted by the change and offer them their points back if they lose.[/quote] I would vote for this one as well, and agree with the changes proposed by Aeronautic and His Eminence. P.S. That difference in background quality again, Aero's version is soooo much better. It just hurts me to know that the final image will be worse again :'(

The image of the moon. Please allow me to explain, I was restricted in turning it darker, as cbt711 did originally, which enhances the detail in the Dark Side, as well as the planet shadow having the opposite effect, as when he first made this he was not as much aware of perspective and flattened the dark and light areas. Then the game-play was established around it, which meant when I came to changing it, I physically couldn't get the correct perspective of light and shade without changing a lot of the map. Simply darkening the Dark Side territory, even in this perspective would give the wrong perspective of light angles. This will actually bug me until the day I get a chance to completely overhaul this map.

Thanks Matty, I love when you call me that way! I cannot find a similar noble name for you, sorry. Both versions are aeronautic's versions really, since I cannot understand your point... Do you think it is better or worse? @Aeronautic - I got your point but every eye is struck by different things. Your eye saw the wrong perspective and wrong lights that didn't disturb me so much; my eye sees that in the new version all the territories of the region are a very different greens, but the two on the moon are very similar. By the way it was a "just-saying" sentence, I am confident in your graphic capability, don't listen to me in that department. Making a comparison right now, the new Moon is graphically much better than the older one by Cbt. Then feel free to adjust colours as you think is best.

To be honest, it would be better to make the Dark Side the brighter colour, because it will then have shadow that can be seen keeping the correct perspective and so not give the illusion that the territory line is the actual divider for the dark side of the moon, merely a territory divider. The problem is apparent in your example image, the actual shadow and the dark side darkened territory are virtually at 90 degrees to each other. This is a lot to compensate.

Your Eminence: I mean the difference between the version that is currently live and the version that is a direct upload from Aero's PSD file, see also [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&act=view&id=1483&page=10#post-20680]my post here[/url] and [url=http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&act=view&id=1483&page=10#post-20685]Aero's response here[/url]. Also, isn't it possible to rotate the texture (or shadow?) of the moon? Than you can align it with the territory divider. I also like to have two different colours, and making the dark side darker seems somewhat logic to me from a naming perspective :) Not saying that I know so much of this, and yes, I know that in comparison with the sun it's rotated weirdly, but for gameplay purposes that's a good thing.