Dante's Inferno

Sorry Clarke, but I don't fit that last definition of yours, and to be honest I don't like that definition. Please ask V98, naathim and some others about it. Aero, Bishop, cbt (formerly) and I have commented in almost every map in a constructive way. Fendi has little to no time and still gives her opinion about almost finished maps and we all try to improve everyone else's job. But we won't be giving false hopes to things that we think won't work. I didn't comment to this map because I don't understand it very well. I think Inferno eventually would play like this: each player owns 1 or 2 regions and stacks on R B G V H L F I A with three territories to farm cards from. In short, a bigger Brethren Coast old edition. I am sorry but I don't think that it is an interesting gameplay. If I had come up with a better idea for the map I would have commented it, but didn't. I have thought outside the box a few times. I don't think that non-geographical maps don't work. I have designed a Tetris map, or London Underground map, but I don't publish everything I make so you didn't have the chance to see them. The only thing I want to say is about labeling. Why Hades 1, 2, 3. Hell has a whole lot of names. Not going further, Hades, Tartarus, Dis as suggested by Ultrasplot would be also valid, more research would result in more accurate names. About the meaning of the map, I am pragmatic. I don't care about the topic. If it offends someone, it's up to the map maker to fix it, if he feels like it's needed (like it happened to the Balkan map). It would be possible to find another topic fitting the 9 regions.

I'm sorry to say this, but although it looks absolutely incredible, I agree with Psymon. It is undeniable that this map would have the most extreme gameplay out of all the maps on this site (except arguably Saturn, which is itself a fairly unpopular map) and also the most extreme graphics out of all the maps on this site. Also, some people are opposed to the theme. All three of these aspects will mean opposition throughout the map-making process for you. Therefore I would recommend pursuing this map any further - it will probably end with a lot of time wasted. Remember Fendi has to give the go-ahead to any new map, and I'm not sure that she would embrace such extreme graphics onto this site. That is my recommendation. I do love this map, it looks incredible! But with the opinions of the people generally set against it, you will probably struggle to progress with the map. Also, I disagree with your statement that mapmakers want to be in an exclusive club - we are all for new map and map makers. What you need to consider is the fact that many of us faced rejected maps of our own before making a map that made it all the way (myself included). We understand the pain that comes with your creation being underappreciated. But I am speaking honestly when I say that I simply don't think this map will be successful in the long run, and I don't want to see you wasting your time on it.

Not that I dislike the idea, but when practically used it doesn't really happen... cbt's Anchor Bay was a perfectly balanced 2p/4p/8p caps map yet it is not often used for 4p caps simply because it is too balanced. (also, since it could be argued that low connectivity is the cause, Saturn is not the map of choice either.) It seems that 4p caps typically uses GBR / Dominican R., two maps which are decently fair with cap positions but are not geometrically identical. Brethren Coast (pre-rebalance) was a similar situation - win by round two or never win at all (3p). However, that has been remedied with the extra connections. Theoretically speaking, several maps stalemate much more often than others: [list] [li]Caribbean (3p)[/li] [li]Pre-rebalance Brethren Coast (3p)[/li] [li]Anchor Bay (4p)[/li] [/list] What do all of these maps have in common in caps? [b]Easily held and defended regions.[/b] Mathematically, this means card values do not ascend fast enough to make killing a player worth it. Let us take a normal 6p game on World Classic, for example: Round 1: start 13, +3, fortify 2, no card - 18 Round 2: start 18, +3, card from elsewhere - 21 Round 3: start 21, +3, card from elsewhere - 24 Round 4: start 24, +3, -1 card - 26 Round 5: start 26, +3, no card - 29 Round 6: start 29, +3, -1 card - 31 Round 7: start 30, +3, + 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, or 15 set, -1 card = 37 - 48 troops after first turn in. Double turn in value will be at 45, therefore most of the players on the board will be worth killing for two sets. However, on this map: Round 1: start 12, +3, kill two 3's to take home region (-4 and -2 (terit) avg), fortify 2 - 11 (this is theoretically safe unless someone else dropped with a region) Round 2: start 11, +5, -1 card - 15 Round 3: start 15, +5, -1 card - 19 Round 4: start 19, +5, -1 card - 23 Round 5: start 23, +5, no card - 28 Round 6: start 28, +5, + 4,6,8,10,12, or 15 set, -1 card - 37-48 troops after first turn in. Same as above. Let us progress further however: in one round when everyone is ready to turn in again: With 40-53, the theoretical 40, 42 caps are worth killing to at last some. With 42-53, only the 42 cap is worth killing, and the 42 cap [u]should be the one to turn in first.[/u] This leads to a potential stalemate later on, as any worthwhile kills will not lead to a wipe of the board and rather to, put simply, 1 less player and another which is some 20-30 troops ahead. [b]Thusly, easy bonuses are statistically unhealthy for capitals games.[/b] Any troop bonus per turn (over 4) will lead to a much easier stalemate with 6 players (it is even simpler with 3 players - on all but the most extreme maps 3 player capitals should stalemate with 3 excellent players and no dice shenanigans). This brings me to the following point: [u]remove[/u] territory bonuses (bad for deathmatch) or [u]include[/u] connection lines between sin regions (bad for the perfect balance). I therefore suggest that the perfect balance be removed and connection lines be added. [b]tl;dr: Perfect balance along with easy bonuses in capitals is unhealthy for the game.[/b]

I also don't think we are trying to be exclusive or deliberately obtuse. I believe we each in our own way offer a constructive response with helpful advice and tips. It is hard to tell a person that even though they have just spent many hours creating what they think is a masterpiece that they should have suggested the map with words only in Map Suggestion thread and if it gets a negative response, not to spend their valuable time creating it, because it's doubtful it will be used here. My first map was called 88mm Battery Map and if you look through the Map Creation threads, it has a (Discontinued) in front of it. I must point out that this is rare and was my choice. I believe I was being realistic about it in asking for it to be marked this way. The reason was, I put many more hours into this map than any other, but I just went ahead and made it assuming that because I thought it was a great idea and looked great, that D12 would use it. However, every single response was something like, "looks great, but special game play will not be allowed here". I knew I had no way of convincing the cartographers and map helpers so I asked the staff to discontinue it so that nobody would even waste time looking at it and possibly trying to resurrect it. I think you'll also be aware of personal time & research being given to individuals above and beyond what is required of us, which means we will bend over backward to try to help and will always endeavour to advise the map maker in how to make changes that will help to get the map published as a D12 game map. We are not an exclusive club, we were chosen by our strengths and we currently have an awesome Cartographer team here at your disposal. Call on the services of this team and watch what can be achieved!!!

@ULTRASPLOT: Is this what you had in mind for the center area? [IMG]http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e277/Richard_B_Clarke/D12%20Maps/DantesInfernovIII_zps6afb93b2.jpg[/IMG] This is a rough draft, please no comments yet about regions, bonuses, etc... Just wanted to see if I incorporated Ultrasplot's suggestions properly.

Yep Clarke, looks at least playable now with more card farm spots! ;)

I will work on improving this version now.

Please use the tutorial for embedding map images in your post, people with smaller monitors have to scroll to read the text. http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=1995&page=2#post-29849 Please also consider the general sentiment of the responders to this map thread and its theme. There is still plenty of time to change things. Some maps look nothing like their original concept and sometimes develop into something that pleases the whole community. I will use Italia as an example: 1st image post: http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=1450 16th image post: http://www.dominating12.com/forum/?cmd=topic&id=1450&page=11#post-27761 That is 16 major changes of many hours on each.

I can see several issues with this map, most of them which have already been mentioned but there are still some that have gone unnoticed, for instance, you have the 4-corners problem on several places. The white, green, light blue, red, blue, purple, black and yellow regions all possess that, you need to make it more clear which territory can attack which. The glow effect that you have on the coloured regions is disturbing and is making it hard to actually look at the map. The game-play in my opinion is bad, I'd rather not have any maps here at the site with game-play like this or even close to it. I don't know what you can do to improve it but please know that you can't have it like this. What PsymonStark, aeronautic and The_Bishop saying is true. If you are unwilling to follow the cartographers advise/ guidelines then you will only be wasting your time working on a map that will never be active on the site. We are not closed minded here at the site, but we do however strive for high quality maps and yours I'm afraid will not reach the standards if you continue to ignore what we have to say. If you look at the maps we have here then you can see a pattern, it may not be visible but it is there and that pattern is simple, clean, classic style (some maps are an exception) and that's what fits here on the site. Edit: I stand corrected, the 4-corners problem has already been mentioned before but Clarke has done nothing to correct it.

You missed a detail Fendi, but I don't think it will change your opinion. I mentioned the 4-corners problem but Clarke did put a legend that say that [i]"all territories are connected inside the colored regions"[/i]. But then those regions have weirdly no shape, that was the problem for me. The last version seems to be a tiny better, at least the entries of the "Australian fringes" are not bordering. But there the 4 corners problem appeared also in the middle of the map. Since we have to consider all the territories connected also in the white regions? So we'd have all the regions with no shape and once again the entries would be bordering. It doesn't work. I tried by my self to draw circular connections but it doesn't really works fine for a non-multiple of 3 number of caps. But even if the game-play can be adjusted, basically I agree with Fendi and I am glad she said that: classic style maps are more likely welcome.

I have informed Clarke about that... he's shifting the central circle over half a terit. ;)

[spoiler][IMG]http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e277/Richard_B_Clarke/D12%20Maps/DantesInfernovIV_zps6fb4d91f.jpg[/IMG][/spoiler] This is my final post/draft of Dante's Inferno since Fendi said it will never be approved no matter what. I just wanted to show Ultrasplot what I came up with based on his input/advice. I like it and wish it could be beta tested, but alas it is not meant to be... Well back to the drawing board, literally, lol!!!

Aww... it might have worked, but the odds were against it... maybe hood can plug this into his fancy program? :P