Zealandia AD 202020

A Fantasy map - Name pending 8 regions & 104 territories. Very large map category. recommended 6-9 players created in the map dabble - [url=]https://dominating12.com/forums/3/map-creation/1803/map-dabble/post/58855#post-58855here[/url] in time of the covid-19 pandemic. The theme is Earth in 18,000+ years as a result of teutonic plate shifts / global warming / asteroids hit?? There's also a fun take on it with [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW_cxXXPUic]NZ's[/url] land shape still in tact as it was once distorted or left off the map now vice versa. NZ was once a mystery/myth but clearly it's not! The world is forming back into a supercontinent (pangaea)... [spoiler=Earth 20200][img]https://i.imgur.com/tGv3nmY.jpg[/img][/spoiler] [url=https://i.imgur.com/tGv3nmY.jpg]100% view[/url]

the [url=https://dominating12.com/assets/img/maps/82.large.jpg]map[/url] has been input for some gameplay testing. done a few changes..there was a name double up..did some pixel clean up. added another connection between Asal - Wawasan (purple area) for better movement for caps gameplay. recalculated the bonuses and changed the purple area from 6 to 5 capitals selection testing - there will be better options, so all feedback welcomed. here is an [url=https://i.imgur.com/HZDXy07.png]adjacent image[/url]. numbers show how many territories are adjacent. yellow = bordered territories. green = positions which can be moved passed a cap. Game 1009492 2 players Game 1009493 3 players Game 1009494 4 players Game 1009497 5 players Game 1009498 6 players Game 1009499 7 players Game 1009505 8 players Game 1009506 9 players

You really need the map critics to scan the map for anomalies and game-play. In my opinion, graphics wise, it's a very credible and fitting map for D12. You've done a great job on developing it.

I know that some map critics don't like when a map is in the final stages when it is first submitted as a thread, but this map has undergone a lot of changes and development in Hood's Map Dabble thread prior to getting here. I understand that it gives the impression that no input opportunity was given in its development, but it was open for input right the way through its creation & development. It's not for me alone to decide if a map is ready for play, so any feedback at all will help it get there?

I think one of me main criticisms is how uniform the map looks. There aren't really any recognisable landmasses or features, which makes the map a bit hard to quickly scan for the structure of the map. That uniformity in the map also shows up in the region bonuses, which are all 5-8. All regions are large, meaning that in any game with ~4 players or more, region play starts becoming really unlikely. If you look at the GB map for example, I think that's a good example of a combination of larger landmasses separated by larger bodies of water, which regions of varying size (including super regions that become amazing when held together). I think for those reasons, the map won't be very popular. People tend to prefer real/recognisable locations over functional maps anyway, and I think the lack of some really exceptional features will cause this map to fall by the wayside. That would really be a shame, because Hoodlum, I think you did an amazing job on the graphics on this map. It looks absolutely stunning. I think to improve the map, the changes I would make are: 1. Move the continents around so they're a bit more grouped rather than spread evenly, to give the map a more natural look. 2. Add some smaller regions that allow more region play in games with larger player numbers. I'm not a big expert in map making, but I didn't want to leave this gorgeous looking map without any feedback :)

I played it on capitals and I was confused. I think a lot of what Cireon says is true. This doesn't mean that people won't play it, however. I feel that I didn't know where to start and with large regions I think it would come down to card turn in for the victory. But I do like how you are able to do what you do Hood.

I think that the problem here is that one idea was melded with another and so there was no original thought to the current title, therefore the rest of the land beside NZ is not recognisable. I and probably Hood, kept a 'tongue in cheek' approach to this, but it appears that to give a map such a title and to keep NZ intact, we need a bit more realism and perhaps use breakaway lands from existing countries and islands?? If this map is to change to achieve the valued support of map enthusiasts and seasoned players, I know that this is well within Hoods abilities and imagination. Here are some suggestions: Keep NZ centre map and keep the original native names already used. Keep some original names all over the map. e.g. in the west would be a breakaway from Oz, perhaps NSW & Victoria and Tasmania, with most of the recognisable shape still intact. Indonesia in the NW could have the islands bunched together, again keeping mostly recognisable names and territory shapes, just no water between the islands. Papua New Guinea to the North perhaps broken in two. Group a lot of the Pacific islands in the East (East North East), perhaps under China's control ( [url=https://www.ifri.org/en/debates/rise-china-pacific-islands-strategic-threat-or-economic-opportunity]Reference[/url] ), keep most of the recognisable names, but give the Group Region a Chinese name. Keep the symbols idea to signify the new nations created by land movement. Land wouldn't move very much in 18,000 years so perhaps use a more balanced and possibly realistic title "Earth 202020", as it keeps the map creation year theme intact and suggests a very distant future. Design the map to have some easier regions to conquer and hold to increase it's popularity. Keep the overall colour scheme and general look as everything is aesthetically balanced.

Perhaps it's too much to expect such dramatic changes to an already good looking and balanced map, purely on it's lack of realism? If so, let's consider the map as it stands and whether or not players and critics could enjoy the game-play without the realism, as a fictional war map?

Yes basically it's a fictional map, and I agree with Aero that it would be better as "Earth 202020", not only a bit more realistic but also more funny/appealing. The look is amazing and 104t is a very welcome size for a very large map. Game-play is surely different from other maps of same size (Texas and Atlantis), so it's good for me. Personally I have nothing against this nice archipelago shaped large regions based game-play. It will be less popular? Maybe it won't be an every day map, or maybe will, who knows... Every map can be good for some settings and less good for some others. I see this one probably more ideal for few players that want to play on a very large battlefield, but not bad also for a large number of players. Definitely a map where you don't get regions for free! I would like to do some more tests if possible. We only tested capitals for now. As for the bonuses, I know they are calculated using Vexer's formula but I think it doesn't work very well for large regions, especially on a map which is large region only. So I think some bonuses should be raised of 1 point and in some cases even 2. If I calculate bonuses with my own system I get this result (in black) but you can also consider a middle way between mine and Vexer's (in red). [spoiler][img]https://i.ibb.co/hV1zsZV/202020-Bonuses.jpg[/img][/spoiler] Although I cannot say that leaving the bonuses as low they are it would be wrong, probably a game-play less focused on owning regions and more on achieving a strategical position. I'll trust the creator's feelings on that! ;) And then it must be tested... Tests I would like to do are: -- 4p Dom capped 40 (unlimited); -- 6p Caps increasing (again but chained this time); -- 8p DM increasing (chained). Am I authorized to beta-activate the map just for test purpose?

i will set up some test games.. as far as i'm aware of, all the adjacencies are input correctly, and the initial capitals selection seemed ok to start off as if beta. i've read through the gameplay suggestions. Some ideas would require a lot of work, because I didn't make it easy for editing, especially with the background, shore colouring highlights that give it the way it looks now, so separating some landmasses might butcher the current look and i might not pull off the same effect. many graphic effects are good accidents and forgotten how i did it, that is the case in this map as i experimented with a few different programs in this map, not just PDN which i have always used 100%. that being said, i can still try it but i would need to get some time and motivation :) had i known the map was heading toward a futuristic earth to begin with, i would of had some good ideas to play with draw wise, but as aero says, this took a 'tongue in cheek' approach with a doable edit adding NZ's shape where it can fit, and i found out how hard i made it for myself then when working with the background. as you make more maps, you learn to make it easier for yourself for this process. name changes, bonus changes are easy enough :)

Hood has a test program link somewhere in his Map Dabble thread. You can input it there.... in fact I think Hood has input it into the test program already, so it's best to talk to him. Oh Hood posted.

Okay: Hood, start the tests please!

I like the map as is, i think having only large areas is a welcome change with all the small area based maps.

[quote=Virtuosity98]I've stayed quiet on this map, not sure why, maybe it's because I hate saying when I don't like things... the map is a very fine piece of work! Graphically stunning! And it is definitely unique gameplay for this site. Having said that, I almost feel as if the regions are completely irrelevant - in increasing cards games by the time anyone has conquered 10+ territories to gain a region, everyone will have already turned in twice, making the card bonus very high. When the card bonus is 50+ by the time anyone holds a region, the regions have played a nonexistent role in the strategy of the game. For capped games, and especially fog capped games, the gameplay could be very good. I'm no expert in capped games though. Capitals could also be good on this map. Again, not my area of expertise. Personally I would advocate splitting every single region into two, in order to make regions viable. This would, however, require a massive graphical overhaul (on colours) and the nation symbols probably wouldn't fit if you needed to double their numbers (which would be a shame because they look cool). On another note, the theme is not meant to be taken seriously, but it does make it sound like the geography is based on scientific projections, when I'm guessing it's not haha[/quote] ^ from the map dabble thread ([url=https://dominating12.com/forums/3/map-creation/1803/map-dabble/post/59375#post-59375]link[/url]) I've been thinking a lot about this map. My comments about gameplay only applied to 7+ players, and only applied to increase cards games. Certain settings on this map could be really very nice. I'm thinking 2v2v2, 2v2 or even 1v1. Smaller Domination games, maybe 4 players could also work amazingly. Just a couple of examples. So actually I think the gameplay should remain more or less the same, perhaps tweaking the region bonuses. Thematically speaking, I still think it would be better with a change. Just the title really, I don't think it makes sense.

I agree it is good for capped cards, i like capped cards