San Francisco

never mind you already did... and sorry but I don't understand your capitals thingy...it's confusing...

http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/5293/sanfrancisco9jpeg.jpg

well the capitals are 2-3-4p the first square, 5-6-7 the second, 8 and 9 on the bottom... but probably it still needs changes.

Butters, very small thing to mention... "San" is not centered over "Francisco".

Could you try a different font on the minimap? It looks like it could be even better. Im not really sure, it looks so empty :S

oops sorry I didn't see your explanation (add green/red/yellow/etc.)

OK I finished everything! Here is the final version: http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/9269/sanfrancisco10.jpg

Here is a standardize version of the caps that The_bishop suggested. Click on the image to zoom to it's full size. http://dominating12.com/forums/Map_Creation_Forum_Images/San%20Francisco%20Capitals.jpg So far I have looked at 2 and 3 player. 2 is great and 3 is OK. In the 3 player setup, Redwood City is a slightly better cap. I will try and evaluate the rest of them tomorrow. Anyone's help with evaluating is appreciated. 2p - Vallejo, Redwood City 3p - Noe Valley, Tassajara, Redwood City 4p - San Francisco, Walnut Creek, Livermore, Millbrae 5p - Noe Valley, Danville, Tassajara, Ashland, Redwood City 6p - move from Tassajara to Brentwood, add Vallejo 7p - add Niles 8p - Pacific Heights, Richmond, Moraga, Bay Point, Livermore, Freemont, Atherton, San Bruno 9p - Bolinas, Vallejo, Antioch, San Ramon, San Leandro, San Jose, Redwood City, Half Moon Bay, Hunters Point

The Alcatraz name tag is missing

I have messaged Pntbttr about Alcatraz. Well, I have had a chance to finish reviewing The_Bishop's cap suggestions. They are mostly good but I recommend changing 4,5, and 9p completely. This image shows my 4, 5, and 9 player suggestions on the top and The_Bishop's on the bottom: http://dominating12.com/forums/Map_Creation_Forum_Images/San%20Francisco%20Capitals%20New%20vs%20Old.jpg [b][size=14]4 Player[/size][/b] [b]Problem:[/b] San Francisco is not a good capital because it blocks a bridge preventing others from using it. This makes it highly unlikely that walnut creek could kill Baywood first. It also means that if walnut creek wanted to take it's region then it would be stacking next to the San Francisco's cap. There's no reason on a map of this size to have two cap's regions next to each other on 4 player. 4p caps are best when all the caps are equally spaced and all 4 caps can kill each other from their caps. I don't think that it's possible on this map to have all the caps equally far apart from each other because of the Bay. But with my proposal none of the caps could be considered a crappy cap. they all have their own advantage. [b]Proposal:[/b] Lakeshore, Atherton, Livermore, Berkeley Lakeshore is a good cap because it has a shorter 4 hop path to Berkeley, there are two long paths to Livermore, and there are 4 ways out of the cap. It's disadvantage is that if it takes it's region then it blocks the path to Berkeley. Atherton is a good cap because there are two paths to Livermore, there are also 4 ways out of the cap. But there is only one 8 hop path to Berkeley. It can however take it's region without blocking paths to any of the caps. Livermore has 4 ways out, two paths to Atherton, two long paths to Lakeshore and an easily defensible region. However, if it takes it's region then it blocks it's path to Berkeley. Berkeley has a shorter 4 hop path to Lakeshore and 5 ways out of the cap. It only has one long path to Atherton but it can take it's region and not block any paths to make up for it. [b][size=14]5 Player[/size][/b] [b]Problem:[/b] Noe Valley and Redwood City are too far apart. There was no way to get them closer together without moving the caps to the borders. [b]Proposal:[/b] Lakeshore, Berkeley, Clayton, Sunol, Woodside. Each cap has two that are 4 hops away and the rest are 7-8 hops away. Except Sunol and Woodside are 5 hops away from each other because they have two attack paths to get to each other so making them farther apart balances it out better. Also notice how my suggestions are in a nice pentagon shape. [b][size=14]6-8 Player[/size][/b] 6p has the same problem as 5p with Redwood City being far from Noe Valley but it's not as big of a deal because Noe valley has Vallejo nearby and Tassajara was moved to Brentwood making it one hop closer to Redwood City. The only way to make it more balanced would be to move the caps to the borders but since we have already done that on 4 and 5 player, I'd rather not do it for 6 player. 7p is more balanced than 6p because the addition of Niles makes the distance between Noe valley and Redwood City not matter at all. 8p is fine. [b][size=14]9 Player[/size][/b] [b]Problem:[/b] In 9p Antioch is too far away and 6 of the caps only have 2 ways out of their cap. At this point placing caps on borders isn't as important. There are plenty of players around to break regions and in increasing card games the game will be over not long after someone actually takes a region. So I suggest a different setup that spaces the caps out better. The first priority is always spacing. Having caps not on borders is 4th on the priority list from the guide. In an increasing card 9 player game regions aren't going to matter at all. It will come down to the cards, so again, spacing is most important. [b]Proposal:[/b] Marin City, Richmond, Moraga, Diablo State Park, Dublin, Niles, Redwood City, San Mateo, Portola. With my proposal all the caps have 2 caps that are 3 hops away and at least 3 ways out of their cap. Redwood City and Niles are not on borders like the rest, but like I said, spacing is more important than regions at this point and this is the only way I could think of to get them all spaced out perfectly. Here is a link to an image that shows all the cap placements with my suggestions replacing The_Bishop;s for 4, 5 and 9 player. http://dominating12.com/forums/Map_Creation_Forum_Images/San%20Francisco%20Capitals2.jpg

I like Vexer's proposals, specially the case of 9 players, mine was not so good. This map is not so easy because it has got a strange shape. I think a mapmaker should decide the capitals when he plans a map and eventually modify it for getting a good capitals placement or just decide to not use it for capitals game. Btw the general idea is to use every map. [b]- 4 players.[/b] I know San Francisco blocks one bridge, but Livermore also blocks a very important passage way. [b]- 5 players.[/b] Noe Valley and Redwood City are far but they have a double-lane road. My placement shape really is a bit ugly. I like those placements for 4 and 5 players but I don't dislike mines. I would like the possibility to implement multiple solutions when it is possible, then the program (every time a game starts) makes a random selektion of one of the possible placements. Btw Vexer's solutions look better than mine for filling better the map and getting equal distances. I agree to change 4, 5 and 9 players.

OK we changed the capitals to my suggestions. This map is now beta.

Hi all, sorry to come so late to the party... This is a good looking map, but there are a number of errors that I would like to point out, along with possible solutions. The easiest one is the spelling of FREMONT. Named after John C. Fremont. Next, there are many locations that are, shall we say, mixed up. I assume it is a bit of work to change the shapes, so as a suggestion perhaps some of the names could change. For example, San Jose is not in the East Bay, and actually would be below the southern edge of this map. Perhaps change the name of San Jose to Milpitas. If changing names is easy, then while not perfect, things would be improved by changing Baywood to San Mateo, change the existing San Mateo to Millbrae, change Millbrae to SFO (the airport), change Oyster Point to South San Francisco ("the Industrial City"). In San Francisco County, change Lakeshore to Sunset District, and change San Francisco to Downtown. You could even consider adding a territory half way across the Bay Bridge called Treasure Island. Across the Golden Gate in Marin County, Marin City should be simply Marin. But if you wanted to add a territory, the west side of Marin could be Marin Headlands, and the east side could be Tiburon. You could even add Angel Island if you so desired. On the North Edge of the map, if you don't want to add Suisun Bay, then a couple territories that are "over the bridges" would need to change names. Vallejo could change to Pinole or to San Pablo. But Benicia won't be so easy. In fact, much of the East Bay will be tricky. For one thing, there is no waterway from the Bay to the San Ramon Valley that then travels north to Concord. This of course, changes the game play, so not sure if you want to tackle that, or just stick to renaming. Some of those territories are somewhat reversed, for example, Alamo should be between Walnut Creek and Danville. And Brentwood should be East of Clayton. Some extra thought will need to go into the names if the territories are not redrawn. And as a footnote, if you do decide to remove that waterway, there is a mountain barrier that runs parallel, but to the West, that would make a perfect impassable line. Also, since Alameda is an island, the location now called Alameda could be Oakland Hills, San Leandro could become Alameda, and Ashland could become San Leandro. And Sequoyah could become Castro Valley. To be perfect, the boundaries would need to be adjusted, but it would be an improvement just changing the names. *whew* sorry, that's quite a list I've made... I am happy to give more input, or... you can ask me to stay away if you'd rather, lol... Merry Christmas... -Robinette

Wow Robinette, sounds like you are familiar with the area.!

[quote=Crystal - Dec 25, 10:13 PM]Wow Robinette, sounds like you are familiar with the area.! [/quote] Oh yeah, i drive all over the bay area... i even know most of the backroads :)