just an idea
  • 315 posts
  • Page 8 of 21
Matty wrote:
Current version: http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/WD_08%20copy_zps77azzgdx.jpg

CBT's suggestion: http://www.bluemelon.com/photo/5675239.jpg

------------------------------------------------------

To be honest, I'm with CBT here. I think that his version will have better gameplay and will make the map more loved. I'm also more inclined to play his version than the other one, because having a few good to get regions is important.
Remember the awesome gamplay of that jungle map with no good region to get? No? Me neither.

I'm also with his Eminence to say that the lines are very long and that it looks counter intuitive and therefore we shouldn't take CBT's version.

However, I do think that we should not get the old version with three borders for SA. There might be other possibilities for the world double to have less annoying borders that do look a bit more natural.
Soo, to get the discussion going, here a proposal of me:
Take this version. Remove all connections to the brazils and add the venezuela-north africa connections as suggested by CBT.
Or view it in a picture

Note 1: This way there are only three connections between north and south, which is quite the chockepoint. So I added two more optional connections:
- Between aussie and mexico (as proposed by CBT, but then a bit less long, as I decided to keep aussie having three borders (and a +3 bonus).
- Between New zealand and the new territory in the america reigon: hawaii, which in itself is, of course, connected to all the other main bodies of states that are united.
I do suggest to either pick one of them, not both. So either the extra green connections or the extra blue connections.

Note 2: SA is the most important region to go through from north to south. And therefore no one will ever get it if it's only a +2 for defending three borders.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
aeronautic wrote:
I think Matty's suggestions are a good alternative to all and worth serious consideration.

If this is chosen as the way to go, I would go with the extra Green connection (Oz - Mexico) for a particular reason.

The other extra connection suggests a new territory (Hawaii) for North America and talking of a new territory... I have had reservations about the intuitiveness of Greenland on most world maps.
You'll see that, on CBT711's example, he put a yellow bridge across, connecting Greenland to Nunavut at Baffin Island.
This highlights the lack of intuitiveness without it and also that the gap is not only too big for natural connectivity, but also too big for a bridge. A connection line would also be no good at this point, because they are supposedly connected as 1 Territory, hence why Bishop is trying to suggest their connection with the "Greenland" stretched label.

Therefore I suggest no bridge & no stretched label, but a new territory Nunavut which is exactly where the word "Greenland" is sitting, then a small connection line to Greenland.

As it stands, Greenland is just not intuitive enough.

Connectivity of North America with Nunavut (click to show)
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
Matty wrote:
Oh, I didn't notice the greenland thing at all. Why do anything special there? Just do it like on world classic?
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
aeronautic wrote:
Because:
(1) World Classic is also not completely intuitive, I remember questioning the connection when I was new here.
(2) This map, even though less zoomed, has a more detailed outline and more geographic accuracy.

To just make Queens Islands in Nunavut touch Greenland would be to "spoil the ship for a hapeth (half penny) of tar".
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
The_Bishop wrote:
Thanks guys, I appreciate all this participation! I must say Matty's design is more interesting than Cbt's, but still I prefer this one for several reasons. So I keep this one as A plan, Matty's as B plan, and Cbt's as C plan. If the matter is only about connection lines then I can graphically realize all 3 and then people will decide. At this point I hope not to receive other proposals, as you can understand, there are thousands of possible arrangements of the connection lines: I cannot draw every combination. For example I could suggest Indonesia connected to Argentina_2 instead of India and W. Australia. It could stay, why not.

What I find more interesting in Matty's design is the green line between C. America and W. Australia_2, it's something I want to take the time to think if it is the case to add in this version. Hawaii would be ultra cool... But I exclude to add it: very small island, even with the high resolution, and it really goes too far from Classic. Same for Nunavut, I know it would help to solve the 'Greenland problem', but then, it is not World Classic anymore! My only exception is for New Zealand because it is large enough and so isolated in the ocean that is hard to deny it as a territory. It also provides a good connection for gameplay. I noticed both Cbt and Matty included that in their designs, so I think it's a point that we all 3 agree with.

Vexer - Apr 20, 02:15 AM
I am less opposed to new zealand being a territory but it should only become one if necessary for balancing bonuses or finding the best caps otherwise it's best to stick with what people know.
Basically I tend to have a similar attitude in the regard of connection lines, so I am not a fan of removing connections that actually exist in the World Classic map -- for example Brasil to N. Africa -- unless it is something extremely necessary, but in my opinion it is not. I believe we have several popular maps without 2 border regions, NYC and Balkans for example. Anyway don't compare this one with the Jungle of Despair please, you're mixing wine with water! The smallest region in there had 6 territories and the others were bigger, here we have 6 regions smaller than that or with equal size, so it's different. I'll never produce a map so boring as that one, trust me!

I also have some possible small adjustements/changes in gameplay to suggest, but for the moment I skip, as I wish to go ahead with the graphic developement. Hoping to be on top of it, really.

So here it's the new image: let's critic it, please! ;)

Previous WD_08 (click to show)
WD_09 Last (click to show)

What I did from previous:

- Fixed Kazakhstan_2 mispelling;
- Changed Mongolian Baiti font to Goodfish font; == (so good!)
- Adjusted Alberta and Alaska borders to look more 'reasonably cheated';
- Given equal colours and textures to both Worlds;
- Reduced the raising of the mini-map;
- Given white text to the mini-map; == (would try different but Goodfish is so beautiful!)
- Created double title with up-down inverted words mirrored rightside-left.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
cbt711 wrote:
I've said my opinion. :D do with it what you want. Just not a fan of:
Africa and Europe being the EXACT same gameplay;
S. America having more borders than bonus;
N. America being way too easily held for a bonus of 5 in an 80 territory map. Not just 3 borders only, but they each only touch ONE other territory.
That's just too easy and imbalanced considering S. America is HARDER to hold with two bordering territories for Brazil and Argentina. K, I'm done.

Sorry Bishop - you did great work here, I just don't get the connections and that's all.
The_Bishop wrote:
Oh Jesus, before Psymon saying it... I just realized the Lower World colours and textures are misplaced 1 pixel to the right, I don't know exactly why. I'm adjusting it sorry.
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
The_Bishop wrote:
@Cbt, I cannot understand what problem you have with two regions having the "EXACT" same gameplay.
Then it is not exact at all, don't you see Africa has 1 territory less, and also an easier shape to begin and complete the conquest? Definitively Africa is a bit easier compared to Europe.

I agree with North America bonus being a bit too high, I'm happy you said it!
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
The_Bishop wrote:
WD_09 - Fixed - (click to show)
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
Matty wrote:
Sorry, but I really think your plan A ruins the map.
You say: "people should stick with what they know" - Well they know that South America is a good region to keep, just like aussie. Well, aussie got an extra territory (just like in World modified, but this time the other island group).

But they also got a lot of other borders that weren't there previously, and because all the regions that were safe in the south are now suddenly the hotline connection between one side of the map and the other, the whole gameplay of world classic suddenly is turned upside down (no pun intended).

The reason why I made my suggestion was because I really think CBT had a good point. Just the wrong connection lines (too long, though good gameplay). So I suggested some others, which are ok, but not decided upon. Probably the Hawaii idea was a bad one, because, another NA territory and another new border, so yeah, dump it and go for the Central america conenction to west aussie.

So yeah, lots of changes from the ye olde world map and a double world map. Safe territories are borders all of a sudden, loads of new conenctions, so why not get rid of one old conenction? It will increase the gameplay a lot I think.


Sorry for not commenting on your graphics right now, but I think the gameplay is more important now.
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
PsymonStark wrote:
Yes, following the usual procedure, gameplay should be decided before making Bishop potentially waste more time on graphics.

I am more and more inclined to agree with Matty this time, basically because of the defensibility on South America (in both senses, # of borders and alternate N-S paths). It's quite difficult to keep many things and also preserve gameplay, because both SA and Oz are basically in the middle.

Even if it isn't that obvious either, I would suggest to change Argentina-India to Argentina-Middle East, to increase connectivity.

On graphics, I believe that SA colour needs a revision, and would space up the labels (widening the space between letters).
Living proof that everyone can be a brilliant great good decent cartographer.
aeronautic wrote:
I have to agree with Matty, there is no way we can adhere to World Classic connections and defensibility due to the need for connections from each world and there is very little opportunity for people to stick with what they know, therefore this map should have its own unique connections and I believe that Matty's suggestion is an inspired upgrade on cbt's suggestion.

Matty's suggestion also covers cbt's concerns about North America, this region is the most isolated on the map and the easiest to defend and is worth 5 bonus, but Matty's connections make it a little less prospective.

Psymon
I would suggest to change Argentina-India to Argentina-Middle East, to increase connectivity.
This also improves the game-play, or at least the balance and connectivity of the map.

I jumped ahead to see the effect on Capitals with all discussed versions of connections and with Matty's version + Psymon's addition, the 9p Capital placements are far better connected and evenly spaced.

As Psymon pointed out, let's make sure that everyone is agreed on the best game-play before going too heavy into the graphics. As you know, this can make so much difference to the popularity of the map.

On the changes you've made so far;
The mini map looks better.
The labels font is better.
The Alberta border is far better.
I'm not fond of the title, but that can be worked on much later.
I agree with:
Psymon
On graphics, I believe that SA colour needs a revision, and would space up the labels (widening the space between letters).
Also, if you are not going to connect Greenland graphically nor add Nunavut with a connection line, I think you should (1) Make the Greenland label the same spacing as all other labels. (2) Move the Greenland label north to where it can touch Queens Islands & Greenland on both sides, acting like a bridge making it more obvious.

You must feel honoured that so many people are giving constructive feedback on your map, this is a sign of popularity and high interest.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
The_Bishop wrote:
Well, okay guys, the graphic job is suspended.

As for gameplay, basically you all have a similar idea but each of you is giving different inputs. Since I invite you or every body want to participate to draw the map exactly as you wish it should be. Including connection lines and possibly also the bonuses, so the design can be called complete.

I did really believe that we were on a good point with the game-play, but now I see that nobody liked it. It is not my design, it is from Clarke and a couple of minor adjustments proposed by Hoodlum and Vexer/Naathim. Maybe I will also propose one from mine.

Here a blank Wourld Double map for you to set up:
http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q700/Photo_Bishop/WD_Blank_zpsaqyhjqbc.png
«God doesn't play dice with the World» ~ Albert Einstein
aeronautic wrote:
The good thing about map development is that, even though quite frustrating at times, maps usually get better and better as new input is suggested.

I have no doubt that the early connection suggestions were mainly a need to find a feasible way of connecting the two worlds, which were absolutely fine, but with the ability to look at the connections in place, people see pitfalls and new options to improve on the connections.

Yes, make your own version of connections, you are very good at that, but bare in mind that other connections have been suggested now which seem to have minimal pitfalls and are quite popular amongst the map community. However, if anyone can improve on that, The_Bishop can.
Hyd yn oed er fy mod Cymraeg , dim ond yn siarad Saesneg, felly yr wyf yn gobeithio y bydd y cyfieithu yn gywir.
Matty wrote:
PsymonStark - Nov 20, 11:54 PM
Even if it isn't that obvious either, I would suggest to change Argentina-India to Argentina-Middle East, to increase connectivity.
I think India is more logical here (greographically speaking - less distance), and it doesn't matter much on the connectivity. I also don't care much for the extra border on Asia, nobody takes that region anyway.

The point is mainly that the australian connection is hard to go through because aussie has a high chance of being well defended - india probably isn't.
(Note: deathmatch guy speaking, maybe middle east is better for caps, I don't know about that).
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria