Conquer Club

Map Name: World 3.0
Mapmaker(s): DiM
Number of Territories: all the countries in the world
Special Features: none
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: it's awesome

i'm trying to keep the graphic style of world 2.1 while at the same time squeezing each and every country in the world.
since there are a lot of tiny little countries i've decided to use several techniques for naming and placing army numbers.
1. the list with arrows. as seen in central america
2. the zoom bubbles. central america and europe
3. the square-ish terits. oceania

i still have A LOT to do:
*put in all sorts of connections
*finish naming the countries
*figuring where to place army numbers and whether army circles are needed (i hope not)

the gameplay is extremely easy. each country gets a +1 autodeployed and there's no other bonus. nothing, not even the bonus for number of terits held.



V1:

Ok, this may be a matter of opinion, and I'm not sure if you're at all interested in hearing mine...

Anyway, like I've said in another thread, I don't really subscribe to the MrBenn school of gameplay design. I don't think it's purposeful nor intuitive to design the gameplay around "1 country = 1 territory"...

Firstly, because the borders between countries are arbitrary and change all the time. Secondly, because it doesn't really make sense that you can hold all of russia with a single army, when you can fit that same single army in, like, vatican or bhutan... If you were waging an actual global war, you wouldn't be like "ok, I'm moving the troops I have in Iceland and use them to conquer all of Canada"...

From a gameplay perspective, I think it makes much more sense to divide larger countries, and merge some of the smaller ones. I mean, we're not on this site to learng geography, we're here to play games...

And also considering gameplay clarity... I think in places where there's lots of small countries, it'll be extremely hard to see what assaults what. I don't think this current system makes for a fun gaming experience, no matter how geographically accurate it is.


The "no bonus, +1 autodeploy per country" doesn't really convince me either... It seems like it would just reward whoever would be able to grab & defend the largest piece of land... but maybe I'm wrong about this so I won't push this. However, the "no deployable troops" thing won't work though... you need to have at least a +1 troop to deploy each round, the game engine freezes and doesn't let you play your turn if you don't have any troops to deploy.

Maps that have 'playable insets' I usually avoid, since they just don't seem as arbitrarily cool as playing on the real board.


--Andy

World 2.1 is bad enough. When I get it on random I feel like jumping off a cliff.

World 3.0 might just make me do that.

natty_dread wrote:Anyway, like I've said in another thread, I don't really subscribe to the MrBenn school of gameplay design. I don't think it's purposeful nor intuitive to design the gameplay around "1 country = 1 territory"...

i had no idea benn made a map with this sort of gameplay. i admit i haven't played all the maps that were quenched in my absence.

natty_dread wrote:Firstly, because the borders between countries are arbitrary and change all the time.

the map is accurate as of today. if it makes you feel better i can add this to the map and this way when you play world 3.0 20 years from now you'll know why the borders no longer are the same.

natty_dread wrote:Secondly, because it doesn't really make sense that you can hold all of russia with a single army, when you can fit that same single army in, like, vatican or bhutan... If you were waging an actual global war, you wouldn't be like "ok, I'm moving the troops I have in Iceland and use them to conquer all of Canada"...

a lot of things don't make sense in many maps. if you were to engage in a real war then russia and usa should have a +9999 bonus, right? after all they're the biggest nuclear powers. holding oceania should probably give you just +1 cause kangaroos with boomerangs don't do much damage.

natty_dread wrote:From a gameplay perspective, I think it makes much more sense to divide larger countries, and merge some of the smaller ones. I mean, we're not on this site to learng geography, we're here to play games...

from a traditional gameplay perspective that makes sense, but i'm trying something new here. people told me i was crazy when i made age of merchants, they continued to do so when age of realms was started. but they proved to be decent maps.
let's see how this one goes before we brand it as a bad idea.

natty_dread wrote:And also considering gameplay clarity... I think in places where there's lots of small countries, it'll be extremely hard to see what assaults what. I don't think this current system makes for a fun gaming experience, no matter how geographically accurate it is.

yes i'm aware of the border problems and i'm trying to be as accurate as possible while preserving gameplay clarity. of course if it comes to it i shall sacrifice geographic accuracy but i do want to include all the countries.

natty_dread wrote:The "no bonus, +1 autodeploy per country" doesn't really convince me either... It seems like it would just reward whoever would be able to grab & defend the largest piece of land... but maybe I'm wrong about this so I won't push this. However, the "no deployable troops" thing won't work though... you need to have at least a +1 troop to deploy each round, the game engine freezes and doesn't let you play your turn if you don't have any troops to deploy.

sully said it's ok to have 0 troops to deploy. if it's true the game freezez then i'll simply add a bonus of +1 regardless of how many terits you have.

AndyDufresne wrote:Maps that have 'playable insets' I usually avoid, since they just don't seem as arbitrarily cool as playing on the real board.


--Andy

it's a compromise i have to make if i want to include all the countries.

IcePack wrote:World 2.1 is bad enough. When I get it on random I feel like jumping off a cliff.

and yet world 2.1 was voted the most popular map. furthermore it's one of the most played maps on this site.

IcePack wrote:World 3.0 might just make me do that.

buy a parachute.

DiM wrote:

IcePack wrote:World 2.1 is bad enough. When I get it on random I feel like jumping off a cliff.

and yet world 2.1 was voted the most popular map. furthermore it's one of the most played maps on this site.

IcePack wrote:World 3.0 might just make me do that.

buy a parachute.

How does adding a few territories make it any "better"? Besides changing graphics and a few territories it's basically 2.1 which we already have. I don't usually post much in here but I will hate to see yet another 2.1 map that I get to be forced to play on occasion.

If 2.1 is that popular - leave a good thing be.

IcePack

DiM wrote:i had no idea benn made a map with this sort of gameplay. i admit i haven't played all the maps that were quenched in my absence.

Check out Europa.

DiM wrote:a lot of things don't make sense in many maps. if you were to engage in a real war then russia and usa should have a +9999 bonus, right? after all they're the biggest nuclear powers. holding oceania should probably give you just +1 cause kangaroos with boomerangs don't do much damage.

Well that's the kind of argument that could be used to justify doing anything really... anyway, I think it comes down to perspective, and where you want to draw the line on sense-making.

I just think having the territories mostly evenly sized makes for a more immersive gaming experience. With a map that dogmatically adheres to the "1 country, 1 territory" idea, like Europa, you don't get the feeling of being in a massive war, with troops moving accross the board... it feels more like just crunching numbers in some kind of statistics job.

But again, this is just my personal opinion, and I'm sure you'll find people who are thrilled to have a geographically accurate world map to play.

DiM wrote:sully said it's ok to have 0 troops to deploy. if it's true the game freezez then i'll simply add a bonus of +1 regardless of how many terits you have.

Well, to my knowledge, it's been like if you have 0 to deploy, you don't get to assault or reinforce, you'll just be forced to skip a turn. Maybe it's been fixed, I don't know... you could try it out with some map that has lots of negative bonuses.

PS - while I don't like this map or world 2.1, the point I'm trying to make is we have a similar map already and it's a bit like remaking a movie with no changes to the script.

I feel like your time and creative energy can be used better elsewhere.

Ice

IcePack wrote:How does adding a few territories make it any "better"? Besides changing graphics and a few territories it's basically 2.1 which we already have.

i'm not adding territories, i'm making a completely different map from a gameplay point of view.

IcePack wrote: I don't usually post much in here but I will hate to see yet another 2.1 map that I get to be forced to play on occasion.

that's actually silly of you to say. who's forcing you? i don't like crosswords so i don't play it. if you don't like this one then don't play it. it's simple.nobody puts a gun to your head and forces you to play it.
and if you think the 0.5% chance of getting this map when you play random is too high then simply don't play random map.

IcePack wrote:If 2.1 is that popular - leave a good thing be.

IcePack

i'm leaving it be. i'm not changing world 2.1 and this one will not replace it either.

IcePack wrote:PS - while I don't like this map or world 2.1, the point I'm trying to make is we have a similar map already and it's a bit like remaking a movie with no changes to the script.

I feel like your time and creative energy can be used better elsewhere.

Ice

aside from the graphical style which is somewhat similar there's nothing else that makes world 3.0 and world 2.1 be the same.
in world 3.0 we have a completely different territory layout and a whole new bonus scheme that doesn't resemble the one from world 2.1 in any aspect.

so, where exactly are the similarities that you speak of?

DiM wrote:

IcePack wrote:PS - while I don't like this map or world 2.1, the point I'm trying to make is we have a similar map already and it's a bit like remaking a movie with no changes to the script.

I feel like your time and creative energy can be used better elsewhere.

Ice

aside from the graphical style which is somewhat similar there's nothing else that makes world 3.0 and world 2.1 be the same.
in world 3.0 we have a completely different territory layout and a whole new bonus scheme that doesn't resemble the one from world 2.1 in any aspect.

so, where exactly are the similarities that you speak of?

Large world map is what I think he is getting at.


--Andy

Just bcuz it's different doesn't make the idea good. And I do have to play it on random. The more crap maps that get added the more crap maps I have to play, so it does affect me. And me not playing random is a silly suggestion, I'm going to stop playing for medals or inbrandom tournaments bcuz of one map? Really?

This is a place for feedback, I'm giving mine. I don't like the idea of another full world map no matter how many small tweaks to graphics territory or bonus structure to make it marginally diff you put in.

0.5% isn't to high but if I can stop crap maps before they get into the map pool - then I'm going to start speaking up. Cuz once u have multiple crap maps those %'s start adding up.

Your entitled to ur opinion and so am I. I like some of ur other maps and all I was tryig to say is:

1) I don't like the idea
2) time and energy can be used Bette elsewhere on something more original

Cheers, & have a good day

IcePack

natty_dread wrote:

DiM wrote:i had no idea benn made a map with this sort of gameplay. i admit i haven't played all the maps that were quenched in my absence.

Check out Europa.

i have never played that map but after a quick look i think it's somewhere between classic style and what i'm doing here.

mr benn made almost every country as a terit but still split some. he also kept traditional continent bonuses.
i went to the extreme and made every single country as a terit with no split ones and also discarded continent bonuses. we'll see if it works out ok.

natty_dread wrote:

DiM wrote:a lot of things don't make sense in many maps. if you were to engage in a real war then russia and usa should have a +9999 bonus, right? after all they're the biggest nuclear powers. holding oceania should probably give you just +1 cause kangaroos with boomerangs don't do much damage.

Well that's the kind of argument that could be used to justify doing anything really... anyway, I think it comes down to perspective, and where you want to draw the line on sense-making.

just as you said in an earlier post this is a game. and in this game we almost always make compromises in various aspects.
on world 2.1 you don't give usa and russia a big bonus because you'd screw up the gameplay, so you compromise and give up on realism.
on this map i'm not splitting bigger countries into smaller regions because that's not the gameplay i want. it's still a compromise on realism but in a different direction.

natty_dread wrote:I just think having the territories mostly evenly sized makes for a more immersive gaming experience. With a map that dogmatically adheres to the "1 country, 1 territory" idea, like Europa, you don't get the feeling of being in a massive war, with troops moving accross the board... it feels more like just crunching numbers in some kind of statistics job.

But again, this is just my personal opinion, and I'm sure you'll find people who are thrilled to have a geographically accurate world map to play.

i don't see how moving troops from western usa to eastern usa is immersive but moving them from usa to mexico is crunching numbers in a statistics job. it's the same thing. you just move troops from one terit to another regardless of how it's called.
i don't care if it says usa, paris, europe or even terit 1.
it's like saying feudal is not a good map because the terits have number names.

natty_dread wrote:

DiM wrote:sully said it's ok to have 0 troops to deploy. if it's true the game freezez then i'll simply add a bonus of +1 regardless of how many terits you have.

Well, to my knowledge, it's been like if you have 0 to deploy, you don't get to assault or reinforce, you'll just be forced to skip a turn. Maybe it's been fixed, I don't know... you could try it out with some map that has lots of negative bonuses.

i'll ask around and see what's the exact situation. anyway it's an easy to fix problem and it will be dealt with at the proper time.

IcePack wrote:Just bcuz it's different doesn't make the idea good. And I do have to play it on random. The more crap maps that get added the more crap maps I have to play, so it does affect me. And me not playing random is a silly suggestion, I'm going to stop playing for medals or inbrandom tournaments bcuz of one map? Really?

i guess it's just a matter of risk vs reward. and the only one that can give a proper answer is you. there are a lot of maps i don't like or i'm not even remotely attracted to (more than half of the quenched maps actually) so i decided not to play random simply because the risk is too high.
should i start petitioning lack to remove all those maps?

IcePack wrote:This is a place for feedback, I'm giving mine. I don't like the idea of another full world map no matter how many small tweaks to graphics territory or bonus structure to make it marginally diff you put in.

yeah this is a place for feedback but what you're doing is not feedback. or at least not constructive one.
saying "i don't like this map and i don't want it made because i might get it randomly" is not constructive.
this map is not marginally different that world 2.1. it's actually very different.

IcePack wrote:Your entitled to ur opinion and so am I. I like some of ur other maps and all I was tryig to say is:
1) I don't like the idea
2) time and energy can be used Bette elsewhere on something more original

1. very well. i'm not expecting everybody to fall on their backs in complete ecstasy at the sight of this map. just like any other map it will have people that love it and people that hate it.
2. time and energy are plentiful. if the foundry provided the right conditions i could produce a map per week from start to quench with absolutely no problem so don't worry about it.

DiM wrote:yeah this is a place for feedback but what you're doing is not feedback. or at least not constructive one.
saying "i don't like this map and i don't want it made because i might get it randomly" is not constructive.
this map is not marginally different that world 2.1. it's actually very different.

While it isn't constructive feedback, it is still instructive feedback. I.E. This map doesn't meet my tastes, which is still a form of feedback since obviously as a player on CC, he is a part of the audience.


--Andy

Nope I never said to start petitioning ones I don't like out of the map list. What I did say was I am going to become more vocal about keeping ones I don't like out of that group tho. But if YOU feel like petitioning lack to do so, please feel free! That's not my goal however.

My constructive feedback is not to do the map. We have one that we obviously disagree on how similar it is or isn't. A matter of perspective I suppose.

As far as pumping out a map per week - I'd much prefer quality and uniqueness to mass production.

IcePack

AndyDufresne wrote:

DiM wrote:yeah this is a place for feedback but what you're doing is not feedback. or at least not constructive one.
saying "i don't like this map and i don't want it made because i might get it randomly" is not constructive.
this map is not marginally different that world 2.1. it's actually very different.

While it isn't constructive feedback, it is still instructive feedback. I.E. This map doesn't meet my tastes, which is still a form of feedback since obviously as a player on CC, he is a part of the audience.


--Andy

true, but that's not the sort of feedback the foundry needs.
posts like "i hate/love this map" aren't helping the map progress.

DiM wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

DiM wrote:yeah this is a place for feedback but what you're doing is not feedback. or at least not constructive one.
saying "i don't like this map and i don't want it made because i might get it randomly" is not constructive.
this map is not marginally different that world 2.1. it's actually very different.

While it isn't constructive feedback, it is still instructive feedback. I.E. This map doesn't meet my tastes, which is still a form of feedback since obviously as a player on CC, he is a part of the audience.


--Andy

true, but that's not the sort of feedback the foundry needs.
posts like "i hate/love this map" aren't helping the map progress.

I'll politely disagree. The Foundry I think does have a stake in regards to taking into account the types of maps that people think they want to play.

But this is getting off topic, so you can move this discussion to the Foundry Discussions if you'd like to keep it going.


--Andy

Posts like mine "don't help map progress" but some maps shouldn't progress.

IcePack

IcePack wrote:Nope I never said to start petitioning ones I don't like out of the map list. What I did say was I am going to become more vocal about keeping ones I don't like out of that group tho. But if YOU feel like petitioning lack to do so, please feel free! That's not my goal however.

My constructive feedback is not to do the map. We have one that we obviously disagree on how similar it is or isn't. A matter of perspective I suppose.

my point was that your motives are something purely personal and subjective and your feedback is not constructive.
just by saying you don't like this map you won't achieve much. in fact i usually tend to completely ignore "i hate it" posts.
come and say what bothers you, and offer suggestions on improving the map. if those suggestions are reasonable and the general public agrees with them then the map maker tries to apply them.
also remember it's impossible to like all the maps that will ever be created so coming to the foundry to stop everything you don't like is absurd.
what if other people with completely different tastes than you come to stop the maps that you love?
the foundry's goal is to produce maps for all kinds of people, to satisfy all kinds of gameplay and game settings. this way everybody can find some maps that they love.

IcePack wrote:As far as pumping out a map per week - I'd much prefer quality and uniqueness to mass production.

the key words in what i said before are "the right conditions".
when it comes to actual photoshop work i'm reasonably fast and i don't spend dozens of hours to produce an update.
i can come up with a very decent map within 2-3 hours. then if the foundry gives me enough constructive feedback it won't take more than 1 hour per day to implement all the suggestions. within a week with lots of feedback the map would transform from decent to great and be ready for beta.
i'm lucky enough to have a job where i can spend a lot of time map making and i can also work at a good pace so time is really not an issue.
the only thing that's hindering my map making pace is the amount of feedback in the foundry. get 200 people in here to comment daily and you'll see great maps literally pouring as i'm not the only one that's stalled by lack of feedback. i think almost all map makers are wishing for more feedback givers so they can get more suggestions and improve the maps faster.

1) I never said all maps must be in my taste or that I had to like them all. If there is something about it that's diff I won't be commenting like I have here, or argue if someone feels a way about a map I like.
2) If people disagre that the map has a unique enough aspect - great! But I have a voice and I'm using it. They can come in here to support it just as well.
3) my comment was IN MY OPINION it's to close to world 2.1. So if you want my constructive feedback - make SOME change to make it different enough to make me NOT be reminded of world 2.1. How about some other game element? Anything? Not just new territories or routes.

I'm new here (to the foundry) I can't comment on how much or how little comments are given. I'll be happy to start providing feedback on projects as time allows on those maps in which strike a cord, either strongly positive or negative.

IcePack

IcePack wrote:1) I never said all maps must be in my taste or that I had to like them all. If there is something about it that's diff I won't be commenting like I have here, or argue if someone feels a way about a map I like.
2) If people disagre that the map has a unique enough aspect - great! But I have a voice and I'm using it. They can come in here to support it just as well.
3) my comment was IN MY OPINION it's to close to world 2.1. So if you want my constructive feedback - make SOME change to make it different enough to make me NOT be reminded of world 2.1. How about some other game element? Anything? Not just new territories or routes.

I'm new here (to the foundry) I can't comment on how much or how little comments are given. I'll be happy to start providing feedback on projects as time allows on those maps in which strike a cord, either strongly positive or negative.

IcePack

you keep saying this isn't different from world 2.1 please tell me what's the same (aside from the similar graphics)

on World 3.0 you have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT terits, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT layout and connections, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT bonus scheme.

It's still a world map, you've added / changed territories and routes and changing bonus bcuz new country layouts etc.

There isn't anything unique about it other than it's slightly changed so each country is on it instead of grouped which just makes the whole thing busy and difficult which is already an annoyance on world 2.1.

But I really don't think we are going to see eye to eye and just going to argue in circles, so I'll leave the map alone and let you and everyone else screw around with it.

I'm now realizing why nobody comments here, maybe I'll rethink my activity in foundry if stupid arguments like this when trying to give feedback.

IcePack