Conquer Club

A couple of the top maps in development in the foundry at the moment:

All that effort and they put proceeding instead of preceding. Pah! Science nerds.

Yes some maps are very complicated, but you don't have to play them. There are plenty of maps I avoid because they look too hard to get my head around all the rules and nuances.

So I don't mine the complexity of the map because I will just let those ones go by. What I have a problem with is the ones where you cant read the actual rules, whether because of the size of the text or the overly cursive or otherwise decorative font or sometimes just because the writer cannot convey the message properly.

Those are a bigger problem because you cant try them out. At least with a complicated map that is well explained you can sit down and put the effort in if you want to

i sort of agree w/OP - whilst the two maps he sourced aren't really my "cup of tea", i believe any new map around here is cause for celebration, imo. having said that, a couple new basic/simple maps would be just dandy.

How is the periodic table maps complicated?

For me, a map is complicated when (1) it is difficult to understand how bonus works (2) it is difficult to understand how territory are connected.
Periodic table might not fall into the "classic-style" map because there are auto deploy and decay regions.
But except that, I think bonus are quite easy to understand and it is extremely simple to see how territories are connected.

The Pi map on the other hand seems really complicated. But there are already maps that are imo more complicated.


Also there are a lot of simple maps to play on CC, if it is what you like you can keep playing them. I don't see why it should bother you that other people decide to create and play complicated maps.
We definitely lack science maps on CC up to now, those two would be a really nice addition.

Eventually 'Join a Game' and 'Game Finder' will consist of nothing except medal nerds waiting for prey to join them in a 1v1 poly adjacent no spoils game on stupid maps like the ones in OP.

Whatever happened to 'less is more'?

Donelladan wrote:How is the periodic table maps complicated?

For me, a map is complicated when (1) it is difficult to understand how bonus works (2) it is difficult to understand how territory are connected.
Periodic table might not fall into the "classic-style" map because there are auto deploy and decay regions.
But except that, I think bonus are quite easy to understand and it is extremely simple to see how territories are connected.

Aside from the obvious problems with the periodic table map, I can think of at least three ways that the map has problems under your terms too:

1) How are you with identifying elements of the periodic table by their symbols? Sn? Fe? Ag? W? Hg? K? Na? Au?

show

2) I can imagine plenty of mix-ups between Magnesium and Manganese, or Yttrium and Ytterbium among other similarly named elements.

3) How about element symbols that are next to each other but only a close keyboard typo away: Sn and Sb, or Ru and Rh, for example?

Symmetry wrote:

Donelladan wrote:How is the periodic table maps complicated?

1) How are you with identifying elements of the periodic table by their symbols? Sn? Fe? Ag? W? Hg? K? Na? Au?

2) I can imagine plenty of mix-ups between Magnesium and Manganese, or Yttrium and Ytterbium among other similarly named elements.

3) How about element symbols that are next to each other but only a close keyboard typo away: Sn and Sb, or Ru and Rh, for example?

I dont see any of these as a problem. I dont see how not knowing the symbol or accidentally typing the wrong one affects gameplay at all other than communicating with your partner. we could enforce singles only games on these maps, or you could instruct your partner to include the numbers in chat.

Its actually a petty good way to learn the periodic table.

BrutalBob wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Donelladan wrote:How is the periodic table maps complicated?

1) How are you with identifying elements of the periodic table by their symbols? Sn? Fe? Ag? W? Hg? K? Na? Au?

2) I can imagine plenty of mix-ups between Magnesium and Manganese, or Yttrium and Ytterbium among other similarly named elements.

3) How about element symbols that are next to each other but only a close keyboard typo away: Sn and Sb, or Ru and Rh, for example?

I dont see any of these as a problem. I dont see how not knowing the symbol or accidentally typing the wrong one affects gameplay at all other than communicating with your partner. we could enforce singles only games on these maps, or you could instruct your partner to include the numbers in chat.

Its actually a petty good way to learn the periodic table.

You confused how my post and Donelladan's are connected multiple times within a single reply, mate. You really don't think that other people could be similarly confused over easier mistakes?

We really didn't understand each other Symmetry.

I don't care how territories are called. That's not making a map difficult. Were your implying in your first post that the maps are too complicated because they are based on science ?

Take the First Nation Americas map, or the Thailand maps, they have difficult names too ( at least for me), do you find those maps too difficult ?

Also, the elements are numbered. If anything, this is one of the easiest map to play. Just use elements number to distinguish them.

Symmetry wrote:I can think of at least three ways that the map has problems under your terms too:

My terms were about how territories are connected to each other. Having difficult name doesn't make the map difficult to read when you are trying to figure out which regions you can attack. The lines, and colors, and the fact that the regions next to each other attack each other and not at the other half of the maps away, that makes the map easy.
When you see, you directly know which region can attack which other one.

Donelladan wrote:We really didn't understand each other Symmetry.

I don't care how territories are called. That's not making a map difficult. Were your implying in your first post that the maps are too complicated because they are based on science ?

Take the First Nation Americas map, or the Thailand maps, they have difficult names too ( at least for me), do you find those maps too difficult ?

Also, the elements are numbered. If anything, this is one of the easiest map to play. Just use elements number to distinguish them.

Symmetry wrote:I can think of at least three ways that the map has problems under your terms too:

My terms were about how territories are connected to each other. Having difficult name doesn't make the map difficult to read when you are trying to figure out which regions you can attack. The lines, and color codings, and the fact that the regions next to each other attack each other and not at the other half of the maps away, that makes the map easy.
When you see, you directly know which region can attack which other one.

You had to delete most of my post to make your reply. That should tell you something. I'm sure we disagree on this, but it'd be nice if you at least engaged with me.

I find the map weirdly confusing, and I know you're uncomfortable discussing some of my reasons, so I'll try to engage with the ones you posted.

The lines and colour coding are based not on a map that plays well, but on imposing the map on strategy. In short- the idea is far more important than the gameplay.

Having a lot of regions with 4 way borders is not easy gameplay.

I only "deleted" most of your post, because I think it is useless to quote an entire post. I am replying to you, thus quoting everything you just said doesn't make sense to me.
I quoted that small part because you said the map has problems "under my terms", it doesn't. Thus I tried to explained what I meant earlier because maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough.

Maybe you could name other map that you think are too complicated so that I can understand what you are saying more clearly.

I agree with you that the gameplay won't be very easy.
But then there is many ways to say a map is difficult.

For example, the Conquer 500 map, you may think it is difficult because there are several one way attack, bombarding, different kinds of bonus in the maps, killer neutral, you can end up stuck on some part of the maps.
I think it takes a bit of time to understand the map, but once you understood it, the game play is easy.
Would you think Conquer 500 is difficult or easy ?

On the other hand, the France2.1, or USA 2.1 map, it is pretty easy to see what the map means, or where you can attack. But those two are quite difficult to play against a good player(s) in team game or poly.

Then you have Stalingrad or Conquer Rome, difficult to understand, and quite difficult gameplay.

Done, drop the matter, symmetry lacks a bit of confrontation.

BrutalBob wrote:
Its actually a pretty good way to learn the periodic table.

This is the point.

Symmetry wrote:You had to delete most of my post to make your reply. That should tell you something. I'm sure we disagree on this, but it'd be nice if you at least engaged with me.

I find the map weirdly confusing, and I know you're uncomfortable discussing some of my reasons, so I'll try to engage with the ones you posted.

these words made me smile.

And then another will give other reason and you will discuss about this reason, etc. Are you telling us that you really need to discuss ? Finally, no matter of what YOU're talking but just want to discuss other reasons and mostly disagree with it? Do you confess you're trolling? No need to answer, it was just a constatation.

djelebert wrote:Done, drop the matter, symmetry lacks a bit of confrontation.

BrutalBob wrote:
Its actually a pretty good way to learn the periodic table.

This is the point.

Symmetry wrote:You had to delete most of my post to make your reply. That should tell you something. I'm sure we disagree on this, but it'd be nice if you at least engaged with me.

I find the map weirdly confusing, and I know you're uncomfortable discussing some of my reasons, so I'll try to engage with the ones you posted.

these words made me smile.

And then another will give other reason and you will discuss about this reason, etc. Are you telling us that you really need to discuss ? Finally, no matter of what YOU're talking but just want to discuss other reasons and mostly disagree with it? Do you confess you're trolling? No need to answer, it was just a constatation.

I don't really understand most of your post tbh.

Donelladan wrote:I only "deleted" most of your post, because I think it is useless to quote an entire post. I am replying to you, thus quoting everything you just said doesn't make sense to me

I quoted that small part because you said the map has problems "under my terms", it doesn't. Thus I tried to explained what I meant earlier because maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough.

Maybe you could name other map that you think are too complicated so that I can understand what you are saying more clearly.

I agree with you that the gameplay won't be very easy.
But then there is many ways to say a map is difficult.

For example, the Conquer 500 map, you may think it is difficult because there are several one way attack, bombarding, different kinds of bonus in the maps, killer neutral, you can end up stuck on some part of the maps.
I think it takes a bit of time to understand the map, but once you understood it, the game play is easy.
Would you think Conquer 500 is difficult or easy ?

On the other hand, the France2.1, or USA 2.1 map, it is pretty easy to see what the map means, or where you can attack. But those two are quite difficult to play against a good player(s) in team game or poly.

Then you have Stalingrad or Conquer Rome, difficult to understand, and quite difficult gameplay.

You didn't "delete" most of my post, you deleted it because it directly referred to your previous terms.

Donneladan wrote:For me, a map is complicated when (1) it is difficult to understand how bonus works (2) it is difficult to understand how territory are connected.

I don't mind shifting the goalposts a bit, but you shouldn't pretend that I wasn't scoring by deleting the goalposts entirely.

Moving on- I named another map in the OT that I thought was over-complicated, and you already agreed. I don't know conquer500, but it sounds a bit complicated the way you describe it.

There are so many maps with standard gameplay already. Let the fanatics have some fun with more complex maps. Maps like King´s Court 2 sometimes make me want to come back and play again.

Seulessliathan wrote:There are so many maps with standard gameplay already. Let the fanatics have some fun with more complex maps. Maps like King´s Court 2 sometimes make me want to come back and play again.

Thanks for grounding this a bit, although fanatics is a little strong.

I don't think complex = complex rules. I'd rather see maps that focus on strategy over unusual rules being developed.

If unusual rules make a map more interesting in terms of giving more options to defeat your opponents, instead of having only the one key strategy ..... in that case, i´m good with unusual rules. E.g. inventing stuff like bombardment on Waterloo/Feudal was a good thing.

If unusual rules only make a map harder to read/understand, BUT don´t make it more interesting from a strategical/tactical point of view, then unusual rules don´t have a right to exist on that map.

Seulessliathan wrote:If unusual rules make a map more interesting in terms of giving more options to defeat your opponents, instead of having only the one key strategy ..... in that case, i´m good with unusual rules. E.g. inventing stuff like bombardment on Waterloo/Feudal was a good thing.

If unusual rules only make a map harder to read/understand, BUT don´t make it more interesting from a strategical/tactical point of view, then unusual rules don´t have a right to exist on that map.

I think that's fair comment- my usual rule of thumb is that if you need to spend more time looking at the special rules of the map than you do assessing the terrain, it probably has too many rules.

On a side note perhaps we could have a disabled Olympics map? As a happy compromise.

mrswdk wrote:On a side note perhaps we could have a disabled Olympics map? As a happy compromise.

I think such a map would be too complicated. We don't want that.

Every map is an unknown the first time it is played. I trust that players who...want to enjoy the game, want to win the game or want to be part of a working team...will learn the rules.

Respectfully,

HitRed
Science Division

HitRed wrote:Every map is an unknown the first time it is played. I trust that players who...want to enjoy the game, want to win the game or want to be part of a working team...will learn the rules.

Respectfully,

HitRed
Science Division

Shut the f*ck up Sym you don't even play.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Shut the f*ck up Sym you don't even play.

^ fact lol

iAmCaffeine wrote:Shut the f*ck up Sym you don't even play.

iAC wins this thread.
also, i think sym should start having to pay to troll. we have to pony up to play more than 4 games simultaneously, why does he get free unlimited trolling?