by MadagascarAdam on Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:55 am
I'm a little late getting in on this thread, but I can say I love the overall map idea. Inferno is a great book and the downward thrust of the gameplay seems really cool. I do agree much more with the revised bonus scheme than the original (the original was too complex and had the chance of too many negative bonuses later on that could easily paralyze gameplay permanently for the boldest player).
Just a couple revisions I'd suggest on that for now... mostly to make beginning bonuses a little slower in order that bonuses can steadily increase later without overweighting it too much. I think when a game has bonus escalation too quickly, it lends itself towards the first luckiest player taking an overwhelming lead. A slower bonus escalation gives much more time for tactical playing, but allows for overwhelming superiority by the end (in the absence of tight competition). And in the presence of tight competition... well, that makes the gameplay that much more fun! And these revisions mostly depend on you sticking with the same or similar number of territories in each ring.
Circle 1: +1 for every 3.
Circle 2: +1 for every 2.
Circle 3; +2 for every 3.
Circle 4: +3 for all.
Circle 5: +3 for all.
Circle 6: +4 for all.
Circle 7: +4 for all.
Circle 8: +5 for all.
Circle 9: +6 for all.
This way the bonus received vs. # of territories needed is definitely larger the deeper you go, but it's not incredibly easy to get there, nor necessarily overwhelming when you do. It also might encourage some people to stick around a bit longer in circle 1 and 2 to try to diminish their competition (which I assume was part of your intention with so many territories there). At the very least, I think it allows multiple gameplay tactics, which is always good.
You might've already said it and I missed it, but I'm assuming you're doing a certain number of neutral armies on each ringed territory? Is it a consistent number (i.e. 3 each, except for those two giants) or does it also escalate the further down you go? I think that could make a significant difference in gameplay and bonuses, but I don't have any suggestions right now. It does make a bit of sense though for the lower levels to have higher neutrals, though maybe not as drastic of an increase as the bonuses.
I also don't know if you mentioned it, but I think the descent for each lower level of hell should be one-way. That'll make reinforcements more interesting and requiring slightly more tactics. It also fits the general idea (a person punished at a lower level shouldn't be able to escalate to a higher/less-punished level). But also, a player would never be entirely cut off from trying to re-establish themselves in upper levels, since their starting positions (with auto-deploy) are only attacked by the bottom-most position.
Another gameplay suggestion: rather than having Lucifer get SO MANY bonus, why don't you diminish his bonus (for assassin maps), but also make him a gameplay objective. I'm not sure how that works / if it's possible to have something be a gameplay objective in normal games, but it's not an objective (at least, not sufficient to finish the game) in assassin games. I suppose it wouldn't really apply to terminator games though? I'm not sure because I haven't really played terminator games. But in general, I do like the idea of sticking with the story... that holding Lucifer in a regular game is the player's "escape" (thus a gameplay objective that wins the game if held for just one turn), but that in a terminator game, he has power to bombard all. Obviously in the regular objective-based game, he could bombard all as well (on the turn that he's first taken), but the desire to bombard the upper levels would obviously not be as strong since the goal is really just to hold out. I'd suggest a neutral on Lucifer of 50, and (in assassin games), a bonus of only 20 or 25 (as players should already have accumulated significant bonuses by then). No killer resets or anything though.
For territory names: I'd stick as much as possible with what's in the book. Go ahead and put Mohammed in there, since Dante did. But then if someone complains a bit or a lot, you can take him back out. I'm hoping though that people would understand it's a fictional construct, created not by the map author but by Dante himself. I mean, do Muslims even believe in hell like that? If not, they wouldn't have anything to worry about Mohammed being there. Where there's not names in the book, then a typical naming standard would make sense (such as "unnamed 1", "unnamed 2", or "disfigured 1", "disfigured 2", etc.). Dante felt it important for them to be mysterious, so I think it's accurate to keep it that way rather than trying to guess who we think should be named there.
On the other hand, I LOVE the idea of you putting other contemporary poets at the top as the starting positions. I think that sounds very appropriate. As for the 1st level of Hell with the "unbaptised", I also agree that putting other famous historical figures there would be cool, but you do have to be at least a bit careful who you choose. If I remember correctly, Virgil himself was pre-Christian, but Dante apparently saw something in him that he thought was a pre-cursor of the Christian faith. It might be similar with philosophers like Plato. But I think you definitely should add more historical names there, and make it people who would generally be considered neutral (morally), so they wouldn't belong in any lower circles, but who also wouldn't be expected to be owned by any segments of the Christian faith (like Virgil apparently was and I think Plato might be). Tacitus was probably a great example for "Unbaptized", but Rameses might well belong deeper down in "wrathful" or something. It'd take some thinking through of famous historical persona.
Finally, for graphics: I personally really like the idea of incorporating some William Blake-esque styles in there. I highly enjoyed both Inferno and Blake's poetry and writing and think they'd be an excellent mix to give some real flair to this map.
As for overall graphical structure, I agree with Industrial Helix, to widen it up quite a bit. That'd also give you room for the three (adding Brutus and Cassius) at the bottom. I think that section was some very strong imagery in the book and is worth maintaining. Secondly, rather than the more funnel sort of image you have now, I'd recommend something that looked more like levels of a dungeon - stacked on top of each other. They could still be round though. And you could maintain a sort of 3/4 perspective, but the backside (in the background) would just be overlapped by the level above it, that's in the foreground, in order to conserve space and enhance the 3D look. But this stacked levels layout would give you space for stairs descending or breaks in level 3 (to indicate they weren't all connected), monsters/giants blocking the next descent... that sort of thing. And each level could be open in the middle (so it'd be like a ring) and you could have this massive Lucifer giant standing up through the center of it all. That'd give it a very strong (and fairly awesome) graphical design and would also explain Lucifer's bombardment. Of course, Lucifer would be accessed by his feet or something at the bottom though, so his position through the middle wouldn't be confusing.
Personally, I'd love to help with the graphics on this. I haven't done any maps here on ConquerClub before, as working out all the stuff by myself would seem like quite a task. But if you're taking on the gameplay and foundry contacts and all that stuff, I think it'd be great to try my hand at it (especially since this is a map that really piques my interest, literary-wise and graphical possibilities). I'm not a professional, but I have done CD layouts, book designs, promotional materials, and a decent bit of my own art for personal enjoyment and I think I could pull this one off pretty well. I'd just need more details as to what sort of resolution(s) ConquerClub wants it in, what kind of color-palette, file type, etc.
The main setback with me helping you on it is that I'm currently in a rural area of South Africa. My internet connection here is horribly slow, so uploading quality graphics might not be too feasible. Does anyone have any idea roughly what the file size (of the highest-res map ConquerClub hosts) is on here? I'm sure I could at least send previews of the map, how it's turning out, etc., along the way. And I'll be back in the States late November and would obviously have good internet then. But if typical map file sizes are less than 800 kb or so, then I think I should even be able to upload the final versions without too many problems. Anyway, if you're interested in my help, PM me and we can find a way to send files back and forth, whether by e-mail (preferably) or whatever.
I'm excited though! I hope this turns out great and becomes a great map!
kamahl
As you can tell my graphical ability is moderate to say the least, and this map deserves a professional like yourself.
