Oasis [Quenched]

[InkL0sed]

I like Else. Replace Sewa -- only name I really don't like.

[wcaclimbing]

---update---
"Sewa" has been replaced by "Zeak"

[ZeakCytho]

By the way, I think this is the first map with non-classic gameplay that I'll actually play. DO WANT!

[InkL0sed]

It seems to me that this warrants graphics and gameplay stamp. I can't come up with any problems.

[rocky mountain]

come on moderators! give some stamps!

[wcaclimbing]

So, you guys are asking for stamps?

here is what each stamp requires.

Balanced play. It should be unlikely that one or more players can start the game with a major advantage as a result of the initial drop or getting the first turn. DONE
Reasonable bonus structure. Bonuses should make sense given the size/style of the map, and be based on a consistent formula. DONE
Game type flexibility. The map should support various game types and not be designed specific/limited game settings in mind (standard, assassin, fog of war, 2 players, etc.). DONE
Player-friendliness. Any information you need to know to play a map should be easy to learn by looking at the map itself. The legend should be clear and concise, and the map should be free of unnecessary or cumbersome rules. DONE
Open-play. There should be many ways a game might progress on your map, and many roads to victorty. Such features as unpassable borders should enhance, not limit, gameplay, and every effort should be made to limit the number of dead ends and bottlenecks in a map, unless they are justified by the desired play of the map. This is all about making a map fun to play, not frustrating. DONE
Function trumps form. The style of the graphics should not detract from ease of play: borders should be clear, titles and numbers easy to read, colors easy to distinguish, etc. DONE

Gameplay looks good to me.

1) Image must present itself as clear and legible. DONE
2) The aesthetics must be to a presentable foundry standard and must also satisfy the community at large. DONE
3) Cartographers must ,where possible, reduce any disadvantage that can be caused to a colorblind individual. DONE

It doesn't say anything about needing the small version to get this one, so I guess this is done also.
Is the small version required to earn the graphics stamp? if so, that detail should be added to the "graphics stamp" description in the map handbook.

I'll PM Oaktown and Gimil to see what they think.

[sfhbballnut]

looks like its got that covered, I've got no complaints left, might if I see something someone else has to say, but i've got nothing original for now, great job!

[oaktown]

no, we haven't abandoned this thread! Clearly there has been a flurry of activity since I made my rounds on Tuesday.

I have absolutely no problems with the actual play of the map... I love the concept, and the bonuses and starting neutrals seem reasonable.

I have two concerns that may have been addressed, but I went back a few pages and didn't see any mention of them; both are issues that pertain to both graphics and gameplay:
1. what will happen to the text when you size this down for the small map? I am concerned about both the text in the legend (which is already quite small, though still very readable) and the territory names across the desert lands. If you have already posted a sample small map you can just point me to it.
2. I see you are going without army circles, which I completely applaud (they're just a pain in the ass anyway). But since you're putting the counts straight on the map, could you show us what the different colored army counts will look like against the desert? Again, if this is already buried deep in the thread just point me to it.

When you're doing the coordinates you'll have to watch out for the counts on the right of the map - especially the small map - but that's something you can work out after you've been forged. I suspect that the Eloui count will go off the edge with color indicators on the small map.

I'm running out of the town for the night, but I'll check back no later than Tuesday.

[wcaclimbing]

comments in BLUE

no, we haven't abandoned this thread! Clearly there has been a flurry of activity since I made my rounds on Tuesday.

I have absolutely no problems with the actual play of the map... I love the concept, and the bonuses and starting neutrals seem reasonable. Thanks

I have two concerns that may have been addressed, but I went back a few pages and didn't see any mention of them; both are issues that pertain to both graphics and gameplay:
1. what will happen to the text when you size this down for the small map? I am concerned about both the text in the legend (which is already quite small, though still very readable) and the territory names across the desert lands. If you have already posted a sample small map you can just point me to it. The territory names are all easy to read. Everything is readable, except for some of the text on the map key. Would it be ok if I used a more simple font on the small version so the map key is readable? I don't have a small version yet, but I've experimented with it. A more simple font on the small version (keeping the current font on the large version) would solve the problem.
2. I see you are going without army circles, which I completely applaud (they're just a pain in the ass anyway). But since you're putting the counts straight on the map, could you show us what the different colored army counts will look like against the desert? Again, if this is already buried deep in the thread just point me to it. I'll do something like that on the next update. It will be all 88s (or maybe even 888s), all different colors.

When you're doing the coordinates you'll have to watch out for the counts on the right of the map - especially the small map - but that's something you can work out after you've been forged. I suspect that the Eloui count will go off the edge with color indicators on the small map. Nice catch there. That will mostly effect Eloui and Past (which is right below it.) Since the borders don't depend on the terrain graphics to determine their location, I can easily re-draw the borders in that area to give Eloui and Past a bit more space. I'll probably have to expand Kaplo and Viit a bit also, to make it so the numbers won't be running over the neighboring territories. The border changes won't effect gameplay at all, and I will do them on both Large and Small so there isn't any confusion.

I'm running out of the town for the night, but I'll check back no later than Tuesday.

[oaktown]

Hey wca... it would be ideal if you could keep the same font on the large and small versions of the map - why put yourslef through the extra work? Show us a small version to give us a sense of what we're dealing with - both the territory titles and the legend may be absolutely fine.

yes, I said i wouldn't check in again, but for the record I'm not doing so sober.

[Incandenza]

This map has come a long way since last I poked my nose into this thread, and it's looking really good. congrats, wca.

I have two quick things:
1. (and forgive me if this has been discussed) what's the significance of the bold line bisecting the desert?
2. and this is more of an xml thing, but I've noticed that maps with numerical terit names have a glaring weakness when it comes to the drop-down menu: viz. terits will be listed thusly, terit 1, terit 10, terit 11, terit 12, terit 13, terit 2, terit 20, terit 21, terit 3, and so forth. T'would be nice to have 1-9 consecutive, rather than spread throughout the menu.

[wcaclimbing]

This map has come a long way since last I poked my nose into this thread, and it's looking really good. congrats, wca.

I have two quick things:
1. (and forgive me if this has been discussed) what's the significance of the bold line bisecting the desert? It splits N desert and S desert. just for the dropdowns to make it a bit easier to find what you want. I might remove it, though...
2. and this is more of an xml thing, but I've noticed that maps with numerical terit names have a glaring weakness when it comes to the drop-down menu: viz. terits will be listed thusly, terit 1, terit 10, terit 11, terit 12, terit 13, terit 2, terit 20, terit 21, terit 3, and so forth. T'would be nice to have 1-9 consecutive, rather than spread throughout the menu. they will be numbered 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 ....90, 91 so they are all in order. the 1 digit numbers get 0 in front.

[cicero]

what's the significance of the bold line bisecting the desert?

It splits N desert and S desert. just for the dropdowns to make it a bit easier to find what you want. I might remove it, though...

I quite like the idea of North and South. If you decided to keep it then, rather than numbering the desert territories 01 to 91, perhaps you should number them North 01, North 02 ... North 44 and then South 01, South 02 .. South 47 which would make the North/South distinction more pronounced.

[wcaclimbing]

what's the significance of the bold line bisecting the desert?

It splits N desert and S desert. just for the dropdowns to make it a bit easier to find what you want. I might remove it, though...

I quite like the idea of North and South. If you decided to keep it then, rather than numbering the desert territories 01 to 91, perhaps you should number them North 01, North 02 ... North 44 and then South 01, South 02 .. South 47 which would make the North/South distinction more pronounced.

There were people asking for straight 1-91, North/South/East/West ##s, North/South, etc. The current setup is a compromise between the two.

I've just been reading the last few pages of posts, and have thought of a compromise for numbering... You could combine a directional label with a number between 1-91, so you'd have 1-23 (North), 24-46 (East), 47-69 (South), 70-91 (West), or something??

maybe if its just North 1-46 and South 24-91? it would take away the deployment issues...

That could work.

North Desert 1
....
North Desert 46
South Desert 47
...
South Desert 91

Best of both worlds, maybe?
It works for me.

That looks more like I was imagining it in my head, with the advantage that North is before South alphabetically, so they would appear in the correct numeric order in the deploy/attack lists...

It makes sense to me. It was originally like what you are suggesting. on V3.5 [clicky], its N 1-46 and S 1-46. But then it was changed for the next update after that.

[ZeakCytho]

I prefer the current numbering system. Since each territory has a unique number, the chance of misdeploying goes way down. The north/south makes it easier for people to find on the map. It's the best of both worlds.

[gimil]

For the legends I really feel the texture needs to go under the typography rather than over it. Im also still waiting to see a mock up small version to ensure the resize isnt going to cause any real issues.

[rocky mountain]

sry, but i feel this should be bumped...
are you still doing the project for school, wcaclimbing? if not, wheres the update?!

[wcaclimbing]

sry, but i feel this should be bumped...
are you still doing the project for school, wcaclimbing? if not, wheres the update?!

project for school is done now (as of yesterday)
But I have finals coming up, because school is ending soon. Which means lots of studying...
I'll try to get an update out soon, but it might be a few more days.
sorry for all the delays. I'm really busy with life right now.

[DiM]

Click image to enlarge.

a long time has passed since i last posted here so it's time for me to catch up. i won't comment on the graphics since they look solid to me.

i will however focus on the gameplay.

as usual my biggest problem comes from assassin games. at the moment we have 38 starting locations. in an 8p game this means 4 terits per person. there are very big chances of a guy (player A) starting with all his terits on one side of the desert. this is awful and the game is already lost for that poor fellow if his target has terits on both sides as he has to cross the desert. at the same time the most advantaged is player A's designated assassin if he has at least 1 terit on the same side as player A. why? because naturally player A will have to battle through the desert wasting troops killing neutrals while player B(his assassin) simply puts troops on player A's side and goes for the kill.

second problem is not related to a specific game type but rather a general gameplay issue. i honestly don't see people going for the grand oasis, in fact i see them simply fighting amongst eachother on the grass areas or on the contrary building and not fighting in those same areas. problem is the nearest bonus is a small oasis which involves killing 4 neutrals. let's say player A and player B start with uwal and rawl. if player A deploys in uwal and goes for oasis of prosperity then player B will deploy in rawl and come take it. so both of them will keep deploying and waiting. if player A decides to kill player B in rawl before going for the oasis then player C who might have zeida will be the beneficiary of this attack as he'll come and take both uwal and rawl. so basically unless you have a lucky drop with 3-4 terits linked near an oasis to allow fortifying immediately, nobody will dare attack the neutrals. so we'll have a huge stalemate or a huge chaos of people attacking eachother on either side with nobody going for the desert.

[yeti_c]

as usual my biggest problem comes from assassin games. at the moment we have 38 starting locations. in an 8p game this means 4 terits per person. there are very big chances of a guy (player A) starting with all his terits on one side of the desert. this is awful and the game is already lost for that poor fellow if his target has terits on both sides as he has to cross the desert. at the same time the most advantaged is player A's designated assassin if he has at least 1 terit on the same side as player A. why? because naturally player A will have to battle through the desert wasting troops killing neutrals while player B(his assassin) simply puts troops on player A's side and goes for the kill.

This could be negated by having fixed starting positions.

second problem is not related to a specific game type but rather a general gameplay issue. i honestly don't see people going for the grand oasis, in fact i see them simply fighting amongst eachother on the grass areas or on the contrary building and not fighting in those same areas. problem is the nearest bonus is a small oasis which involves killing 4 neutrals. let's say player A and player B start with uwal and rawl. if player A deploys in uwal and goes for oasis of prosperity then player B will deploy in rawl and come take it. so both of them will keep deploying and waiting. if player A decides to kill player B in rawl before going for the oasis then player C who might have zeida will be the beneficiary of this attack as he'll come and take both uwal and rawl. so basically unless you have a lucky drop with 3-4 terits linked near an oasis to allow fortifying immediately, nobody will dare attack the neutrals. so we'll have a huge stalemate or a huge chaos of people attacking eachother on either side with nobody going for the desert.

Your first scenario is incorrect - as if player battles through 4 1's - then player 2 still needs to battle through 1's too (at least).

Also - You forget that Player A might be going for a different Oasis to Player B despite the similar drop for this oasis.

C.

[DiM]

as usual my biggest problem comes from assassin games. at the moment we have 38 starting locations. in an 8p game this means 4 terits per person. there are very big chances of a guy (player A) starting with all his terits on one side of the desert. this is awful and the game is already lost for that poor fellow if his target has terits on both sides as he has to cross the desert. at the same time the most advantaged is player A's designated assassin if he has at least 1 terit on the same side as player A. why? because naturally player A will have to battle through the desert wasting troops killing neutrals while player B(his assassin) simply puts troops on player A's side and goes for the kill.

This could be negated by having fixed starting positions.

if it were posible i would have suggested that but fixed starting positions won't do anything. imagine 4 starting points on each side. one guy has his target next to him and another guy has his target across the desert. who would you bet on winning?

edit// unless by fixed starting positions you mean more than 1 terit for each player. in which case it could be really tricky to balance especially for team games. but it is a solution.

second problem is not related to a specific game type but rather a general gameplay issue. i honestly don't see people going for the grand oasis, in fact i see them simply fighting amongst eachother on the grass areas or on the contrary building and not fighting in those same areas. problem is the nearest bonus is a small oasis which involves killing 4 neutrals. let's say player A and player B start with uwal and rawl. if player A deploys in uwal and goes for oasis of prosperity then player B will deploy in rawl and come take it. so both of them will keep deploying and waiting. if player A decides to kill player B in rawl before going for the oasis then player C who might have zeida will be the beneficiary of this attack as he'll come and take both uwal and rawl. so basically unless you have a lucky drop with 3-4 terits linked near an oasis to allow fortifying immediately, nobody will dare attack the neutrals. so we'll have a huge stalemate or a huge chaos of people attacking eachother on either side with nobody going for the desert.

Your first scenario is incorrect - as if player battles through 4 1's - then player 2 still needs to battle through 1's too (at least).

Also - You forget that Player A might be going for a different Oasis to Player B despite the similar drop for this oasis.

C.

yes but battling through 2 ones is easier than battling through a 1 and a 3.
imagine this you and me. 6 troops each (including the 3 deployable) and the bonus is an oasias. do you make the first move at the oasis fully knowing i will attack you? or will you sit and wait for me to go for the oasis? the one that does loses. play and simple. unless you attack 6v 1,3 and don't lose anything and when i attack i get shitty dice. but if you base your strategy hoping you get perfect dice and the opponent gets shitty dice then you're screwed.

as for going for another oasis i'm sorry but that's not going to work for 2 reasons.
a. if you weaken yourself trying to take an oasis then you can be damn sure i'm gonna take advantage and kick your ass and take that oasis for myself. i'm not gonna say: poor fellow is working hard for that bonus i'll let him have it and i'll go for another"
b. there aren't enough close range oases to allow each player to take one peacefully. and even if there were then it would still be the same scenario when people reach the next circle of oases. if you have power and i have health will you make a move for truth knowing i will come from health and kill you? and don't tell me i should leave you alone and go for honour because the guy in life will probably target me and take honour.

to be honest i'd pray for an initial drop with many terits linked together, then i would gather them all in 1 pile and wait for a sucker to break the neutrals then break him.

[yeti_c]

if it were posible i would have suggested that but fixed starting positions won't do anything. imagine 4 starting points on each side. one guy has his target next to him and another guy has his target across the desert. who would you bet on winning?

edit// unless by fixed starting positions you mean more than 1 terit for each player. in which case it could be really tricky to balance especially for team games. but it is a solution.

Exactly what I mean - 4 disparate starting territories - with 2 on each side...

yes but battling through 2 ones is easier than battling through a 1 and a 3.

Then don't battle through the 1 and the 3 then - take the 1 and sit with you big army in the way of the oasis.

imagine this you and me. 6 troops each (including the 3 deployable) and the bonus is an oasias. do you make the first move at the oasis fully knowing i will attack you? or will you sit and wait for me to go for the oasis? the one that does loses. play and simple. unless you attack 6v 1,3 and don't lose anything and when i attack i get shitty dice. but if you base your strategy hoping you get perfect dice and the opponent gets shitty dice then you're screwed.

Isn't that why this game is called Risk?!

as for going for another oasis i'm sorry but that's not going to work for 2 reasons.
a. if you weaken yourself trying to take an oasis then you can be damn sure i'm gonna take advantage and kick your ass and take that oasis for myself. i'm not gonna say: poor fellow is working hard for that bonus i'll let him have it and i'll go for another"
b. there aren't enough close range oases to allow each player to take one peacefully. and even if there were then it would still be the same scenario when people reach the next circle of oases. if you have power and i have health will you make a move for truth knowing i will come from health and kill you? and don't tell me i should leave you alone and go for honour because the guy in life will probably target me and take honour.

to be honest i'd pray for an initial drop with many terits linked together, then i would gather them all in 1 pile and wait for a sucker to break the neutrals then break him.

There are 5 oases within 2 territory strike zone... I think that's more than enough to make it so that some people have a chance of a bonus... remember there are only 2 "easy" continents on classic?

C.

[DiM]

if it were posible i would have suggested that but fixed starting positions won't do anything. imagine 4 starting points on each side. one guy has his target next to him and another guy has his target across the desert. who would you bet on winning?

edit// unless by fixed starting positions you mean more than 1 terit for each player. in which case it could be really tricky to balance especially for team games. but it is a solution.

Exactly what I mean - 4 disparate starting territories - with 2 on each side...

this needs serious thinking.

yes but battling through 2 ones is easier than battling through a 1 and a 3.

Then don't battle through the 1 and the 3 then - take the 1 and sit with you big army in the way of the oasis.

you do that and i'll just sit back deploying in green areas waiting for your mighty army to be slowly decayed by the -1 bonus on desert areas

imagine this you and me. 6 troops each (including the 3 deployable) and the bonus is an oasias. do you make the first move at the oasis fully knowing i will attack you? or will you sit and wait for me to go for the oasis? the one that does loses. play and simple. unless you attack 6v 1,3 and don't lose anything and when i attack i get shitty dice. but if you base your strategy hoping you get perfect dice and the opponent gets shitty dice then you're screwed.

Isn't that why this game is called Risk?!

it's a strategy game which involves risk it's not a game where you attack blindly and pray for luck. i'd rather play the lottery if that were the case.

as for going for another oasis i'm sorry but that's not going to work for 2 reasons.
a. if you weaken yourself trying to take an oasis then you can be damn sure i'm gonna take advantage and kick your ass and take that oasis for myself. i'm not gonna say: poor fellow is working hard for that bonus i'll let him have it and i'll go for another"
b. there aren't enough close range oases to allow each player to take one peacefully. and even if there were then it would still be the same scenario when people reach the next circle of oases. if you have power and i have health will you make a move for truth knowing i will come from health and kill you? and don't tell me i should leave you alone and go for honour because the guy in life will probably target me and take honour.

to be honest i'd pray for an initial drop with many terits linked together, then i would gather them all in 1 pile and wait for a sucker to break the neutrals then break him.

There are 5 oases within 2 territory strike zone... I think that's more than enough to make it so that some people have a chance of a bonus... remember there are only 2 "easy" continents on classic?

C.

ah but you see this isn't the classic map this is a conquest type map. on classic if you want to take a bonus you battle and weaken the opponents. here if you want to take a bonus you battle neutrals and weaken yourself.that's the biggest difference.

[yeti_c]

It's kindof both at the same time - as it's not "true" conquest - start with 1 territory style...

But agreed - there are no bonuses on the normal zone... so Conquest in that regard.

C.

[DiM]

It's kindof both at the same time - as it's not "true" conquest - start with 1 territory style...

But agreed - there are no bonuses on the normal zone... so Conquest in that regard.

C.

you're perfectly right and my main problem (as described in posts above) is that this won't actually get played as it is meant to. in fact it will be played as a no bonus classic style thing where people kill eachother in a chaotic fashion. imagine circus maximus without the one way attacks. that's how it's gonna be played. like having 2 circus maximus on each side of the map where people kill eachother with no concern for strategy just praying for lucky dice.