Moderator: Cartographers
Victor Sullivan wrote:So... This version more readable?
thenobodies80 wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:So... This version more readable?
I think more visible than readable....for example the part +1 per white space in a different letter group is a mess...you should try to increase the space between the lines.
Anyway, i don't see big problems here, gimme the time to discuss this one with the other blue guys to understand their thoughts.
In any case I think I can say you're on the right way!
Nobodies
Victor Sullivan wrote:Did you still need an XML sample?
thenobodies80 wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:Did you still need an XML sample?
Not really...
Just need to check how 3 digits show on the map.
Evil DIMwit wrote:All right, I've had a closer inspection of the gameplay, and I don't like what I see.Victor Sullivan wrote:Hmmm... I can see how that could be better in a way, but we've deviated from the real gameplay of Parcheesi/Pachisi already...
Don't try to stick too closely to Parcheesi's gameplay. Conquer Club is a game of strategy; Parcheesi is mostly a game of luck. Players need options; they need to be able to get around. As this map is, at each step, there is very little that a player can decide to do. They can't try for a quick elimination because there are a bunch of neutrals (and the victory condition) in the way. They can't really go for a bonus region and try to defend it because all the bonuses are based on collections, which means a player's bonus is strictly determined by the proportion of the loop that they control, which is mostly based on luck of the dice. A player can either go down the loop quickly, or go down the loop a bit more slowly. There are few other options. And it doesn't help that the map is very symmetric, so even if it was more open it would still have little strategic variety. Without some serious gameplay-lifting, this map is just a long crapshoot.
Evil DIMwit wrote:I still feel this doesn't quite work out. Elimination isn't an option without going through the center, which means that whether you want elimination or the Objective, the ultimate goal of this map is to get to the center. That involves getting through a lot of neutrals that there is otherwise no reason to pass through. That means a player's goal is really to achieve an overwhelming troop superiority. However, the map's very symmetric structure, its limitation of mobility, the fact that each player gets a decent auto-deploy that can't be taken away by someone who isn't holding the objective already, the fact that the other sources of troops resolve to simple proportional territory bonuses, all mean that there's no real way to gain a significant troop lead beyond lost of blind luck in the early game, and slow, mechanical expansion over many uneventful rounds. There still does not seem to be a significant component of strategy to this map, and I don't think there will be, short of a major restructuring of the map's gameplay concept.
It's pretty and it's a creative idea, but it just doesn't work.
Victor Sullivan wrote:Also, I want to up the image size for the small map so the text is more readable and so the 888's will fit in the vertical spaces. Should I PM MrBenn, then? Or how should I go about the appeals process regarding the larger map size?
natty_dread wrote:Victor Sullivan wrote:Also, I want to up the image size for the small map so the text is more readable and so the 888's will fit in the vertical spaces. Should I PM MrBenn, then? Or how should I go about the appeals process regarding the larger map size?
You have plenty of room to make the map work in the standard sizes..
natty_dread wrote:You know Sully, this would be a lot easier if the graphic artist himself would visit & post in this thread. It's kinda complicated, with you having to relay messages back & forth...
natty_dread wrote:Are you saying he's been guested the whole time this map has been in development? You should get this sorted...
Riskismy wrote:So make that e-ticket, how long can it take?
natty_dread wrote:Yeah, well as soon as you get it sorted, you should ask him to visit the thread personally... it would be easier to all parties.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users