TIC TAC TOE

by **andy_is_awesome** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:37 am

Click image to enlarge.

Oops! Didn't add how the territs connect.

1.) Squares attack up/down, left/right
(i.e. TL:TL can attack TL:TM and TL:ML)

2.) You move between boards via the middle square
(i.e. TL:MM can attack TM:MM and ML:MM)

Thoughts???

by **Bruceswar** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:59 am

It is me or are the tic tac toe boards not lined up? Looks semi cool, but will need to see more of it give a better opinion.

by **natty dread** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:07 am

What kind of freak of nature has tic-tac mints for toes, anyway?

by **Victor Sullivan** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:04 am

IMO, I think there's a better idea out there for you to pursue.

-Sully

by **zimmah** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:11 am

tic tac toe on 5 out of 9 boards = winning condition.

would like to see a losing condition like "having no territory on 5/9 boards" but that's currently not possible. Having a losing condition that requires you to have at least 1 territory on each board would not be any fun.

by **natty dread** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 7:46 am

I remember when I was a kid we used to play 5-dimensional tic-tac-toe with my friend. It was a real brain fucker.

by **andy_is_awesome** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:47 am

Bruceswar wrote:It is me or are the tic tac toe boards not lined up? Looks semi cool, but will need to see more of it give a better opinion.

They aren't lined up. I through the board together on MS paint last night in like 20min. Just seeing if this is worth persuing.
Graphics would upgrade to maybe paper/crayon on a fridge with magnets? or marker on a bathroom stall?

Gameplay will upgrade as necessary to make it more playable.

Victor Sullivan wrote:IMO, I think there's a better idea out there for you to pursue.

-Sully

There is. I've been frustrated with GIMP lately so I just need to step away from it for a little while 'till i go back.
Just gaging plausability on this idea that has been rattling in my brain.

zimmah wrote:tic tac toe on 5 out of 9 boards = winning condition.

would like to see a losing condition like "having no territory on 5/9 boards" but that's currently not possible. Having a losing condition that requires you to have at least 1 territory on each board would not be any fun.

I'm not big on winning conditions. They are hardly ever met in the games that I've played.
Considering adding another bonus, like "+1 for every 2 middle squares you own (not incliding MM:MM)", which is it's own bonus.

by **DiM** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:54 am

i see this map as less popular than conquer 4 or chinese checkers and those 2 maps are rarely played.

by **andy_is_awesome** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:58 am

DiM wrote:i see this map as less popular than conquer 4 or chinese checkers and those 2 maps are rarely played.

Those maps are thin on strat. I think there is a lot more here than meets the eye.

I was hoping for some in depth conversation about the map.
Critique it deeper than than "gut feelings".

Does it need more wizards and zombies to pass the "COOL!" factor?
is that the problem with it? It's not cool enough? Cause that's all I'm getting so far...

by **DiM** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 9:59 am

andy_is_awesome wrote:
DiM wrote:i see this map as less popular than conquer 4 or chinese checkers and those 2 maps are rarely played.

Those maps are thin on strat. I think there is a lot more here than meets the eye.
I'm hoping for some deeper critic than these "Gut Feelings" that I"m getting.
Break it down for me...

first rule when making a successful map:
1. avoid symmetry.

by **natty dread** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:28 am

Dim has a point. Symmetry makes for boring gameplay.

There's a ton of better ideas for maps out there.

by **ironsij0287** on Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:37 pm

Will all the squares be populated on the initial drop? That seems like it would lead to a lot of lopsided troop bonuses from the start.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:49 am

andy_is_awesome wrote:Does it need more wizards and zombies to pass the "COOL!" factor?

YES.

No, but seriously, you do need that sort of eye-catching, intriguing concept that will attract people to your map. I think that perhaps you could use similar strategic principles that you have included or would like to include here in a map concept that is more enticing. "Tic Tac Toe" is just not all that appealing.

-Sully

by **thehippo8** on Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:47 am

Funny, I was thinking about how tic tac toe could be made playable here and I kinda like your idea (my idea requires an upgrade in xml that allows to change to the next board only after the first is finished and then tallying up wins and losses at the end for an overall winner once each board is won or drawn but if all is a draw then it refreshes and away you go again ... that would never work ... lol). IMHO compellability has to do with connection and graphics - consider Doodle Earth with just shy of 600k games so far. Not sure if you should scrap this just yet. Be nice if you could come up with some better graphics and see if people jump on board.

by **eternal242** on Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:19 am

The multiple board games seems initially quite confusing and I would shy away from playing that game if I came across it. It makes me think of Though I would be attracted to tic tac toe because I know the game and it implies simplicity. Even a single game of it, one on one, with a standard drop and only 1 or 2 bonus troops(reinforcements) per turn. I see it being good for people wanting a fun quick game. Suppose you could make it harder if you allowed bonus to be taken either at the beginning or the end of each turn.