cairnswk, since you're discussing some details with iancanton, I was wondering if you want that I send these files to lackattack in any case.
Let me know
Nobodies
Moderator: Cartographers
PLAYER57832 wrote:The French ship (Aigle) is mislabeled Achille on the map, though the drop down label works OK
Googilibear wrote:love the map but yellow and neutral troops are hard to tell apart. cheers
whakamole wrote:a couple comments i've made in a beta game Game 9988599
just that the opaque dots on the small white ships make distinguishing colors a little tough, which is compounded with neuts or ?'s on them
white on white on white, i'm not a designer but that seems like its working against principles in terms of visibility and ease of use
the attack arrows are a bit too fine as far as i'm concerned too
the opposing team hasn't had any problem, but i think they may also just be taking my comments as though i'm complaining about how the game is proceeding, and not as constructive analysis of the map's playability.
greenoaks wrote:why is F1 the only intermediary that starts with 3 neutral when all the others are 1 ?
HighlanderAttack wrote:I am finally getting the hang of this map--slowly anyway
I feel there is way too much bonus--when you get a certain amount of territs in one of the Lines you get a huge advantage and the game is over
This is one vs one opinion as you would expect from me
Kind of like the map though
isaiah40 wrote:He should be back the week of the 21st. I'll let him do this as, I can't go back and read the entire thread to get what has been said.
cairnswk wrote:so you want
6 BW
6 FW
3 SW
8 BL
6 FL
7 SL
with flagship neutrals to remain as 3.
and neutral 2s on Bellerophon, Orion, San Augustin as the balancing vessels
iancanton wrote:sorry for the delay, cairns.cairnswk wrote:so you want
6 BW
6 FW
3 SW
8 BL
6 FL
7 SL
with flagship neutrals to remain as 3.
and neutral 2s on Bellerophon, Orion, San Augustin as the balancing vessels
+5 BW and +5 FW (with the rest as given above) is what i actually have in mind, since both look easier bonuses than +6 FL. however, we can by all means try +6 BW and +6 FW first if u think it more fitting: my main concern here is to equalise the attractiveness of BW against FW, with the FL comparison being secondary because there's less interplay between FL and either BW or FW.
ian.
JustCallMeStupid wrote:This map is fairly complicated to give back feedback on it so quickly, so far I find it to be a good map, but it is frustrating that there are so many bombardings and mutual bombardings. If makes it extremely frustrating to fort units around and set up kills in an esc card game. Im not sure if maybe 30-50% of the bombards could be upgraded to one way attacks, to allow for some kind of troop movements but this will be a rare map u will ever see the majors+ playing with esc cards on. Now I know most those dorks just stick to classic, but some of us like to venture out on the new, fun stuff, I havent played classic in over a year probably.
Im not sure if others who play 1v1 games have the same concerns about the bombarding on the map, but Id like to know. Maybe its no issue at all for other game styles.
greenoaks wrote:there is a typo in the xml
2011-12-05 21:05:01 - greenoaks assaulted (B) Bellerophone from (B) Belleisle and conquered it from canona85
that shouldn't have an E on the end
thenobodies80 wrote:And updated!
cairnswk wrote:greenoaks wrote:there is a typo in the xml
2011-12-05 21:05:01 - greenoaks assaulted (B) Bellerophone from (B) Belleisle and conquered it from canona85
that shouldn't have an E on the end
thanks for that pickup Greenoaks.
i'll see what can be done to forward the file to lackattack.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users