King of the Hill (ver. 2 on page 2) [Abandoned]

Ditocoaf · Post by **Ditocoaf** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:23 pm

The hill used in the map is Silbury Hill in England. The focus of this map is, of course, the peak of the hill, which players should be struggling to take for its highly advantageous position. This map's name is unfortunately similar to King of the Mountains, however gameplay is not similar in the least.

----- ----- -----
<v2>

--removed victory condition
--modified "steep" slopes for added clarity
--added a 25th territor, allowing for the setup I described earlier

----- ----- -----
<Original Post>

Territories: Currently there are 24 territories; so it's a small map. I plan on working another territory in there so that, in an eight player game, there would be three territories per player, with the peak containing neutral armies.
Continents: There are currently four bonus regions; three sections of the field, and then the steep slope region.
Unique features or areas:
--The steep slope territories can only be attacked from above, and can only attack the regions below them.
--The game is won by holding the peak for a certain number of rounds; I'm not sure atm how long it should be, or even whether this should be a victory condition. I'm considering letting the benefits of the peak stand on their own, and victory would be attained in the usual way.
--The peak receives bonus armies each turn, even to the neutral armies that hold it at the start (not sure about the last part). The peak can bombard the entire map. It should start with an unusually high number of neutrals, in order to prevent anyone using it too quickly.

Here is my first draft of the map, done with photoshop:
<old map link>

bryguy · Post by **bryguy** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:45 pm

i like it, but with current xml u would only have to hold it 1 turn

Ditocoaf · Post by **Ditocoaf** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:52 pm

bryguy wrote:i like it, but with current xml u would only have to hold it 1 turn

Well, in that case, I'll just remove that as a victory condition. The peak seems fairly easy to hold for just one turn, so instead the peak will be beneficial on its own merits.

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:08 pm

Wait just a second, I'm pretty sure it's possible to have an objective where you have to hold it for 3 turns.

Ditocoaf · Post by **Ditocoaf** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:52 pm

Hmm. Well, I'll look into it; I'm starting to read XML guides.

Anyway, that aside, is there any advice regarding the map design?

TaCktiX · Post by **TaCktiX** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:46 pm

The "steep side" is very very vague. I realize it's a beta image, but could we have colors for the "steep side" borders and such. The overall idea of the map is really cool, I'd love to play on it.

laci_mae · Post by **laci_mae** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:23 am

I am not sure I understand the game play. If you can only attack downward on the hill, how can you move up?

Thanks,
LMR

Ditocoaf · Post by **Ditocoaf** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:31 am

laci_mae wrote:I am not sure I understand the game play. If you can only attack downward on the hill, how can you move up?

Thanks,
LMR

Yeah, I need to make this aspect of the map much more clear. Only on the darker "steep slope" territories does the downward-only rule apply. I tried to make it clear with the map, but I obviously failed; looking at it now, it's not obvious at all. I'll photoshop these territories to be more obviously darker than the rest, and I'll also likely modify the border of these, as TaCktiX reccomended.

Unit_2 · Post by **Unit_2** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:07 pm

How about making it somewhat like Mt. Trashmore? Like wiht a small park at the top and a feild at the bottom or somethign like that?

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:35 pm

InkL0sed wrote:Wait just a second, I'm pretty sure it's possible to have an objective where you have to hold it for 3 turns.

No you cant make an objective that lasts more than a turn.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:15 pm

i don't like the idea or the graphics.

1. the theme is already there and it plays great (kotm map) but another one would be pointless
2. the graphics are really sub par. a photo with some lines on it will not do.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:18 pm

DiM wrote:i don't like the idea or the graphics.

1. the theme is already there and it plays great (kotm map) but another one would be pointless
2. the graphics are really sub par. a photo with some lines on it will not do.

A photo which is probably protected under copywrite.

Ditocoaf · Post by **Ditocoaf** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:23 pm

Well, here's the next version of the map. Reading the XML guide, there's only a tag for objectives; there's no way to set a limit, like bryguy and gmil said. I also tried to desaturate the steep slopes a little, to make them stand out more; I also tried to make it more clear as to which borders were "down". The slopes could probably stand to be emphasized further; Finally, I added a 25th territory, allowing for the setup I described earlier.

Any further suggestions for the idea? unit_2, I'm not quite sure what you're saying; is this just a graphics suggestion?

Ditocoaf · Post by **Ditocoaf** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:32 pm

DiM wrote:i don't like the idea or the graphics.

1. the theme is already there and it plays great (kotm map) but another one would be pointless
2. the graphics are really sub par. a photo with some lines on it will not do.

gimil wrote:A photo which is probably protected under copywrite.

The hill is Silbury Hill in england, and the photograph is not copyrighted. I admit I am not a photoshop wizard, but a more effort has gone into this than "adding in a few lines." See the original photograph for comparison, if you must. Note that the map had been extended wider than the photograph, and that large portions of the picture are changed. Also keep in mind that this is simply my first presentation of the idea; this is why the graphics may be considered sub-par. I have seen kotm, but this map is absolutely nothing like it. The similar names are unfortunate, but that should have no bearing on the quality of this map.

Unit_2 · Post by **Unit_2** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:10 pm

by what i mean is just put a playground on the top of the hill and maybe a feild on the bottom.

Ditocoaf · Post by **Ditocoaf** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:47 pm

Unit_2 wrote:by what i mean is just put a playground on the top of the hill and maybe a feild on the bottom.

yes... that's what you said. I guess my reply would be that I'll work on the specific graphics of the map as I go along. I don't really see how having a playground at the top (and I assume you mean a sports field at the bottom) is significant or relevant, although I do appreciate your input.

I'm really hoping for some suggestions here to help round out the game play aspect of the idea. Do I have enough bonuses? Would the map be enjoyable with this number of territories? Can anyone see potential for unfairly lopsided play? Any other suggestions to improve the potential for subtle strategy on the map?

I'm considering adding cannons or something similar that may attack the peak from afar, in order to lower its usefulness. Does this sound like a positive change, or just unneeded clutter?

t-o-m · Post by **t-o-m** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:43 am

DiM wrote:i don't like the idea or the graphics.

1. the theme is already there and it plays great (kotm map) but another one would be pointless
2. the graphics are really sub par. a photo with some lines on it will not do.

tough - but o-so-true

rocky mountain · Post by **rocky mountain** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:21 pm

Ditocoaf wrote:I'm really hoping for some suggestions here to help round out the game play aspect of the idea. Do I have enough bonuses? Would the map be enjoyable with this number of territories? Can anyone see potential for unfairly lopsided play? Any other suggestions to improve the potential for subtle strategy on the map?

I'm considering adding cannons or something similar that may attack the peak from afar, in order to lower its usefulness. Does this sound like a positive change, or just unneeded clutter?

the territory lines aren't extremely clear, and i'm also unsure about the steep slopes. are they the three territories at the bottom of the hill, or the whole hill? the regions also need to have more distinct differences to tell them apart easier.
I think the cannons are a good idea, because then it would be harder to maintain and keep the advantages of it. I also think that the bonuses should each be one more, just because one bonus army isn't that much.
overall, it is a good idea, and i believe it will turn out.

t-o-m · Post by **t-o-m** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:33 pm

ver. 2 on page 2 - where?

TaCktiX · Post by **TaCktiX** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:09 pm

Cuz the last version was before topics switched back to 15 replies per page. The map's all but abandoned.

rocky mountain · Post by **rocky mountain** » Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:32 pm

is anymore work being done on this map? or is it abandonned?

Noslen · Post by **Noslen** » Thu May 01, 2008 5:39 pm

I don't know if it's any use to you but I have a few good photo's of silbury hill. They may be able to provide a different angle to it.

TaCktiX · Post by **TaCktiX** » Thu May 01, 2008 5:57 pm

This map idea has been dead for well over a month. Please stop resurrecting it.

King of the Hill (ver. 2 on page 2) [Abandoned]

Should I keep going with this?

King of the Hill (ver. 2 on page 2) [Abandoned]

Re:

Re: King of the Hill (ver. 2 on page 2)

Re: King of the Hill (ver. 2 on page 2)

Re: King of the Hill (ver. 2 on page 2)

Re: King of the Hill (ver. 2 on page 2)

Re: King of the Hill (ver. 2 on page 2)

Re: King of the Hill (ver. 2 on page 2)