Doodle Earth [Quenched]

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:27 am

you really just don't get it at all do you?

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:29 am

DiM, I hardly think that's a fair comparison.

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:30 am

Dim, nobody has said anything at all about technical quality apart from yourself.

Get off your weird tangent and try actually reading our posts.

boberz · Post by **boberz** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:34 am

no i do this is clearly a beutiful replica of a crayon drawing which in itself is brilliant, qwert was going for a technically perfect map which means he needs changes.

I see it when i coach tennis all the time; the little kid (same age , important) plays technically perfectly and the big one plays technically crap; they both have the same natural ability 9/10 the big kid wins

it is pointless trying to make the big one thechnically perfect it will just make him worse, the little kid gets better and better at the technical stuff but gets nowhere in matchplay.

In short this map is better than qwerts in myopinion and if you dont like the playability and style there are enough people that do so suck it up

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:36 am

ok. i'll try to explain this better.

graphics has 2 components: theme and technical presentation

DIMwit has a theme. kiddy style. it has been approved by the majority and it's a keeper no matter what others say. several polls and many post sugested the theme is good and thus it got it's approval. coming to say the theme sucks is of no use since it is already settled.

now since the theme is set and the majority approved it, the only problems regarding the graphics can come from technical aspects. and the technical aspects are ok by me.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:38 am

KEYOGI wrote:DiM, I hardly think that's a fair comparison.

different themes perfect implementations. (i'm talking about dali and michelangelo)

and yes the comparison is obviously far fetched, hence the

i used

but i think it serves the purpose of explaining my point of view.

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:40 am

Thats great, except its not about you.

It's also not really about the majority. It's not going to get forged unless it has Andy/Keyogi's approval.

Andy has been quiet, and it seems like there is a lot of work to be done before keyogi is convinced.

boberz · Post by **boberz** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:47 am

yes but just becasue they dont like it doesnt mean it doesnt get quenched but when all the improvements dry up and keep getting repeating the same one

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:55 am

Spockers wrote:Thats great, except its not about you.

It's also not really about the majority. It's not going to get forged unless it has Andy/Keyogi's approval.

Andy has been quiet, and it seems like there is a lot of work to be done before keyogi is convinced.

well this may come as a surprise for you but i'm sure andy or keyogi are not fond of all the maps. but if the gameplay is flawless and the gfx is perfectly executed they will quench it even if they won't play a single game on that map because they don't like the theme.

if what you're saying is true imagine all maps will have to be exactly to andy's and keyogi's taste meaning all maps will be roughly the same in gameplay theme and aspect. think again.

Evil DIMwit · Post by **Evil DIMwit** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:36 pm

Not this argument again... Spockers, I don't quite understand what you mean by novelty. Could you clarify?

Ruben Cassar wrote:But seriously 18 territories? Come on...36 is the minimum number to get a decent map that is playable for 6 player games.

If six players ccan play on 36 territories, surely three players can successfully play on half of that. A map doesn't have to be perfectly enjoyable on any and every mode; if people discover that they don't like playing this map with six players, they won't make any games for this map with six players.

Besides, a 36-territory minimum seems to me more of a guideline. if everyone kept absolutely sticking to rules like that, we wouldn't have modern art, or alternative rock, or quantum physics.

And I don't think this map is visually perfect either, but I can't for the life of me think of what to do to make it look more like crayon. According to people it seems crayony enough, but I don't know.

I do agree that Eastern Front looks great and it's a wonder it isn't playable already. But I don't see what qwert has to do with my map not getting anywhere.

As for the gameplay, if only there was a way to test a map's gameplay on Conquer Club before putting all the work into the visuals. That would be nice.

fluffybunnykins · Post by **fluffybunnykins** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:07 pm

even if it is only a novelty map, you might still get quite a few people playing it for the novelty value, but what's so bad about that? The whole site is about amusement, isn't it? I mean, we're not trying to feed the hungry of heal the sick here are we? It's not really all that serious, so what does it matter if some of the maps are mildly amusing?
There where 14 636 active members back at the beginning of March (so prob more now...), even if only half play this map just once out of curiosity or whatever, that's still 1 830 games (4 player games). that's not too bad is it? And some will love it and play again, yeah?
Quit moaning 'til you've got a constructive comment or go and make a better map, or just don't look at this thread again, and don't play the map when it goes up, either.
If I could, I'd vote for 18, 20 or 24. any of them would do me. which one shall I click...

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:48 pm

Evil DIMwit wrote:If six players ccan play on 36 territories, surely three players can successfully play on half of that. A map doesn't have to be perfectly enjoyable on any and every mode; if people discover that they don't like playing this map with six players, they won't make any games for this map with six players.

I find it odd that every single map put before the foundry has been torn to shreds by the community if it has had less than 36 territories, but suddenly it's ok for this one map to halve that magic number.

It's just my personal opinion, but I find this map is a bit of slap in the face to some of the other cartographers out there. Don't get me wrong Evil DIMwit, I realise there's still hard work put into your map but I can't fairly judge your map to the same standard as others. Is that fair on other cartographers?

I wont say anymore on the subject because I have nothing more to add in a constructive matter that will help develop the map. I gave my suggestions on page 10, my opinion hasn't changed since then.

Evil DIMwit · Post by **Evil DIMwit** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:16 pm

KEYOGI wrote: I find it odd that every single map put before the foundry has been torn to shreds by the community if it has had less than 36 territories, but suddenly it's ok for this one map to halve that magic number.

I find it odd too. That's why I proposed this map in the first place -- I think that smaller maps than 32 territories are very much playable and that that niche should be filled. Why this one map managed to draw more acclaim than criticism is unknown to me; possibly because a small number is the stated aim of the map, rather than just a consequence of initial division as seen in some geographic location maps, is my guess.

dolemite · Post by **dolemite** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:58 pm

Have some more people print it out, play it, and report back on playability. If it works, then the impact of the "not enough countries" argument would lose a lot of weight.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:50 pm

DiM wrote:ok. i'll try to explain this better.

graphics has 2 components: theme and technical presentation

DIMwit has a theme. kiddy style. it has been approved by the majority and it's a keeper no matter what others say. several polls and many post sugested the theme is good and thus it got it's approval. coming to say the theme sucks is of no use since it is already settled.

now since the theme is set and the majority approved it, the only problems regarding the graphics can come from technical aspects. and the technical aspects are ok by me.

youre right DiM, and im not sure y this doesnt make sense to people...

KEYOGI wrote:I find it odd that every single map put before the foundry has been torn to shreds by the community if it has had less than 36 territories, but suddenly it's ok for this one map to halve that magic number.

because the point of this map- as DIMwit has said- to make a unique playability option. different maps are better for different types of games- for instance, world2.0 generally makes for a long game. but that doesnt mean the map is bad! the idea is for this one to be great for shorter games- w/o necessarily having to resort to freestyle, or a different gameplay type. now, i dont know exactly what the magic number or territories is for this particular goal. but theres no reason it should be 36 only because no other map has ever been less.

Evil DIMwit · Post by **Evil DIMwit** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:45 pm

dolemite wrote:Have some more people print it out, play it, and report back on playability. If it works, then the impact of the "not enough countries" argument would lose a lot of weight.

Come to think of it, if anyone else has AIM and is willing to help playtest this map, we can make a chatroom, use AIM's dice, and each keep track of the map. One non-player would probably be responsible for randomly generating cards and telling people what cards they get... Can anyone find a reason this wouldn't work?

Contrickster · Post by **Contrickster** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:01 pm

KEYOGI wrote: I find it odd that every single map put before the foundry has been torn to shreds by the community if it has had less than 36 territories, but suddenly it's ok for this one map to halve that magic number.

There are published maps with less than 36 territories, so it is not true to say "every single map put before the foundary has been torn to shreds" etc... I don't understand why KEYOGI you used that language at all because you only need to look at the published games to see you are wrong.*

Clearly there is interest & to look at Active games a market for good smaller maps.

The key with small maps is to ensure tight gameplay for fewer players. This means if a small map is going to work it should not be designed for 6 players, they should be designed for fewer.

With larger maps you have more slack if your design sucks. Development is spread over more turns and therefore more noise comes in /w regards the result - gameplay luck such as dice and cards. Smaller maps you don't get as much "slack."

With small maps design is everything and it would completely miss the point to design a small map for 6 players. 24/25 territories would be appropriate for a map designed for fewer players.

*Unless there has been a new ruling on the matter. Which I doubt there has been, as I have seen lack (sp?), say in a thread that small maps were cool and more were wanted.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 8:22 pm

What a freaking weird show it has been in here.

The very theme of the map is "SMALL". Is that really so wrong? Is the idea of a small map enjoyable to a small number of players who don't want players to be able to quickly and easily approach +4 or more from territories wrong?

Now... If the title is doodle earth, and I apologize I didn't check responses when I last brought this up, I could see the adding of more territories without detracting from the theme. But I cringe at the thought of this having 32.

After Thought: You know, really, I hope this passes because I'm tired of my only realistic small map option being Indochina.

Spockers: I get what you are trying to say, really I do. But I think the flame forum is somewhere else and that if Keyogi didn't agree with you in some way you would have been warned rather severely for some of the things you've been saying. I again mention that I hate that my only small map option is Indochina, Indochina kinda sucks, it has a broken border that nobody cares to fix. I'd like new stuff with the small theme.

Contrickster · Post by **Contrickster** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:59 pm

I wish I saved the thread where lack (sp?) said he wanted more small maps.

I can understand KEYOGI wanting to do the established thing, new mod doesn't want to rock the boat. But in this case I think he's wrong and they're desperate to add great - emphasis on that - small maps to the site.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:14 pm

Contrickster wrote:I can understand KEYOGI wanting to do the established thing, new mod doesn't want to rock the boat.

I think you misunderstand me. That's all I'm going to say, because I just can't be bothered explaining myself... again.

Contrickster · Post by **Contrickster** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:32 pm

KEYOGI wrote:
Contrickster wrote:I can understand KEYOGI wanting to do the established thing, new mod doesn't want to rock the boat.
I think you misunderstand me. That's all I'm going to say, because I just can't be bothered explaining myself... again.

Sorry, I don't read every post in every thread. I presume this means you are more flexible about map size than your words above suggest!

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:47 pm

as for 18 territories i think it needs some play testing before the idea is a go or a disaster.

as for the graphics, meh, they kinda suck. people are tossing around words like 'genius' and 'brilliant' um... i don't think so. I could replicate this map during the commercials of an episode of Seinfeld. Technically, its rather cheap and not all that great of an execution.

as for the theme, maybe my nephew will like, he's 6. This map has novelty. but novelty wears off. Whats going to make people stay with this map? The graphics? The gameplay? The novelty? My guess is none of the above, but I would like to be proven wrong.

I agree with keyogi that this map is setting a really low bar in the graphics department, I dunno, make it takes someone with some graphic ability to understand how easily this map is made.

that being said, I would like to see more small maps on the site. I wouldn't mind a world .5 at all with 18 territories that didn't make me feel like i was babysitting.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:34 am

Although I've not really commented before, I thought I ought to give a little input here...

Overall, I tend to agree with Mibi and Keyogi. I'm really not a huge fan.

Firstly, I think we have to separate the graphical qualities of this map from the fact that its small. I don't like the graphics one bit. I KNOW they're meant to replicate a child's drawing, but to me they basically look cheap, sub-standard and pretty unprofessional compared to some of the great maps that are currently playable or in production. Yes, it is setting a really low bar in terms of what we want from maps on CC. People will say 'my map is graphically better than the small one! Quench!' in the same way that they currently say 'its better than the middle east or Quebec!'. The novelty is ertainly a somewhat attractive feature, but it is completely overshadowed by the amateurish graphic effect.

As for the number of territories, I would like to see experimentation with smaller maps, but (like Mibi) it needs to be thoroughly play tested before we get a map of this size forged. Such a small map might turn into a pretty unplayable disaster, with no-one being able to acquire a high enough number of re-enforcements per turn, especially in a no cards game, to make any kind of interesting gameplay possible. We'll have to see.

Anyway, thats just my $2. Rip it to shreds.

fireedud · Post by **fireedud** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:20 am

Guiscard wrote: Anyway, thats just my $2.

It's supposed to be 2 cents, not dollars.

Contrickster · Post by **Contrickster** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:23 am

Add the army shadows I think you could get into the crayon style. Totally.

For me though, 18 territories is too few.