Egypt: Valley Of The Kings [Quenched]

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon May 14, 2007 5:11 am

if that was complicated then i'm crazy

anyway, change your sig to reflect the new map

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Mon May 14, 2007 5:28 am

DiM wrote:if that was complicated then i'm crazy

anyway, change your sig to reflect the new map

Done Herr Kapitan!!

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Wed May 16, 2007 3:46 pm

More feedback required please!!!

onbekende · Post by **onbekende** » Wed May 16, 2007 4:19 pm

You know I like it 100%

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Wed May 16, 2007 4:21 pm

onbekende wrote:You know I like it 100%

Onbekende...apologies if if i've gotten you name incorrect in the past...thanks for your confidence in Valley of the Kings.

Gilligan · Post by **Gilligan** » Wed May 16, 2007 4:23 pm

cairnswk wrote:Gees, I'm surprised. Nobody likes this one!

No offense cairns, but I see why. It is somewhat confusing, with the colors and the legend.

boblicom · Post by **boblicom** » Wed May 16, 2007 4:25 pm

i think its a good idea but the map just doesnt look good to me

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Wed May 16, 2007 4:27 pm

boblicom wrote:i think its a good idea but the map just doesnt look good to me

boblicom...thanks for dropping in...can you expand on what doesn't appeal to you

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Wed May 16, 2007 4:31 pm

Gilligan wrote:
cairnswk wrote:Gees, I'm surprised. Nobody likes this one!
No offense cairns, but I see why. It is somewhat confusing, with the colors and the legend.

OK...so do you think some lighter /darker different schemes would be in order?

Gilligan · Post by **Gilligan** » Wed May 16, 2007 4:37 pm

cairnswk wrote:
Gilligan wrote:
cairnswk wrote:Gees, I'm surprised. Nobody likes this one!
No offense cairns, but I see why. It is somewhat confusing, with the colors and the legend.
OK...so do you think some lighter /darker different schemes would be in order?

I just noticed the "Robber A1", so it is pretty clear about the Tombs bonuses, to me at least. But I can see confusion there, I need to get a closer look at it.

I think the major problem with this map is the "Afterlife" section. I don't think it would be, if the key was easier to distinguish with that section.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu May 17, 2007 4:53 am

Gilligan wrote:
cairnswk wrote:
Gilligan wrote:
cairnswk wrote:Gees, I'm surprised. Nobody likes this one!
No offense cairns, but I see why. It is somewhat confusing, with the colors and the legend.
OK...so do you think some lighter /darker different schemes would be in order?
I just noticed the "Robber A1", so it is pretty clear about the Tombs bonuses, to me at least. But I can see confusion there, I need to get a closer look at it.

I think the major problem with this map is the "Afterlife" section. I don't think it would be, if the key was easier to distinguish with that section.

Hi again Gilligan....hrer are the changes on the map:
*re-organised legend with colours
* swapped colours to make them more defintive
* minor tomb movements.

Hope this is better....all the colours belong to the Egyptian colour schemes defined in the burial chamber drawings.

Gilligan · Post by **Gilligan** » Thu May 17, 2007 6:15 am

I'm still confused with the bottom 3 bullets on the bottom. But the coloration is much better

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Thu May 17, 2007 6:47 am

Gilligan wrote:I'm still confused with the bottom 3 bullets on the bottom. But the coloration is much better

i'm confused with what you just said

anyway. i'm kinda disturbed by the 2 anubis holding the bottom legend. because of the background they appear to be headless.
could you do something about that?

maybe use a radial gradient from the center to the outside with dark blue in the center and yellow on the outside.

Epideme · Post by **Epideme** » Thu May 17, 2007 6:59 am

Wow, this would be a great map...If it was at all vaguely comprehensible

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu May 17, 2007 7:01 am

Epideme wrote:Wow, this would be a great map...If it was at all vaguely comprehensible

What don't you understand Epideme?

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu May 17, 2007 7:03 am

Gilligan wrote:I'm still confused with the bottom 3 bullets on the bottom. But the coloration is much better

Coloration...OK.

Do you not understand the bottom three instructions re the bonuses?

Epideme · Post by **Epideme** » Thu May 17, 2007 7:06 am

I Concur, the bottom 3 points ae about as clear as mud. Also i think the entire bonus system should be made a lot more simple, as it is far to complex at current.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu May 17, 2007 7:27 am

Epideme wrote:I Concur, the bottom 3 points ae about as clear as mud. Also i think the entire bonus system should be made a lot more simple, as it is far to complex at current.

Thanks for your comments epipdeme....I think the bonus system is quite simple really, its just that I have not explained it well enough, perhaps this will fix that below.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu May 17, 2007 7:29 am

DiM wrote:
Gilligan wrote:I'm still confused with the bottom 3 bullets on the bottom. But the coloration is much better
i'm confused with what you just said

anyway. i'm kinda disturbed by the 2 anubis holding the bottom legend. because of the background they appear to be headless.
could you do something about that?

maybe use a radial gradient from the center to the outside with dark blue in the center and yellow on the outside.

yeh hi DiM...does V28 above fix those issues?

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Thu May 17, 2007 10:12 am

Few questions...

What's an "Amente"?
What's a "Scarab"?

Why "Robber"?

Why is the word "region" in "Region Tomb" & "Region Amente"?

C.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Thu May 17, 2007 12:58 pm

yeti_c wrote:Few questions...

What's an "Amente"?

Hi yeti_c.....pleased to see you....Amente is the word for the Underworld and has its own glyph as per the legend.

What's a "Scarab"?

There is a very good article on what scarabs are hre: http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/permex/egypt/egs-text.htm

My concept of using the scarab (beetle) was directly taken from the film The Mummy. in that it was a flesh eating beetle in that film. If you require a glyph put into the legend that is no problem.

Why "Robber"?

It was suggested by someone back in the early pages of development that perhaps the names of persons who found these tombs would be better placed in those terts, however, it seems that most of the tombs had already been ROBBED by robbers unknown before the westerners discovered this Valley of Tombs. I think it sounds great for the actual gameplay.

Why is the word "region" in "Region Tomb" & "Region Amente"?

simply to clarify that its like a continent except a smaller word, and that each REGION has its own Amente (underworld) to conquer.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat May 19, 2007 3:25 pm

This v29 is a re-working of the bonuses, put through the srepadsheet calculator. I think this will be a more playable set of bonuses.
Feedback anyone?

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat May 19, 2007 3:34 pm

yje scarabs have connector lines. make them more clear.

for example the D scarab might seem it's connected to Mentukhsakjhfe (or how the heck it is spelled) and in fact it is connected to Thutmose I.

or you could try making the scarabs like they are smudged from a tomb with shine and blur around, like a soul. i don't know how to say it so i'll post a picture soon. (i don't have fireworks or photoshop at this pc)

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Sat May 19, 2007 3:45 pm

cairnswk wrote:This v29 is a re-working of the bonuses, put through the srepadsheet calculator. I think this will be a more playable set of bonuses.
Feedback anyone?

If the robbers with the symbols don't attack each other, maybe remove those symbols?

the arms of the ankh are borders in the underworld I assume? (I mean why wouldn't they be right?)

I am able to see the scarab connections to the kings but maybe make those a bit more noticeable?

It seems like bonuses will be very difficult to come by, unless I'm totally misunderstanding the bonus structure.
Eg: to get tomb D bonus I need all 6 kings, the robber and it's Amente. But, if i want the underworld bonus, I only need the soul which is right next to it and finally if I'd only need the ankh to get the other bonus.

My problem with the bonus legend is the text at the bottom and the symbols on the right don't see to go together well. When I read it, I think it is simple. When I look to the right, I see a bonus next to the Amente, and I wonder if I need the amente for the Tomb bonus, why isn't it just included in the Tomb bonus? Something isn't adding up for me. (and I think many others will be confused when they play for the first time)

The pictures seem to give the impression that all I need for a bonus is the territory itself.

On the gameplay itself I think it will be very interesting. I guess the idea is getting a bonus should be very difficult because the advantage it gives is high and ability to get more bonuses is easier than getting the one bonus to begin with?

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat May 19, 2007 4:13 pm

edbeard wrote:
cairnswk wrote:This v29 is a re-working of the bonuses, put through the srepadsheet calculator. I think this will be a more playable set of bonuses.
Feedback anyone?
If the robbers with the symbols don't attack each other, maybe remove those symbols?

Yes, edbeard, they have now become redundant, and the eyes of horus will be removed...since attacking from the afterlife back to the robbers with eyes of horus was part of the old style before the one way arrow were placed.

the arms of the ankh are borders in the underworld I assume? (I mean why wouldn't they be right?)

Yes, do they need something to make that clearer?

I am able to see the scarab connections to the kings but maybe make those a bit more noticeable?

yes work is uinderway on that aspect, as pointed out by DiM above.

It seems like bonuses will be very difficult to come by, unless I'm totally misunderstanding the bonus structure.
Eg: to get tomb D bonus I need all 6 kings, the robber and it's Amente.

yes

But, if i want the underworld bonus, I only need the soul which is right next to it and finally if I'd only need the ankh to get the other bonus.

yes

My problem with the bonus legend is the text at the bottom and the symbols on the right don't see to go together well. When I read it, I think it is simple. When I look to the right, I see a bonus next to the Amente, and I wonder if I need the amente for the Tomb bonus, why isn't it just included in the Tomb bonus? Something isn't adding up for me. (and I think many others will be confused when they play for the first time). The pictures seem to give the impression that all I need for a bonus is the territory itself.

Mmmmm...i see what u say there....and yes I agree it could cause some confusion...it is all part of this concept that graphically the amente belongs to the underworld and not the tombs, but physically the kings need to have the amente in order to go through and get the tokens on their way to the afterlife. I think i will reduce the amente bonus back to zero that way there may be less confusion, but the amente glyph will still be there....
EDIT \\ and increase the tomb bonus by 1 for each region to cover for the extra tert that needs to be held...mmmm...maybe i need to recalculate this.!!

On the gameplay itself I think it will be very interesting. I guess the idea is getting a bonus should be very difficult because the advantage it gives is high and ability to get more bonuses is easier than getting the one bonus to begin with?

yes....it will be an intersting gameplay, and just slightly different to what is around now.

And thanks for your input on this...it is greatly appreciated.

Egypt: Valley Of The Kings [Quenched]

Re: Nobody likes this one

i dont like it

Re: i dont like it

Re: Nobody likes this one

Re:

Re: V27 Colour and Legend Changes

V29 Bonuses re-worked

Re: V29 Bonuses re-worked

Re: V29 Bonuses re-worked