Moderator: Cartographers
It must have been the font.
ok i'll see what i can do but if people start complaining it's too dark i'll hold you responsible.AndyDufresne wrote:The font is looking much like it is much easier to read. And I think I actually like the legend now.
Regarding the light vs dark, perhaps if you tried some experimentation you could people some areas darker and lighter like a real old map. I think the feel could be achieved, but perhaps not to the extent of the older version's darkness.
--Andy
yes the map is more complicated than the classic risk game but there's nothing that can't be handled it's not like you have to perform brain surgery.Ruben Cassar wrote:No it's not simple and I think most people won't be bothered with this map. However apparently it's the map maker's desire to make something different and that's his main objective not how many people like or play the map...
nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to play it. i guess this is that kind of map that you either love it or hate it. at least give it a try and then draw your conclusions and decide if you'll ever play it again.wicked wrote:omg the bonuses are way too complicated.I don't see this getting played anymore than US Apocalypse, and it's bonuses are much easier to undersand than this.
thanks for the support edbeard. your perfectly right about the bolded part.edbeard wrote:actually it's pretty simple. each "continent" only has one resource pair, one factory and one market.
own the resource pair and market on your continent get 1 army. own the resource pair and factory on continent get 1 army.
I'm sure many people will like this map. it's different than your standard maps so of course some people will be put off, but others will like the uniqueness.
Hehe. Mine was just a statement. I did not expect a response or a justification for your work.DiM wrote:yes the map is more complicated than the classic risk game but there's nothing that can't be handled it's not like you have to perform brain surgery.Ruben Cassar wrote:No it's not simple and I think most people won't be bothered with this map. However apparently it's the map maker's desire to make something different and that's his main objective not how many people like or play the map...
and yes it's my desire to make something different. BUT i had 2 polls about this map and in both polls the majority wanted me to continue working on it. if it had been a map that nobody wants to play then polls would have indicated me to stop just like it has happened to many maps that were rejected by the foundry community. it's obvious some people won't play it and some will. i never aimed to make the most played map on the site i just aimed to do something different that pleases at least a large part of the community and the poll results and feedback were in my favor.
i am certain it won't be a popular map. but i hope it will have at least more success than crosswordRuben Cassar wrote: Personally I don't think it will be a popular map, but hey, I stand to be corrected...and some people actually play Crossword...or at least I believe they do...
Sparqs wrote:Hey, another map I like. (It may seem like I say that a lot, but I don't comment on the ones I don't like.) Sure, it's complex and not everyone is going to play it, but that seems fine to me.
Also, I think the complex maps grow on you. I was completely lost on Crossword for the first game, but now that I can picture the parallel countries attacking their interlopers, the board makes much more sense.
I don't think every map has to work for every player or every situation. If someone made a map that sucked for almost every variant, but was great for 3-player/assassin/no cards, wouldn't that be OK?
Edit
I might suggest removing (or at least reducing) the flavor text on the right. With the considerable amount of text on the bottom it looks intimidating. What if it were something short, that looked hand-written on the map? That way it would not come across as another block of rules. Or maybe a graphic element there.
I also have a suggestion to reduce the wording of the rules text. I think breaking it into the extra bullet also helps make it easier to understand. I suggest changing the order and text thusly:DiM wrote:here is the darkened map.
You could reduce the text further, making it even less intimidating, by combining the transport explanation with the bonus:Ports...
Docks...
...Pirate Cove
* +1 for each Resource Pair and Factory on the same continent.
* +1 for transporting a Resource Pair to the local Market.
* +2 for transporting a Resource Pair to a foreign Market.
* For local transport of Resources you must own the Pair and their local Market.
* For foreign transport you must own the Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.
I suppose that might impact the flavor of the map, but I think it would be clear that owning Resources and their Markets give a bonus because you are transporting one to the other.* +1 for owning a Resource Pair and their local Market.
* +2 for owning a Resource Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.
Sparqs wrote: I also have a suggestion to reduce the wording of the rules text. I think breaking it into the extra bullet also helps make it easier to understand. I suggest changing the order and text thusly:
You could reduce the text further, making it even less intimidating, by combining the transport explanation with the bonus:Ports...
Docks...
...Pirate Cove
* +1 for each Resource Pair and Factory on the same continent.
* +1 for transporting a Resource Pair to the local Market.
* +2 for transporting a Resource Pair to a foreign Market.
* For local transport of Resources you must own the Pair and their local Market.
* For foreign transport you must own the Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.I suppose that might impact the flavor of the map, but I think it would be clear that owning Resources and their Markets give a bonus because you are transporting one to the other.* +1 for owning a Resource Pair and their local Market.
* +2 for owning a Resource Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.
while i agree the pirate cove is an important part of the map, it isn't the core. it is just as a bonus. the map is about merchants and resources not about pirates. and if i highlight the pirate icon i'll somewhat make the map more pirate oriented than i want to. i want people to act like merchants on them map not like pirates. i actually wanted the pirate cove to be hidden and to have a random location on each game but since fog of war and random xml files aren't yet available i couldn't.Sparqs wrote:Hmm, I'm full of suggestions today.
Since Pirates Cove is a unique location and a juicy target for Port-holders, perhaps it could be highlighted slightly on the map - to help distinguish the skull-and-bones from the other map symbols. Maybe a little blood stain nearby?
Are you sure it would create 10 rows? I tried to word the local transport so that "Market" would move up to the same line. "must" is shorter than "need to" - maybe switch back from my suggestion of "their local" to "the local".DiM wrote:Sparqs wrote: I also have a suggestion to reduce the wording of the rules text. I think breaking it into the extra bullet also helps make it easier to understand. I suggest changing the order and text thusly:
You could reduce the text further, making it even less intimidating, by combining the transport explanation with the bonus:Ports...
Docks...
...Pirate Cove
* +1 for each Resource Pair and Factory on the same continent.
* +1 for transporting a Resource Pair to the local Market.
* +2 for transporting a Resource Pair to a foreign Market.
* For local transport of Resources you must own the Pair and their local Market.
* For foreign transport you must own the Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.I suppose that might impact the flavor of the map, but I think it would be clear that owning Resources and their Markets give a bonus because you are transporting one to the other.* +1 for owning a Resource Pair and their local Market.
* +2 for owning a Resource Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.
the first suggestion would not fit so well. it would stretch the egend from 9 rows to 10 rows and this means i'll have to decrease the font size which is a bad thing.
yep i'm sure.Sparqs wrote:Are you sure it would create 10 rows? I tried to word the local transport so that "Market" would move up to the same line. "must" is shorter than "need to" - maybe switch back from my suggestion of "their local" to "the local".DiM wrote:Sparqs wrote: I also have a suggestion to reduce the wording of the rules text. I think breaking it into the extra bullet also helps make it easier to understand. I suggest changing the order and text thusly:
You could reduce the text further, making it even less intimidating, by combining the transport explanation with the bonus:Ports...
Docks...
...Pirate Cove
* +1 for each Resource Pair and Factory on the same continent.
* +1 for transporting a Resource Pair to the local Market.
* +2 for transporting a Resource Pair to a foreign Market.
* For local transport of Resources you must own the Pair and their local Market.
* For foreign transport you must own the Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.I suppose that might impact the flavor of the map, but I think it would be clear that owning Resources and their Markets give a bonus because you are transporting one to the other.* +1 for owning a Resource Pair and their local Market.
* +2 for owning a Resource Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.
the first suggestion would not fit so well. it would stretch the egend from 9 rows to 10 rows and this means i'll have to decrease the font size which is a bad thing.
so a total of 4 rows instead of the current 3 i have.* For local transport of Resources you must own the Pair and their local Market.
* For foreign transport you must own the Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.
come on wicked you're being absurd here. there were 2 polls and both were favorable. and if you say they were skewed then you can say it about all the polls in the foundry. you don't really expect all the users to come and vote for a map. all the maps have roughly the same users that vote and nobody said the polls were skewed before. what do you want me to do? send a pm to each and every member on this site to come and approve my map? this is crazy.wicked wrote:Methinks the poll was skewed since only those that frequent here and have a passion for maps probably voted. I doubt you reached the masses with that poll, but no worries, what's done is done. Good luck with it. Hope I'm wrong.
i don't know if that one had the most but i belive but one thing i know, that poll was on for the longest time hence the number of votes.Teya wrote:Polls are never a proper indication. Keyogi has said it many times.
Also, the poll that had the most votes was the one about your third eye. I think that says it all.
