Conquer Club

So, what's the status now?

Are we going to have something bigger than World 2.1 or not?

.

Selin wrote:So, what's the status now?

Are we going to have something bigger than World 2.1 or not?

.

i want to do world 3.0 (see thread in my sig) but the current size restrictions don't allow me to do it. hopefully it will be possible in the future.

however a big map will be available once i get a bit of time. i'm currently pondering on a new project with something close to 400 terits but perhaps i'll reduce it to 300 because of the size issues.

I dont understand why you need 300 terittory,i think that today you have 220 independent states(+ -).
Also i think that you start work on these idea,and to put in dimension who is suitabile for these number of terittory to be readabile for play.
800x600 is imposible for these map,i know from WWII EUROPE(I have 109 terittory),so you for yours 220+terittory try to put in WW2.1 large map dimension.

qwert wrote:I dont understand why you need 300 terittory,i think that today you have 220 independent states(+ -).
Also i think that you start work on these idea,and to put in dimension who is suitabile for these number of terittory to be readabile for play.
800x600 is imposible for these map,i know from WWII EUROPE(I have 109 terittory),so you for yours 220+terittory try to put in WW2.1 large map dimension.

qwert this is not the world 3.0 topic. this is an old topic of mine to see how people feel about a map with many terits.

yes world 3.0 is impossible at this moment because of the size limits. but i'm working on something that has more terits and will fit in this limit

DiM wrote:would people be interested in a 300 terit map? i have a project that i want to do but i'm not sure if 300 terits is such a good idea.

My answer is a firm maybe. I won't play a map just because it has 300 territories, and I won't ignore a map just because it has 300 territories.

I bet you're getting tired of my same old argument, DiM, but I'm going to repeat it anyway: if the project looks good and plays well it will be popular regardless of the size/number of territories.

Now that it seems as if map sizes won't increase, I'd like to see somebody take up the challenge of seeing how many territories they can squeeze in without sacrifices quality.

Call it the Epic Map Challenge. Anybody can enter, only one can win.

oaktown wrote:Now that it seems as if map sizes won't increase, I'd like to see somebody take up the challenge of seeing how many territories they can squeeze in without sacrifices quality.
Call it the Epic Map Challenge. Anybody can enter, only one can win.

I love the idea....we should have more map challenges/contests. The Indochina contest went well, and I assume the Canada contest will as well
Maybe even offer prizes for winners...like you win 5 contests a free premium for a year, 10 contests a free t-shirt from the website, etc.
If only we could get lack to do this

oaktown wrote:

DiM wrote:would people be interested in a 300 terit map? i have a project that i want to do but i'm not sure if 300 terits is such a good idea.

My answer is a firm maybe. I won't play a map just because it has 300 territories, and I won't ignore a map just because it has 300 territories.

I bet you're getting tired of my same old argument, DiM, but I'm going to repeat it anyway: if the project looks good and plays well it will be popular regardless of the size/number of territories.

Now that it seems as if map sizes won't increase, I'd like to see somebody take up the challenge of seeing how many territories they can squeeze in without sacrifices quality.

Call it the Epic Map Challenge. Anybody can enter, only one can win.

as i already tolld on the other thread. gameplay and graphics are considered good. i just wanted to know if people would like the sheer number of terits. because this does have some disadvantages. one of them being the time it takes to finish such a game. a 6 player doodle earth can be over in 10 minutes but a 6 player game can take months to finish and frankly i think real time games are impossible on such a map.

as for how many terits can be squeezed into the current map sizes i'll tell you know 300 are easy. i am working now on a map and in theory i could even fit 6-700 terits in the current guidlenes but most probably i'll stick to something a bit over 300

big maps that are not just big for the sake of being big would be a welcome addition to this site

DiM wrote:

steve monkey wrote:wouldn't a 300 territory map require loads of scrolling?
Would that frustration be compensated by the game play potential offered?

Hmm, I'm gonna think this one over a bit more.

this is one of the disadvantages i posted in the beginingof the thread:

1. map size. 300 terits need a lot of space so the map size will be quite scary

with the resolution of the current PC's that would not be a big problem....

i like big maps and i want a gigantic map. 300 sounds fun even if its just 300 territories and no bonuses it would be fun lol

IMHO if you dont like to scroll you can choose not to play this map, there are over 50 others that dont need scrolling

Bring on the 300 territory map. The bigger the better. To scroll or not to scroll......who cares, if its 300 territories, I don't care. This would be great if they combined it with an 8 player game.

still waiting with passion...

.