Conquer Club

Any comments about the neutral values?

SuicidalSnowman wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote: 2. On the final map, do I need any indication as to which are the starting points? (I'll come up with something more elegant than the temporary stars if yes)

I don't know if the foundry has rules, but I say no. Who cares, you start where you start, whether it was coded or random.

No.
Starting positions and neutrals are only a personal request. They help to understand gameplay.
But if you want to give a sort of hint for players, you could leave the stars, or add a building (your old farms?) where the players will start the game.

The map seems a bit empty, but graphics additions can be done later.
Personally, I don't think that Kiev has to start with 5 troops.I know, it's in the middle, but i think that it could be better if you work on neutral values instead of increasing the starting troops.I'm worried that now kiev is too strong, specially if owned by the player who plays first.
Anyway,i think that it's time to refine your gameplay

I am pleased to issue this map the draft stamp on behalf of the foundry community



Nobodies

Congrats on the Draft Stamp!

Thank you for the stamp. I changed up Kiev and the neutrals south of it.

Now the gameplay for each starting territory is basically: Two starting territories that are two territories away with 2 neutrals each. Even though we should be discussing gameplay right now, does anyone have an idea as to what do do with the legend? The boxes don't look very good.

The Neon Peon wrote:Thank you for the stamp. I changed up Kiev and the neutrals south of it.

Even though we should be discussing gameplay right now, does anyone have an idea as to what do do with the legend? The boxes don't look very good.

That is part of getting the Graphics stamp as well, so, you can eliminate the box around the quote as it doesn't need to be in a box.

The legend's box needs to be tilted to the right a touch as it looks like it is sitting on an angle going up from left to right. Maybe make the box border thinner.

What do you mean by

The Neon Peon wrote:Now the gameplay for each starting territory is basically: Two starting territories that are two territories away with 2 neutrals each.

?

I'm a little confused on that.

Overall this map is looking good, continue the good work

isaiah40 wrote: What do you mean by

The Neon Peon wrote:Now the gameplay for each starting territory is basically: Two starting territories that are two territories away with 2 neutrals each.

?

I'm a little confused on that.

Overall this map is looking good, continue the good work

It means that between SPa and SPb there are two territories with two neutrals on each. SPa > territ with 2 neutrals > territ with 2 neutrals > SPb

Ahoy Neon,

I really like the visual theme you have going---it is unique and distinct, and I can appreciate that. But before I dig into some things, could you add these to your first post (as outlined in the How to make a map topic)

1. The number of territories currently on the map.
2. The number of continents. (If this makes sense for your map)
3. Descriptions of any unique features or areas.

And any other additional details to help those browsing through.

Keep up the good work, I look forward to coming back and commenting.


--Andy

I'm sure I posted this before but can't find it so, sorry if I'm repeating myself:

Starting Regions
The great advantage of starting regions is that you don't have to worry about players dropping bonuses, or starting with 12 and depleting an opponent to 11 etc.

However, it is good to have some kind of relative balance between the positions. There was great debate before Pelo War went Beta as to whether the positions were equal enough - Beta has shown that they don't need to be totally equal for the map to be fairer than classic-style. I'm worried that your starting regions are a bit too unbalanced though - for example, anyone on Izmayil will soon encounter an opponent whereas other positions enable players to take a few neutrals before they engage with an opponent. If Izmayil went after his closest opponents they would no doubt attack him/her early on and have a good chance of wiping him/her out. There are other similar situations.

I would strongly suggest moving the starting regions around to gain some equilibrium in distance between them.

DJ Teflon wrote:I'm sure I posted this before but can't find it so, sorry if I'm repeating myself:

Starting Regions
The great advantage of starting regions is that you don't have to worry about players dropping bonuses, or starting with 12 and depleting an opponent to 11 etc.

However, it is good to have some kind of relative balance between the positions. There was great debate before Pelo War went Beta as to whether the positions were equal enough - Beta has shown that they don't need to be totally equal for the map to be fairer than classic-style. I'm worried that your starting regions are a bit too unbalanced though - for example, anyone on Izmayil will soon encounter an opponent whereas other positions enable players to take a few neutrals before they engage with an opponent. If Izmayil went after his closest opponents they would no doubt attack him/her early on and have a good chance of wiping him/her out. There are other similar situations.

I would strongly suggest moving the starting regions around to gain some equilibrium in distance between them.

It took me a while to get these starting positions in place so that each one is 2 territories away from 2 others. I even had to change the territory borders in several places to allow this to happen at all. I don't think there is any place where they can be placed other than where they are now, but if you have an idea, I would gladly accept it.

I have an alternate solution:
All neutrals not on the red line are increased, to an extent where you could take them if you wanted to, but you would be risking someone breaking through the neutrals on the red line and eliminating you if you do so. I'd guess 4 would work.

so i havent been here for a while

pros: the game play is much nicer imo, it seems like it would be an amazing map to play

cons: what happened to the graphics? the actual playing area is too dark and your background died! i liked the fields and the sky

The proper name would be Kirovohrad, not Kirovohradsk'a. The latter is the name of the region, whereas all other territories are names of a city in the region.

I also believe that proper Ukrainian name is Shepetivka, not Shepetovka: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepetivka

Kryvyi Rih, not Rih.

Sumy not Surny.

On the graphics perspective, i really like the "wheat" theme you had going in the earlier versions of the map.

Unfortunately, it looks like Izmayil and Simferopol are still at a gameplay disadvantage -- they each only have one territory to expand into before they have to move into one that's adjacent to another starting position. Mykolayiv has three; Mariupol has four; Luts'k, Chernivitsi, and Kharkiv have five (though at this point some of them are mutual); and Kyiv has nine.

Sorry, everyone... MrBenn appears to be away for a time.

I asked this map to be put in the recycling bin. I no longer have photoshop so I can't really do any work on it.

The Neon Peon wrote:Sorry, everyone... MrBenn appears to be away for a time.

I asked this map to be put in the recycling bin. I no longer have photoshop so I can't really do any work on it.

So be it. Moved.

The Neon Peon wrote:Sorry, everyone... MrBenn appears to be away for a time.

I asked this map to be put in the recycling bin. I no longer have photoshop so I can't really do any work on it.

NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was one of my favorite maps in here...very sad to see it go.

The Neon Peon wrote:Sorry, everyone... MrBenn appears to be away for a time.

I've been short of time to catch up on forums/PMs properly - I'm hoping to crack on a bit this evening though