Knights

[Victor Sullivan]

One thing you could consider is adjusting the territory bonus to +1 per 2, to help promote venturing into neutral territory.

-Sully

[natty dread]

One question. Are you going to introduce any bonuses on the map?

As the gameplay stands currently (looking at the version on 1st page) the gameplay combines some of the worst design elements of gameplay: symmetry, totally open gameplay and lack of bonuses. You could maybe get away with 1 or 2, with compensating factors, but all 3... I don't think it's going to work.

[thehippo8]

One question. Are you going to introduce any bonuses on the map?

As the gameplay stands currently (looking at the version on 1st page) the gameplay combines some of the worst design elements of gameplay: symmetry, totally open gameplay and lack of bonuses. You could maybe get away with 1 or 2, with compensating factors, but all 3... I don't think it's going to work.

What do you mean by symmetry? After the first two or three moves symmetry will be gone.

[Victor Sullivan]

One question. Are you going to introduce any bonuses on the map?

As the gameplay stands currently (looking at the version on 1st page) the gameplay combines some of the worst design elements of gameplay: symmetry, totally open gameplay and lack of bonuses. You could maybe get away with 1 or 2, with compensating factors, but all 3... I don't think it's going to work.

What do you mean by symmetry? After the first two or three moves symmetry will be gone.

Not always. But structurally, it's all symmetrical: the board itself, the movement between territories is all the same, etc.

-Sully

[thehippo8]

One question. Are you going to introduce any bonuses on the map?

As the gameplay stands currently (looking at the version on 1st page) the gameplay combines some of the worst design elements of gameplay: symmetry, totally open gameplay and lack of bonuses. You could maybe get away with 1 or 2, with compensating factors, but all 3... I don't think it's going to work.

What do you mean by symmetry? After the first two or three moves symmetry will be gone.

Not always. But structurally, it's all symmetrical: the board itself, the movement between territories is all the same, etc.

-Sully

Sounds logical ... hence the need for option 3!

[Victor Sullivan]

One question. Are you going to introduce any bonuses on the map?

As the gameplay stands currently (looking at the version on 1st page) the gameplay combines some of the worst design elements of gameplay: symmetry, totally open gameplay and lack of bonuses. You could maybe get away with 1 or 2, with compensating factors, but all 3... I don't think it's going to work.

What do you mean by symmetry? After the first two or three moves symmetry will be gone.

Not always. But structurally, it's all symmetrical: the board itself, the movement between territories is all the same, etc.

-Sully

Sounds logical ... hence the need for option 3!

...or something similar.

-Sully

[koontz1973]

One thing you could consider is adjusting the territory bonus to +1 per 2, to help promote venturing into neutral territory.

-Sully

The problem with this type though is you will get players shooting forward to grab as much as they can. If you consider that every piece you have can be moved, you can grab an additional 16 squares (at least) giving a second round drop of an extra 8. Who ever goes first would win the game in round 2. Even with a bonus structure in place, you could never come back from that.

One question. Are you going to introduce any bonuses on the map?

No, I ran a poll over the bonuses for 3 weeks. No bonuses.

As the gameplay stands currently (looking at the version on 1st page) the gameplay combines some of the worst design elements of gameplay: symmetry, totally open gameplay and lack of bonuses. You could maybe get away with 1 or 2, with compensating factors, but all 3... I don't think it's going to work.

Yes, the board is symentrical, I cannot get away from that as it is a copy of a chess board.
Totally open, I disagree. Try going from A4 to A5. It takes 3 moves to move one square. But, yes, it is very open.
The bonuses have been discussed. There was a poll, and everyone had a chance to come into the thread and vote for there option. I put into the thread title "Bonus Poll" so this question is now resolved.

What do you mean by symmetry? After the first two or three moves symmetry will be gone.

The board is a grid of 8 by 8. It is symmetrical.

Nothing posted for two weeks apart from a few votes. Then all of a sudden, people come in and say are you going to do bonuses There has been a poll, it was open for 3 week, you could of voted to have bonuses. As the bonus poll was a tie, I have stated, if anyone had bothered to read my last post

Here is my last post for you to read again.

After 3 weeks off poll and 16 votes cast, the time has come for a decision to be made.

8 without bonus.
8 with normal continent bonuses.
0 votes for the column bonuses.

As the map maker, I am going to break the tie and go with my original idea of no bonuses. I will though produce the two different maps incase when we get to beta, it proves faulty.

Now that that is sorted, lets get on with this one.

Anything else before a GP stamp mods?
Image

[thehippo8]

One thing you could consider is adjusting the territory bonus to +1 per 2, to help promote venturing into neutral territory.

-Sully

The problem with this type though is you will get players shooting forward to grab as much as they can. If you consider that every piece you have can be moved, you can grab an additional 16 squares (at least) giving a second round drop of an extra 8. Who ever goes first would win the game in round 2. Even with a bonus structure in place, you could never come back from that.

One question. Are you going to introduce any bonuses on the map?

No, I ran a poll over the bonuses for 3 weeks. No bonuses.

As the gameplay stands currently (looking at the version on 1st page) the gameplay combines some of the worst design elements of gameplay: symmetry, totally open gameplay and lack of bonuses. You could maybe get away with 1 or 2, with compensating factors, but all 3... I don't think it's going to work.

Yes, the board is symentrical, I cannot get away from that as it is a copy of a chess board.
Totally open, I disagree. Try going from A4 to A5. It takes 3 moves to move one square. But, yes, it is very open.
The bonuses have been discussed. There was a poll, and everyone had a chance to come into the thread and vote for there option. I put into the thread title "Bonus Poll" so this question is now resolved.

What do you mean by symmetry? After the first two or three moves symmetry will be gone.

The board is a grid of 8 by 8. It is symmetrical.

Nothing posted for two weeks apart from a few votes. Then all of a sudden, people come in and say are you going to do bonuses There has been a poll, it was open for 3 week, you could of voted to have bonuses. As the bonus poll was a tie, I have stated, if anyone had bothered to read my last post

Here is my last post for you to read again.

After 3 weeks off poll and 16 votes cast, the time has come for a decision to be made.

8 without bonus.
8 with normal continent bonuses.
0 votes for the column bonuses.

As the map maker, I am going to break the tie and go with my original idea of no bonuses. I will though produce the two different maps incase when we get to beta, it proves faulty.

Now that that is sorted, lets get on with this one.

Anything else before a GP stamp mods?
Image

And being a man of simplicity ... let's go with your idea of no bonuses .. no area ... just skill and cunning ... it's a tie and you are the map maker ... let's go to beta with option 1 ... if it doesn't work out then we can look at option three. BIG THUMBS UP!!

[koontz1973]

So, now that the issue of bonuses is sorted, here are the two images that will go forward to the next stage of development.

Version 1, this has the no bonus areas which is the one that will go forward into beta first. Straight forward gameplay. Each player in any game size receives 5 troops only every round.

Version 2, this one has the continent bonuses attached. The only other difference between the two versions is the number of troops given each round. In this one it will be 3, as there is the option of bonuses. This will keep the troop counts down. I have played around with the idea of different coloured squares, lines and other colours for the distinguishing marks of the bonuses but the dot idea is the one that keeps the look of the map the best.

And finally, a version for Christmas

[natty dread]

No, I ran a poll over the bonuses for 3 weeks. No bonuses.

Come on. Polls are meaningless in the foundry in the first place. You got 16 votes in your poll, and only 8 of the voters voted "no bonuses". You're basically just using this poll to justify your own view.

I'm not trying to be mean here, it's just that I learned pretty early on in the foundry not to make polls... in fact the only type of poll that has any use in map threads is "should this map be made", and even that should be reserved for situations where you're unsure if your map has enough support.

Yes, the board is symentrical, I cannot get away from that as it is a copy of a chess board.
Totally open, I disagree. Try going from A4 to A5. It takes 3 moves to move one square. But, yes, it is very open.
The bonuses have been discussed. There was a poll, and everyone had a chance to come into the thread and vote for there option. I put into the thread title "Bonus Poll" so this question is now resolved.

Yeah, is there a reason it has to be shaped like a chess board? You could have a larger grid with impassable squares. Think outside the box.

The question for bonuses is far from "resolved", everything in the map is open to discussion & debate as long as the map isn't quenched.

And yes, the map is open. Sure, you have that knight rule, but it's still totally open, there's too many routes in all of the squares to attack each other.

Let me say this: the map idea is novel, and with proper development, you could make an interesting map out of this. But your current approach is too simplistic and dogmatic. The gameplay needs a lot of work, but you could take the idea and make it work if you don't close your mind to suggestions.

Here's some homework for you: play some games on circus maximus and chinese checkers. See the flaws in those maps and try to figure out how to avoid the same flaws on this map.

[koontz1973]

Come on. Polls are meaningless in the foundry in the first place. You got 16 votes in your poll, and only 8 of the voters voted "no bonuses". You're basically just using this poll to justify your own view.

I'm not trying to be mean here, it's just that I learned pretty early on in the foundry not to make polls... in fact the only type of poll that has any use in map threads is "should this map be made", and even that should be reserved for situations where you're unsure if your map has enough support.

Polls are meaning less if they do not give you the result you want. When I first proposed this map, there where some who wanted to keep it with no bonuses and some who wanted them badly. I ran the poll for 3 weeks to see if there was an overwhelming desire to see if the need for bonuses was there. It came out as a tie so I there for see no reason for them at the moment. DiM was the first one to say there was a need for bonuses so I came up with the 3 ideas. None, column and continent bonuses. The column received no votes so has been discarded permanently. When DiM raised his view, I said that I would draw two maps. One with and one without. If the one without proves as you think it will fail in beta, then a second image and xml would of been created during the foundry process that will receive the same scrutiny. This way, if in beta, there would be no rushed job to try and create an image and xml to solve the problem (if one arises).

Yeah, is there a reason it has to be shaped like a chess board? You could have a larger grid with impassable squares. Think outside the box.

The question for bonuses is far from "resolved", everything in the map is open to discussion & debate as long as the map isn't quenched.

And yes, the map is open. Sure, you have that knight rule, but it's still totally open, there's too many routes in all of the squares to attack each other.

Let me say this: the map idea is novel, and with proper development, you could make an interesting map out of this. But your current approach is too simplistic and dogmatic. The gameplay needs a lot of work, but you could take the idea and make it work if you don't close your mind to suggestions.

Here's some homework for you: play some games on circus maximus and chinese checkers. See the flaws in those maps and try to figure out how to avoid the same flaws on this map.

Gillipig raised the issue of a larger map and as I said to him, a map based on chess is on a chess board. I see no reason if this one turns out popular, a second one that is larger cannot be made. I have already looked at a possible map design that takes this into account.

The map is open, I admit it is open, but when you consider the fact that you cannot attack the territ right next to yours, it is closed of a lot more. We only have one totally open map on the site (I believe) and even though people say it is not a good thing to have, British Isles is one of the top played maps. There for the argument against having a second totally open map seems rather pointless. That is like saying AOR 2 & 3 should not of been made.

The map is simple, it is designed to be simple. As for being arrogant in my approach to this map, far from it. Just look at Rorke's Drift and Falklands maps, I have made all changes asked for. The changes that some have asked for like a bigger map takes the whole spirit of the map and changes it. Why have a map of a chess board if you do not have a chess board. Might as well not have one. As for the bonuses, I have discussed this already and have produced the second image.

My homework of playing on CM and CH, I have played those maps. I love Circus map and do not really see any flaws in it. It is a different style of play, some like it, some do not. CM is in the top half of played games, not as high as England but not in the bottom half so to say that map is bad.

[thehippo8]

No, I ran a poll over the bonuses for 3 weeks. No bonuses.

Come on. Polls are meaningless in the foundry in the first place. You got 16 votes in your poll, and only 8 of the voters voted "no bonuses". You're basically just using this poll to justify your own view.

I'm not trying to be mean here, it's just that I learned pretty early on in the foundry not to make polls... in fact the only type of poll that has any use in map threads is "should this map be made", and even that should be reserved for situations where you're unsure if your map has enough support.

Yes, the board is symentrical, I cannot get away from that as it is a copy of a chess board.
Totally open, I disagree. Try going from A4 to A5. It takes 3 moves to move one square. But, yes, it is very open.
The bonuses have been discussed. There was a poll, and everyone had a chance to come into the thread and vote for there option. I put into the thread title "Bonus Poll" so this question is now resolved.

Yeah, is there a reason it has to be shaped like a chess board? You could have a larger grid with impassable squares. Think outside the box.

The question for bonuses is far from "resolved", everything in the map is open to discussion & debate as long as the map isn't quenched.

And yes, the map is open. Sure, you have that knight rule, but it's still totally open, there's too many routes in all of the squares to attack each other.

Let me say this: the map idea is novel, and with proper development, you could make an interesting map out of this. But your current approach is too simplistic and dogmatic. The gameplay needs a lot of work, but you could take the idea and make it work if you don't close your mind to suggestions.

Here's some homework for you: play some games on circus maximus and chinese checkers. See the flaws in those maps and try to figure out how to avoid the same flaws on this map.

Given this is an open debate ... let me disagree.

The purpose of this map is to give life to the essence of the game of chess ... that requires a chess board IMHO. Maybe another map on another theme can develop on this concept if thematically relevant ... but that is not CHESS!

As to the suggestion that polls are meaningful in the suggestion of ... oh guys what do you think og this map ... come on ... what is meaningful is whether people commit to the idea by putting themselves out there by giving their opinion. That is far more valuable than a poll. So look back at the thread ... there is an overwhelming support in this map happening. I for one want to see a chess map happen. I am biased of course, as I love chess, but does that make it wrong? Chess is by nature a personal an insular thing ... but universally loved all the same. It is not space invades or dungeons and dragons or even reality ... but for the Mervyns in all of us it is a wonderful thing.

Sigh!

I really think we are not so far apart but the differences in view seem enormous!

I believe the map will be great and popular!

[natty dread]

Polls are meaning less if they do not give you the result you want.

What? That's... no. Polls are meaningless when they are biased and the sample size is too small. If you only make polls to "get the result you want" then they are beyond meaningless.

16 people voted in this thread, and only those who already follow the thread voted in it. Out of those, only 8 voted "no bonuses". You're using the opinion of 8 anonymous people to justify your decision. You're using the opinion of those 8 people to claim that "the majority wants a map with no bonuses".

You don't know if those 8 people know anything about gameplay design, since it's an anonymous poll and you can't see the justifications or reasons of those people's votes. That's why polls are so flawed and meaningless in the context of the foundry. Yeah, in an ideal world, we'd have hundreds of interested people following every map thread, and you could make up polls to see if they want a feature on the map or not, but that's just not the reality of the foundry right now. You should put more weight on opinions & suggestions that are posted in your thread, where you can see the reasoning of the posters for what they suggest.

When DiM raised his view, I said that I would draw two maps. One with and one without. If the one without proves as you think it will fail in beta, then a second image and xml would of been created during the foundry process that will receive the same scrutiny. This way, if in beta, there would be no rushed job to try and create an image and xml to solve the problem (if one arises).

I'm sorry, but that's just not how the process works. We don't put maps in beta to "see if they work", the purpose of the foundry process is to ensure each map is as playable as possible when they enter beta testing.

The map is open, I admit it is open, but when you consider the fact that you cannot attack the territ right next to yours, it is closed of a lot more.

No it's not. The position of the territory on the map image has no bearing on the gameplay. When it comes to analyzing gameplay, you can reduce the map into data - into a wireframe of a map, if you will. The fact that the territories can't attack territories that are next to them on the map image does not make it more closed - the openness is born from the amount of attack routes to and from territories, and at the moment, this map is totally open.

We only have one totally open map on the site (I believe) and even though people say it is not a good thing to have, British Isles is one of the top played maps. There for the argument against having a second totally open map seems rather pointless. That is like saying AOR 2 & 3 should not of been made.

It's not pointless, and it's England, not british isles. Even the maker of the England map, MrBenn, admits that making the gameplay totally open was not a good decision.

A map needs to have a balance between openness and too constrained gameplay. It's not an arbitrary definition, or that foundry people just "dislike" openness, it's avoided because it makes for bad gameplay, it takes away from the strategy of a map. When the map is too open, you have less strategies for defending your areas, and the games tend to descend to anarchy, where each player just assaults as much as they can and the one with best dice wins.

It's the same problem with all the other elements of the map I mentioned: the lack of bonuses, and the symmetry. All of those are factors that take away from the strategy of the map, and make it more luck-based.

The map is simple, it is designed to be simple. As for being arrogant in my approach to this map, far from it. Just look at Rorke's Drift and Falklands maps, I have made all changes asked for. The changes that some have asked for like a bigger map takes the whole spirit of the map and changes it. Why have a map of a chess board if you do not have a chess board. Might as well not have one. As for the bonuses, I have discussed this already and have produced the second image.

What you have here is not a "map of a chess board". The chess board has many more pieces than just knights. It's rather like you take some arbitrary portion of the game of chess and decide to make a map out of that portion.

I guess I just don't see why you would see the need for these arbitrary constrictions. Since your map is about a certain chess piece, knights, why do they have to be on an official chess board? It's not like you can play an actual game of chess using only knights.

My homework of playing on CM and CH, I have played those maps. I love Circus map and do not really see any flaws in it. It is a different style of play, some like it, some do not. CM is in the top half of played games, not as high as England but not in the bottom half so to say that map is bad.

You love the circus map? Wow... you should maybe play more games in it then, maybe you'll start to notice how little strategy you can actually have on the map. It's a gimmick map. You can maybe figure out one viable strategy for it, and that's it. More than half of the time, the one with best dice/cards wins.

And just saying "this map is played a lot" is no argument for it. Doodle earth has tons of games under it's belt, yet it's not exactly a masterpiece of gameplay design. You have to understand that when those maps came out, there were far fewer maps on this site, and the novelty of such a map was enough to make them popular. But now? With 200 maps already on the site? Not a chance. The novelty has worn out, and if a doodle-earth like map is made today, it will probably sink to somewhere in the bottom of the most played list.

[natty dread]

Sigh!

I really think we are not so far apart but the differences in view seem enormous!

I believe the map will be great and popular!

Let me put it this way...

When I was new to the foundry, it all just seemed so cool. All these potential maps, all these ideas flying around, of maps no one has yet played. I got all excited from every new map draft, they were all so cool!

Looking back, a lot of those maps (that never got made) were pretty crappy, in both idea and execution. But back then, I couldn't understand why the old foundry guys were being such hard asses, why didn't they just give the mapmakers a break, I thought the maps looked fine! I could have played them right away! What I didn't realize was that the old foundry guys had good reasons, they had experience in gameplay design, they had seen many maps being made, had seen the tweaking of the gameplay, and had real life experience on what works and what doesn't.

So now, looking back, I understand a lot of the negative feedback much better. I've seen some maps being made from start to finish, I've made some of my own... I have some idea of gameplay, I know that a map with gameplay X plays like Y. Not that I know everything or that I'm infallibe. But I have some idea of what makes a map fun to play.

[koontz1973]

natty, I understand your points of view, I truly do, but to come and say that a map needs to have bonuses when a copy of the map with bonuses is available for you to look at and comment is OK. You are right, only 16 people voted in the poll over the 3 weeks. 8 for bonuses, 8 for no bonuses. I am not using those 8 vote to justify my decision as I would of gladly gone with the bonus one if it had won the vote. I do not know if you voted in the poll or who did. But to have 16 votes cast in this little thread of many is pretty good considering the amount of traffic the foundry gets these days. As for stating that the foundry does not work in a certain way (producing two maps incase one fails), most maps go into beta and have to have some changes made to them, both in look and gameplay. It seems better to get it sorted now than later. I went with the advice given and produced the second map. You say this is not the way to do things, but it is better to do it now and have people look and comment on it than have a rushed job while in beta. But if as you state, this is not done, then I will remove all references to the bonus map and stop working on it.
It is a map of a chess board, 8 by 8, square in design, the same as a chess board. It only has one piece as that is the only piece that would work in the current xml. By changing the design, you move away from the roots of the map.
Yes, I do like CM, it is a different map, one that I have not played on for a while but go back to regularly when I want something different. We can discuss the pros and cons of each maps gameplay from now to eternity, but it will not change the fact that some people like maps because of it. Doodle Earth may not have great gameplay (for you) but for some, it is exciting to play. You do not like CM, I do, again we are different. For every map, you will find a core group of players that love it, more that like it and play it when they want to and some that hate the map. I do not know where this map would fall if given the chance to be played, but it seems that a core vocal group want to stop it while the ones that are happy, just sit back and wait. If you read the thread as a whole, there is a majority of views saying leave it simple without the bonuses.

Lets take a look at the game play as it is now in more depth.
A 2 player game is going to be very different from the rest as this is the only one that will start with the positions programmed in. Each side has 16 sets of troops (3) and receives 5. You now have 2 options as the person going first, move one or two pieces slowly or go forward on mass. The opposition has the same choice. But for every move you make, your opponent has a variety of moves to counter or block your attack. You need to be aware of the counter attack whilst proceeding forward. As a knight in the middle of the board has the option to move in 8 directions, you need to factor that into your equation when you go on the attack. A knight at the edge of the board has only 4 ways to go and in a corner 2 ways. As the board become more cluttered with your own pieces, you will need to take into account where to place your troops so you can make a decisive run at your opponent. Looking at classic map for example, if you start in London and you have pieces on Berlin and Madrid, you can only go two ways for your attack, now imagine that same map but with the option of not being able to attack territs next to you but you can only attack the ones after. How do you attack Berlin if all your troops are in London? It is not so simple to work out. That is the big selling point for the 2 player games. Using your head and not the board to guide you. It will become even more complicated in foggy games. I worked out that if the 2 players move one piece only, there are a staggering 1600 different first rounds that can be played. Now try and work it out of they only move 2 pieces or 3 or 4. This is not classic map, and I do not apologise for that.

Larger games of 3 or more players do not get the luxury of programmed territs so a player (3P) could start with the majority of one side. Diplomacy will become a big factor. The larger the game, the more chance you will have your territs spaced out and you do not get the luxury of holding if you want to win.

Assassin and terminator games are going to be hilarious on this map. Imagine trying to find your opponents last piece in fog or trying to get to it around other players stacks.

You make the point of the old timers going on about how some maps would not work and there negativity towards some maps, I agree with you, some maps do not deserve to be made or even placed within the foundry, but the site allows for his process so any one new to it can come along with there idea and have a go. If you look at a lot of the old maps, some are just a plain rip-of of classic. That was how it was done back then but we have new feature now and new ways to work things out. This map could never be done without programming the positions or coding in the amounts of troops. The old timers that you mention, while referring that this should not be made, are no longer here making maps or even really commenting on them. Maps have come a long way since there time, for the better, so bringing them into the discussion is pointless. You yourself have made the point that gameplay is not your strong suit, so a lot of your maps have had the gameplay designed for you.

Furthermore, I've never really been too good with gameplay design - I like to draw map images, but the gameplay design part kinda just gives me a headache... which is why a lot of my earlier maps have been collaborations with other mapmakers who have designed the gameplay for me.

It might help you to design gameplay for your maps if you played more.

[natty dread]

Yeah... designing gameplay is not an art as such. It's not a "there's only right answers" kind of deal. There are such things as BAD gameplay, things that objectively SUCK.

It's tough, I know. But such is the reality. Circus Maximus is objectively a bad map, no matter if there are people who like it and play it lots.

You're saying "I want to do this map because it'll be different", but just because something is "different" does not make it GOOD.

How do you attack Berlin if all your troops are in London? It is not so simple to work out. That is the big selling point for the 2 player games.

Oh please. You can get to pretty much any nearby square with 2, 3 moves, even with these knight rules of yours. It's fairly simple.

If you read the thread as a whole, there is a majority of views saying leave it simple without the bonuses.

I don't see that. I see mostly people who seldom visit the foundry, seeing something novel and supporting it... however, what I see is DiM:s points pretty much unaddressed, oh and this post of yours:

OK, DiM, I know you have your doubts, but so far you are the only dissenter. Because of that, I am going to continue with it. If it gets all the way to beta and plays badly like you expect, I will remove it and have it binned as an experiment that did not work.

Well, now you have two. Also, beta-testing is not meant for experiments like that. You're supposed to have a ready map for beta, beta-testing is merely a failsafe that is supposed to catch any hidden flaws that couldn't be detected in the development phase.

Also, even the people who really like the idea of the map are saying you should have bonuses:

Haha like the idea. Reminds me of Circus Maximum in some way, just more complicated. We often see maps with complicated bonuses but awkward attack routes isn't as common. But no bonuses? Maybe I'm wrong but I think you should reconsider that.

I think the dot idea is the way to go. Instead of dots you could outline each square with the colors - stay away from the yellow as it is hard to see in the legend.

And Dim has been saying pretty much the same things as me about this map, and he has lots of experience in gameplay design.

[thehippo8]

So why not go with option 3 then and if THAT doesn't work out in beta then think about getting rid of the dots.

[koontz1973]

natty, all I have done is defend my point of view. No matter what I say, you will say the opposite. If I say it is up, you will say it is down, if I say left, you say right. We will never find a common ground as out points are so far apart.

DiM is a good mapmaker but he is not the be all of maps. Like you, he came in and had an opinion about the map and the bonuses. Like you, he was very vocal about it.
Gillipig has never posted good in any of my map thread, so why should this one be any different. But even he came round and voted.

Gameplay Advice: Mapmakers are strongly encouraged to scrutinize every bonus or rule they have in place, and ask themselves: "Does this enhance the theme or support my goal for the map?" (referring to the theme & goal that they presumably developed in the Drafting Room). If the rule or bonus isn't essential to the map's goal/theme, then it almost certainly should be axed.

Personally, I don't think the idea is totally without merit. It is taking a very specific route and koontz know what he wants from the map. Talking only the knights rules as the way to move around the board is adding something of interest.

I would air more on the side of simplistic, than boring or symmetrical. That said, I don't think it will be a hit. But at the very least it will have some interest. At least I think there will be more interest in this than any other chess variant the foundry has seen in its lifetime.

In reality I think I am on the fence for this map, leaning slightly on the side of it could work, rather than it couldn't.

Quoting isaiah out of context there does not help. He voted in the poll and expressed his opinion in the thread.

I think the dot idea is the way to go. Instead of dots you could outline each square with the colors - stay away from the yellow as it is hard to see in the legend.

Another vote, wow. And just think, my mum always told me not to complain. The dots where there to illustrate the bonuses, but a outline might be better. If that is the way to go, then a great suggestion.

natty, I am more than happy to go down the bonus route, but so far, only you and DiM have been vocal about it. I have given logical rebuttals to both of you on why I do not want to go down that route, and what would happen if.......

Gameplay design on maps is never going to be easy till beta. Look at the work you had to put into Antarctica and Three Kingdoms over game play while in beta. That is after someone else designed it for you and spent time in the gameplay workshop. I had to do some on Rorke's Drift. That is what beta is for, to test out the maps and gameplay. We all have an idea on how our maps will play, we all want to see them being played on, but till beta no one can know how it will play or what is faulty.

[natty dread]

Welp, I tried. You just dismiss every criticism with "ok, that's your opinion, we can disagree on that". I hope someone else manages to convince you... I'm obviously not getting through here.

[koontz1973]

Welp, I tried. You just dismiss every criticism with "ok, that's your opinion, we can disagree on that". I hope someone else manages to convince you... I'm obviously not getting through here.

No natty, you have an opinion and I respect that, it just seems a shame that neither of us could convince the other. I have not just said OK and dismissed your arguments out of hand, I had a long look at this map before producing the first image. How would it work or even if it would work. I spent a long time trying to describe the gameplay to you and DiM the best way I could. We have had a decent discussion on the matter and right now I feel we need to get a mods point of view into the debate as that is probably the only way to progress. If isaiah40 who is now looking after gameplay (I think) comes and says that the bonus option is the only way for this map to go forward, then I will be upset for the lack of faith but will gladly take into consideration there reasons and move forward.

The column bonus is dead. DiM said it would not work and no one voted for it so no need to go down that route. Right now the two images are on the first page for the GP mods to look at. I will use there judgement in how to go forward. I will PM isaiah40 and ask him to have a read.

[gimil]

What a heated debate I have come across! Let me chip in my 2p's worth.

Koontz wants to keep his map simplistically beautiful. and as far as ideas go, this gimmick based map is definetly got more potential than the average gimmick map. I kind of like the idea as koontz desires it to be, but I am not sure myself how it would play. Escalating games may actually be rather fun since you would play them similar to classic style maps, but with an unusual though process when going for the kill. But flat rate and no cards games may be a bit of a drag.

Natty makes a fair concern about closing the map, giving a little more to fight over. but will that just make this another boring gimmick map? Taking an arbitory subject (like the human body or a guitar [to name a few bad ideas from other the years]) and trying to squeeze a map into it.

I think the reality of this discussion is that either of you are wrong, but rather have different ideas of how you would like the map to progress. Either way this map is not going to be a top played map, it is going to be a niche map played (and loved) by a small pocket of people. I would say that nattys suggestions and opinions are not incorrect, but if implemented would take the map in a different direction which may not be what koontz is looking for.

Remember there is a line between addressing concerns based to improve flaws in a map, and making a map in the way a map maker WANTS to make it. Know what I mean?

[deantursx]

Koontz, this map is going to be amazing! People are right in that large multi-player games with flat rate or no spoils are going 2 suck on it...but thats why I won't be joining those games on it. But 1v1, doubles, trips, quads, and any multi-player escalating games on this map will be soooooooo awesome. I can't wait!

Also, assassin on here will be so cool.

[isaiah40]

As gimil said, this turned into a heated debate - reminds me of some political debates. Reading through everything, I have to agree with both koontz and natty. Both bring up valid points, but in the end it is the mapmakers decision on what direction he/she wants to go as long as the gameplay is balanced for the most part. So koontz, pick which one you want to go with, and we'll wait for beta to see how it plays.

[koontz1973]

I would like to continue with my idea (big surprise there) but is there a way to get both done so both sets of parties have there choice of map.

I know that 2 maps would not make a map pack, but why not work on both simultaneously? Could that be done and would it be allowed to be done at this stage?

EDIT: I forgot to say thanks to isaiah and gimil for popping there heads in. So thanks guys.

[natty dread]

in the end it is the mapmakers decision on what direction he/she wants to go as long as the gameplay is balanced for the most part.

Yeah but that was my point, that the gameplay won't be balanced!!!