Conquer Club

The problem with place maps (or geographical) maps is that we are running out of unique regions to map. Not to say that there aren't inexhaustable areas to make into maps.

But unless the map is completly original or fictional (areas I am fond of) the problem with all of these "Hey, what about a map of....(insert your choice here)" ideas is that other than the fact that the regions are in different areas of the globe the maps themselves are pretty much the same. Which is why, I think we are seeing maps like the Senate, Seige, Pearl Harbor, and even Doodle Earth. Maps that's are still Risk, but not Risk at the same time. Of course mapmakers can take the same place map idea and come up with something wonderful. An example is the new Great Lakes map, just another place map yes, but the graphics are so well done that you don't really care.

The point of all of this is, as map makers (or wannabes) how do we take these new XML features and incorporate them into "new ideas for old maps." Which is to say, how do you take an ordinary map of say Florida and turn it into something new and original?

My hope is that we can start a discussion on this and see if we can't help each other come up with something we may not have thought of before.

Also, I wonder if the members who know about XML programming could help enlighten the rest of us as to how hard it is to create new features, and also what the limitations of XML are. Several ideas in the XML thread were shot down because they where not XML issues.

JK

yupz i am gonna make a huryle map (zelda) next to the china map, cookies?

If you ask me, I say geographical maps should be "normal" maps, without using many of the new XML, and the non-geographic maps should be the ones using all the features. Just because there are lots of fancy stuff XML can do, doesn't mean that every map needs to require an Illiad's worth of text to figure out the bonuses.

Then again, I don't know anything of XML and I've never made a map... so I'm not the most recommended to talk about this... just giving my two cents.

well now that we have objective territores in the XML we can creat maps with one of teh old risk rules. teh onw where u mission to to take over the enemys capital city. there could be a second classic map with a bunch of nutral terrs with each palyer startnig on there "capital city"

I think there's still plenty of room for more geographical maps, and I don't think we need to rely on the new XML features to make them interesting. Sure, some might help, but it's not critical to a maps success. Personally I'd hate to see the new features overused, which is what I fear will happen.

There are many geographical map ideas that have not yet been explored, a lot of them are in my head. People just need to think outside the box a little and be a bit more creative. Having said that, there does seem to be a bit more variety in our geographical maps recently, just look at the work of cairnswk and mibi as examples. Pearl Harbor is a geographical map, it's just not your typical one.

JupitersKing wrote:Also, I wonder if the members who know about XML programming could help enlighten the rest of us as to how hard it is to create new features, and also what the limitations of XML are. Several ideas in the XML thread were shot down because they where not XML issues.

JK

Essentially you need to think about 1 thing when discussing XML features...

1) Is it applicable to THIS map - or is it applicable to every map.

i.e. Ranged attacks need to specified for a single territory - thus it is an XML feature.
Fog of war is just an option for the game that doesn't have any specification to any map/territory.

XML is by it's very nature limitless... the coding is easy to read it... but it's the case that the programming to use this new "information" is the hard part...

Remember XML is only ever data read by a program... The parsing of that data turns it into Map Data...

C.

i like geographical maps most really, they are always more interesting than maps like chinese checkers or king of the hills.

even if theyre not origional it always feels better to conquer italy than to conquer red circle 12

Balsiefen wrote:i like geographical maps most really, they are always more interesting than maps like chinese checkers or king of the hills.

even if theyre not origional it always feels better to conquer italy than to conquer red circle 12

or to conquer a few hills and shapes than europe (winning a game)

Balsiefen wrote:i like geographical maps most really, they are always more interesting than maps like chinese checkers or king of the hills.

even if theyre not origional it always feels better to conquer italy than to conquer red circle 12

Agreed geographical maps are by far the best. And would you believe we still don't have a map of the biggest country in the world...Russia? Will someone make a decent map of Russia please? Maybe Keyogi?

Ruben Cassar wrote:

Balsiefen wrote:i like geographical maps most really, they are always more interesting than maps like chinese checkers or king of the hills.

even if theyre not origional it always feels better to conquer italy than to conquer red circle 12

Agreed geographical maps are by far the best. And would you believe we still don't have a map of the biggest country in the world...Russia? Will someone make a decent map of Russia please? Maybe Keyogi?

russia is really tricky. i wanted to do a map on that area. not exactly the russia we know, but a future russia where americans invade it. the problem is that some territories are huge and some are tiny. and to start dividing the huge ones and grouping the tiny ones gives you a administratively inaccurate map.

KEYOGI wrote:I think there's still plenty of room for more geographical maps, and I don't think we need to rely on the new XML features to make them interesting. Sure, some might help, but it's not critical to a maps success. Personally I'd hate to see the new features overused, which is what I fear will happen....

I agree with you about over using the new features. I'm afraid someone with stick them in just because they can, not because it is going to make the map better.

As for thinking outside the box... that's what I was hoping for when I started this thread.

JK

Balsiefen wrote:i like geographical maps most really, they are always more interesting than maps like chinese checkers or king of the hills.

even if theyre not origional it always feels better to conquer italy than to conquer red circle 12

While I also like geographical maps, I feel strangely happy for conquering territories with weird names like "Soothe", "Big Oil", "Fiction", or "23 Across". Then again, I'm just weird.

DiM wrote:russia is really tricky. i wanted to do a map on that area. not exactly the russia we know, but a future russia where americans invade it. the problem is that some territories are huge and some are tiny. and to start dividing the huge ones and grouping the tiny ones gives you a administratively inaccurate map.

Well, if it's a future, than you can just say that the currently political order has collapsed and so the future territories are completely different. It'd look lame for someone who is actually from the territories depicted, but it's a way out. (Also, I recently learned that real life Siberia is a huge portion of Russia, so it's unlikely it'll be a continent in a CC game, which makes me sad somehow.)

Another thing. Future? Alternative present. Whoa.

i like fictional/non geographical places for a while but i always end up coming back to britain europe and classic and worls 2.1 for gameplay they are simple yet effective in my opinion

boberz wrote:i like fictional/non geographical places for a while but i always end up coming back to britain europe and classic and worls 2.1 for gameplay they are simple yet effective in my opinion

Seems that most do...

What do you want from these other maps to keep your attention?

JK

I don’t really like all of the new maps that are turning into less and less like risk and more like something unrelated, maps like age of merchants are just messing up the old risk.

Jack0827 wrote:I don’t really like all of the new maps that are turning into less and less like risk and more like something unrelated, maps like age of merchants are just messing up the old risk.

This isnt risk, its Conquer Club! There is a difference. (plus: the regular map is still there, if u want old fashioned risk, than just play that map!)

JupitersKing wrote:

boberz wrote:i like fictional/non geographical places for a while but i always end up coming back to britain europe and classic and worls 2.1 for gameplay they are simple yet effective in my opinion

Seems that most do...

What do you want from these other maps to keep your attention?

JK

im not really sure something with enduring last which mainly comes from simplicity. Whilst the xml is being used to its full, which is great, i prefer a much simpler easier to understand map.

Also i like being able to relate to an area that i know aa fair bit about or even better i have visited. For example the british map, despite its flaws i enjoy because i can attack places that i know and where my friends live i find it more enduring. Only my opinion and i dont want to stunt creativity as a lot of people like new ideas aswell

Kaplowitz wrote:

Jack0827 wrote:I don’t really like all of the new maps that are turning into less and less like risk and more like something unrelated, maps like age of merchants are just messing up the old risk.

This isnt risk, its Conquer Club! There is a difference. (plus: the regular map is still there, if u want old fashioned risk, than just play that map!)

The regular map doesn't have an england-scandinavia connection, the real version does. You're wrong.

unriggable wrote:The regular map doesn't have an england-scandinavia connection, the real version does. You're wrong.

Never noticed that until you mentioned it!!!

LACK!!!!

JK

Actually it does, and I've used it, it just doesn't look like there is one. Try it sometime.

My problem with geographical maps is kind of like the Russia problem. Things just are not in very nice proportions.

unriggable wrote:The regular map doesn't have an england-scandinavia connection, the real version does. You're wrong.

yeh, the classic map (on CC) DOES, in fact, have the Great Britain-Scandinavia connection. i used it all the time. the map doesn't appear to have it, but the xml allows you to use it.


as far as the new maps...i really like trying the new maps a little, but i am one of the guys that always ends up back on classic/britain. they are the most "fair" i'd say. even though the other maps have fair bonus structures, the way that the borders work seems to be more equal in these 2 maps. i have really grown to hate the symmetrical maps, like chinese checkers. why? i cant really figure out, but i just dont like them.

i think the ideas that have been coming around lately are really awesome....i think its DiM that has the Age of Merchants map...which i love the idea of. although, i wish there was a way that we could play "unranked" games, so we could really have fun on these maps, to really enjoy what the map is meant to do, without worrying about who is getting what bonus, and winning the game in 10 turns. i think we would see a huge change in which maps are played, if people could play them, the way they are meant to be played, without worrying about a newbie joining and taking 40+ points if they knock you out.

just my 2 cents...which probably dont amount to a hill of beans! lol

my 2 cents on maps:


1. classic. love it and hate it at the same time. i love it cause it has the good old board game feeling. hate it cause after ~10years of risk i've become really bored with it. i play it sometimes though but mainly because i'm "forced" (tourneys or private games where i play for the players not for the map)

2. symmetrical maps. i don't like them. this is really strange as many people that know me in real life can tell you i'm a symmetry freak in many aspects and that i find symmetry very attractive. and yet symmetry maps don't work for me. the lack of strategic options, the fact that gameplay is roughly the same each time, makes the experience rather nasty.

3. real geographical maps. not particularly attracted to them. why? there are many reasons. to some i can't relate (i'll probably never play san francisco even though it's a nicely done map it does not attract me, it's too "specific" - for lack of a better word), some are just plain boring and give me nothing special, they are just slight variations of the same principle.
i do however love to play british isles and australia. i like australia cause it is small. the british isles i don't know why i like it. i just do. it has something that attracts me. even though i'm not really fond of the real geographical maps i'd like to see more of them for the simple fact they have a simple classic recipe that can't fail.

4. abstract maps this is tricky here. i'm inclined to say i love abstract maps but the fact is the current offer of abstract maps doesn't attract me. the 2 maps i consider abstract are crosswords and kotm. neither of them has grown on me. i'd love to see lots of abstract maps, though. with them, having a good gameplay is a guarantee because being an abstract map you're not forced around some real borders and the map maker has the possibility to do whatever he wants. the main concern with them is finding the theme that grabs the attention. i know 8 thoughts is also abstract and it has a great them but i did not mention it because it's symmetrical so i still hate it. lol.

5. imaginary maps this is one of my favorite map categories. unfortunately there aren't many available. ccu and siege being the only ones available (no tamriel or discworld aren't imaginary because the map maker used an existing theme). even though the maps in this category can have similar gameplay with the real geographical maps i'm more attracted because the map maker has the chance to share a part of his imagination, he has the opportunity to unravel bits of a story, he can make us develop the story as we want without any restraints. imaginary maps can have a theme and a location that pleases anyone. a quality that real geographic maps will never have.

6. gameplay oddities some love them some hate them. there's no way to remain neutral on these maps. the key here is to find a balance in how odd you make the map. i don't think new users will find them attractive because they are simply too odd from what they'd expect. but they are a great option for people that want a different challenge for people that are bored with doing the same over and over again. i personally love this kind of maps. they can be done on any set-up imaginary or real and they offer a completely new gameplay. good or bad it's upt to the players to decide.

7. small maps and large maps i like em both. small maps make it personal and having just a few terits to start makes you more fierce while large maps give you that "supreme ruler" feeling when you see you have 30-40 terits from the start.