Conquer Club

READ BEFORE YOU VOTE.

i saw numerous times people that rejected a map because it had no theme or because it was not realistic or simply because it had poor graphics so i made this thread to find out more about what people enjoy in a map.

i want you guys to post here what do you want in a map. vote for the most important aspect of the map (too bad this forum does not allow multiple choise polls). so vote for stunning grapchics if this is what gets you to play a map but also feel free to post that you appreciate realism along with those stunning graphics. or great playability or number of territories or whatever makes you love a map.

so basicaly when you vote you should think like this.
would i play a map if it has this great feature (the one you vote), but all the rest are total crap?

i like realism which goes along with theme so a bit of them, but most of the comments i make are to do with graphics so make of that what you will

Graphics are nice, but not to get carried away. Gameplay all the way for me. Dim... looks like making maps is turning into a full time job for you..

graphics and game play are number one and I do prefer a map with average or more teretorys. I don't play maps like brazill, circus maximas, and space. i just don't likr them for these and other minor reasons

RjBeals wrote:Dim... looks like making maps is turning into a full time job for you..

yep i love risk and i allways dreamed of making my own map. but i never had tallent at hand drawing and never had the oportunity to use image editing software. Conquer Club opened my eyes and maybe one day my dream will come true. also i have the possibility to print my maps on large paper to play the old fashioned way. my first printed map will be the parchment/bill of rights map. my friends already keep on bugging me to hurry up and print it so we can play

I like lots of graphics!!! and 4 it 2 b based on a a real countary/region

hey dim i folow the foundery alot and ur graphics r realy comeing along!

spinwizard wrote:hey dim i folow the foundery alot and ur graphics r realy comeing along!

thanks i try my best

graphics are just a bit more important to me than gameplay, i don't like the graphics of brazil, and i never played it

Gameplay!

Some of the less attractive maps like Brazil are still some of my favorites because they offer great gameplay options.

Gameplay. lots of tactical options really turn me on.
61% [ 8 ]

I like maps we're strategy is a huge factor. I'm a triples player so naturally I tend to play medium to large maps or else it turns into a game of elimination and that ruins a game if a lucky round of dice happen. This happens a lot on ireland, but I'm irish and can't stop playing that map ;p

Thinsg I don't like about maps:

1. attack route lines. Sometimes they work, but most times they don't. It usually looks like the map was forced instead of being naturally made for RISK. Perfect example would be phillipines, that map is stuffed with lines and I think it looks like one big cluster of islands. Exact opposite of this would be king of the mountain. The attack routes on that go perfectly with the map.

2. It seems like people are making maps a fashion show lately and really sacrificing playability just to make the map look pretty. Seriously how many people like to play middle east as of now? That map has excellent playability, but yet gets over looked because of visuals and thankfully it's getting upgraded. Brazil is another one that gets over looked because of looks.

3. Maps with unrealistic bonus territories. Nothing is worse than seeing a map that has more than one bonus tossed in it just to raise the amount of territories. I want maps that have bonuses that are actually obtainable not just there to fill up space. Make it hard to hold, but not impossible.

4. Playability takes a back seat to looks and ease of play. Complicated maps are getting pushed aside or rerouted. Many experienced players are going to want more complex maps that require a strategy to play. conquer 4 is a good example of a more complex map, but not the best example. Crossword is just boring so that one doesn't count.

5. Staying true to a theme. I think if you're going to go all out on making everything look so realistic then why not make it play out like it could've realisticlly. For the most part this can be done, but yeah sometimes it just can't be done due to script issues or whatever...

my order would be.

playability
looks
having enough territories
theme

I would sacrifice looks and amount of territories for a map with a good theme that stayed true to the theme as much as possible through game play. Playability shouldn't ever be compromised in my opinion...

Wisse wrote:graphics are just a bit more important to me than gameplay, i don't like the graphics of brazil, and i never played it

I completely agree. Graphics are very important. It makes the game fun. I wouldn't want to play an ugly or an unclear map.

gameplay. I dont care how pretty a map is if it plays like shit I will only play it once.

Graphics then gameplay. There are maps on the site I have simply refused to play because they hurt my eyes. They might be the best maps on the site as far as gameplay, but I can't stand looking at them long enough to find out.

Gameplay, realism and graphics...a map needs all of them in my book.

i voted Graphics, because if a map has poor graphics, i wont play it.

however the same argument could be made for both Theme and Gameplay.
for example, circus maximus has both good graphics and theme, but i dont like the gameplay.

with only 4 games at a time, im not really able to play all the maps a lot. the ones i do (putting aside appeal from personal reasons) are strong in all three areas.

For me, gameplay is everything. I could care less about the graphics, unless they were extremely horrible or unclear.

Graphics make a player look at the map and try it. However, game play makes a player stay. There is a reason lost of people like the Brazil map even though it looks average. Game play is the most important thing in this type of game. How you use your mind to think and strategize against your opponents.
But if a game plays well, why not make it look good too.

In another post i suggested that when maps are being developed the game play be the first thing we all talk about. Once that is agreed upon, then the looks and graphics become important.

To me, of course its the gameplay. You all know it if you pay attention to my comments on the foundry. Im mostly worried about gameplay.

Then the theme. I dont feel any appeal about a USA (or any other country) county, or something alike. A soup map, an alphabet map... argh! Corssword, bah! Whats fun about conquer coloured squares?

Then graphics. I like the Mid East and Brazil maps... I know the graphics are not good, but the playability is, and the theme is interesting enough. So I like them, but of course I would prefer better graphics (better graphs to Brazil are in my to-do list, you know).

Territories: I can tolerate anything between 32 and 60, not sure about other variations. Yeah, I hate world 2.0

Realism: the less important. Of course its appreciated, but I understand some portions of realism sometimes need to be sacrificed to gameplay, and I dont feel bad doing that.

So, this is my opinion: gameplay > theme > graphs > territories > realism.
To me, gameplay an theme are enough to have me playing a map (essential features), but good graphs help a lot, too.

I'm all about the gameplay. I think the best maps are ones that can be won from a number of different locations. The less your power in the game is determined by initial placement, the better.

For me its all about Eye candy, and playability. I hate getting scrued over because of bad placement, but I also cant stand to play on a map that looks like shit.

Gameplay. lots of tactical options really turn me on.

I have a chub right now thinking of playing that bill of rights map!

I would definitely say gameplay, however I should add that there are bare minimums for some of the others. I've seen some maps that I thought were too small, and for instance Montreal looks like it might have decent gameplay at first glance, but it didn't get a second glance because it looks like my nephew drew it. That one would be at the top of my list for maps that need a makeover.

I consider Theme, Graphics and game play to be the most important things.

I've got to be honest with you, game play has to be #1 on the lists, but really horrible looking maps, I can't play. Look at our brazil map. I hate how that map looks and I refuse to play on that map. If it isn't appealing to my eyes, no matter how tatically wonderful it is, it needs to look good.

can i just say that this is a really dumb thread?

I hope that the maps that get through the foundry these days have everything - solid graphics, well-conceived gameplay, and a hook to get people to play it in the first place. To suggest that one element is more important than the other suggests we should start approving maps based on just one criteria, which I think should not be the case. Rather, I've seen maps abandoned for lack of good game play, for poor graphics, and for lack of a good theme that sparks interest... that's the way it should be.

As for developing maps in phases, there's something to be said for seeing what tools a map developer has from the start. Before the foundry faithful spend weeks hammering out the details of a great idea it would be nice to know that the developer won't be trying to create the final map on KidPix.

Likewise, if I start a project and it either looks like crap or it's on a theme that nobody wants to play, I hope people tell me early on.