Three Kingdoms of Korea [Quenched]

[Nola_Lifer]

I think you need just one more mountain drawn in between hanju and sangju. It hard to tell they aren't connected.

[DiM]

you have fortress on the map but castle in the legend. could use some consistency.

[natty dread]

Ok, this is getting to the point that I'm wondering whether the best solution would be to take the map down, throw it back to gp and continue from there...

[Kabanellas]

Ok, how about these bonuses:

Tang: +2 for 3
Seems better, but maybe change 1 boat from Teng-chou to Yantai to open a new border on the peninsula
Silla: +1 for 1
Still too much I'm afraid, I'd make it +1 for 2
Goguryeo: +1 for 2
seems good
Baekje: +1 for 3
seems good
Gaya: +1 for 2
seems good

On a side note, I'd like to suggest adding an extra feature to Wa owners. These bonus (terrs) are extremely unappealing as they stand now, what if from there you could bombard all capitals ?

The Wa owner wouldn't be a bonus builder, but a bonus destructor that can put all capitals in check. I'd also raise that bonus to 3...

[natty dread]

On a side note, I'd like to suggest adding an extra feature to Wa owners. These bonus (terrs) are extremely unappealing as they stand now, what if from there you could bombard all capitals ?

The Wa owner wouldn't be a bonus builder, but a bonus destructor that can put all capitals in check. I'd also raise that bonus to 3...

I'm afraid that won't do at all, that would go totally against the theme of the map...

Your comments on the bonuses sound good to me. IH seems to have vanished mysteriously though...

[Kabanellas]

I'm afraid that won't do at all, that would go totally against the theme of the map...

You probably right, but the game-play would benefit a lot from it and the Wa owner would have a chance of accomplishing something on the map.

...is Helix on vacations?

[natty dread]

I'm afraid that won't do at all, that would go totally against the theme of the map...

You probably right, but the game-play would benefit a lot from it and the Wa owner would have a chance of accomplishing something on the map.

...is Helix on vacations?

I don't know. He's missing his turns, hasn't logged in for a couple of days.

[DiM]

I'm afraid that won't do at all, that would go totally against the theme of the map...

You probably right, but the game-play would benefit a lot from it and the Wa owner would have a chance of accomplishing something on the map.

...is Helix on vacations?

i'm with kabanellas on this one. regardless of historical accuracy i too think that Wa should be able to bombard capitals.

[The Bison King]

Ok, this is getting to the point that I'm wondering whether the best solution would be to take the map down, throw it back to gp and continue from there...

But isn't there an advantage to being able to test changes as they are implemented?

[natty dread]

i too think that Wa should be able to bombard capitals.

No. Just, no. It goes against all principles of this map. It's like saying that europe should be able to bombard australia in classic. I'd rather take the map down and rehaul the whole gameplay than do that.

No bombardments.

But isn't there an advantage to being able to test changes as they are implemented?

Maybe so, but beta-testing shouldn't be a place where the gameplay is tested on the public. The gameplay should be mostly done, and only require fine-tuning...

[Kabanellas]

No. Just, no. It goes against all principles of this map. It's like saying that europe should be able to bombard australia in classic. I'd rather take the map down and rehaul the whole gameplay than do that.

could you find some way of making that Wa region usable... The problem is that anyone that owns those terrs will be stuck in a dead end, you just can't afford to destroy another player bonus by taking their capital.

[natty dread]

On the other hand, consider that by taking another's capital and a few territories you can easily get a bonus that more than offsets the -4...

But ok, maybe we should change the Wa bonus.

How about making it so that Wa only gives a +3 bonus if you don't hold any capitals, if you hold a capital it gives no bonus and no penalty?

[natty dread]

Ok, here's the new images - I'll get working on the new XML.

I decided to keep Silla as 1/1 - making it 1/2 would not be good since that would make it too weak in comparison, it should be the strongest bonus. It will still have the most neutrals on the capital so that should offset it somewhat.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

[DiM]

No. Just, no. It goes against all principles of this map. It's like saying that europe should be able to bombard australia in classic. I'd rather take the map down and rehaul the whole gameplay than do that.

I decided to keep Silla as 1/1 - making it 1/2 would not be good since that would make it too weak in comparison, it should be the strongest bonus.

i understand that you want historical accuracy. but sometimes that makes for a terrible gameplay. it's like saying china on the classic map should give a +20 just because it represents a huge power (economical and military). image how would classic map play if china had a +20 bonus.
or giving europe +100 and africa 1 simply because there's a huge economical and military difference between them.

Function trumps form - The style of the graphics should not detract from ease of play: borders should be clear, titles and numbers easy to read, colors easy to distinguish, etc...

Form must follow function - So important it's on the list twice! Expect to show some flexibility and be prepared to move away from complete geographical accuracy or historical authenticity: the look and theme of the map must be utterly subservient to gameplay and legibility.

so keeping silla at +1 for each terit is still a bad idea. somebody that gets dongye maecho ye yanju gyaongju and geumgwan will have to defend just 2 borders and get a total bonus of +10 (6 from silla bonus, 1 for fortress, 3 for total number of terits)
if you make it +1 for each 2 terits, then that person will get +7 which is still pretty darn big in my opinion.

On the other hand, consider that by taking another's capital and a few territories you can easily get a bonus that more than offsets the -4...

not really that easy. and in a 1v1 game he who goes for WA loses. while he struggles to cope with the -4 the opponent simply gets another capital and then another and so on and he'll always have the edge.
on games with more players you might accomplish something if the others are ignoring you.

How about making it so that Wa only gives a +3 bonus if you don't hold any capitals, if you hold a capital it gives no bonus and no penalty?

this might work. it makes the strategy for Wa a bit odd but it definitely could work. one would have to start taking terits before taking a capital so that his bonus doesn't suffer from one turn to another but it would be ok.

but strictly from a gameplay point of view i think kabanellas' suggestion with the bombardment would fit perfectly. yeah it would be historically inaccurate and absurd but the gameplay would be so much better.

[pamoa]

you need to reorder both of your legends to help players to find bonus area
please follow the left-right top-bottom order

goguryeo
tang
baekje
silla
gaya
wa

[Kabanellas]

Silla at 1 per 1 is too much I'm afraid...

Natty, without wanting to go against your strong beliefs for this map, which I do respect a lot. I'd just like to add that being an history lover (and a fan of historical maps) I do juggle a bit with historical accuracy to benefit the game-play. The Third Crusade is a good example of that. There was no Kingdom of Jerusalem on the Third Crusade (1192), as it was overrun by Saladin's forces in 1187 remaining only a couple of cities and fortified posts. Nevertheless I wanted it to appear on the map turning history into fiction: what if the Kingdom of Jerusalem was rebuilt in the Third Crusade. Also, France's borders weren't exactly as such as they appear but far more scattered, England owned Aquitaine but for a matter of gameplay those possessions were limited to Normandy...

Anyway your suggestion for the Wa bonus is better than what we have now for sure.

[natty dread]

so keeping silla at +1 for each terit is still a bad idea. somebody that gets dongye maecho ye yanju gyaongju and geumgwan will have to defend just 2 borders and get a total bonus of +10 (6 from silla bonus, 1 for fortress, 3 for total number of terits)
if you make it +1 for each 2 terits, then that person will get +7 which is still pretty darn big in my opinion.

Let's just see how it works. Remember that we're having increased neutrals on the capitals, which will make Silla harder to take. If it's still too powerful, so that it unbalances the map, we'll think of something.

strictly from a gameplay point of view i think kabanellas' suggestion with the bombardment would fit perfectly. yeah it would be historically inaccurate and absurd but the gameplay would be so much better.

I disagree. Gameplay isn't just about making things fair and even, or making the map work as a game - I believe the gameplay should also suppport the theme of the map: if a gameplay mechanic works, but makes no sense thematically, then it is not good gameplay. Ideally, a good gameplay does both: works to provide a fun experience to players, and also integrates the map thematically.

you need to reorder both of your legends to help players to find bonus area
please follow the left-right top-bottom order

I considered this, but decided against - the names of the bonus areas are written on the map, so no one should have any problems finding them. For the lower legend, it's easier to word and more intuitive by having Wa first, but I did reorder the rest to follow the order you mentioned. As for the upper legend, I suppose I could put it in the same order as the lower one. Although the current order looks better aesthetically, as the chinese text forms a neat horizontal pyramid.

Natty, without wanting to go against your strong beliefs for this map, which I do respect a lot.

I don't really have strong beliefs as such... IH designed the gameplay, I gave him pretty much free hands while only offering a few suggestions here and there. IH seems to be gone, and the map needs to be fixed, so I'm working on it for now... I just don't want to go too much against the ideas & designs IH had for the map.

Look, if the 1 for 1 for silla doesn't work, we can change it in the next update. No big deal.

[DiM]

so keeping silla at +1 for each terit is still a bad idea. somebody that gets dongye maecho ye yanju gyaongju and geumgwan will have to defend just 2 borders and get a total bonus of +10 (6 from silla bonus, 1 for fortress, 3 for total number of terits)
if you make it +1 for each 2 terits, then that person will get +7 which is still pretty darn big in my opinion.

Let's just see how it works. Remember that we're having increased neutrals on the capitals, which will make Silla harder to take. If it's still too powerful, so that it unbalances the map, we'll think of something.

increasing neutrals on capitals won't work. the bonus is much too big and increasing the neutrals only makes a person get the bonus a bit later in the game. probably just by 1 round or 2. so instead of getting a +7 from round 1 he'll get it in round 2. then expand and get the +10 in round 3.

strictly from a gameplay point of view i think kabanellas' suggestion with the bombardment would fit perfectly. yeah it would be historically inaccurate and absurd but the gameplay would be so much better.

I disagree. Gameplay isn't just about making things fair and even, or making the map work as a game - I believe the gameplay should also suppport the theme of the map: if a gameplay mechanic works, but makes no sense thematically, then it is not good gameplay. Ideally, a good gameplay does both: works to provide a fun experience to players, and also integrates the map thematically.

disagree all you want but the map making guide is very clear on this matter:

Function trumps form - The style of the graphics should not detract from ease of play: borders should be clear, titles and numbers easy to read, colors easy to distinguish, etc...

Form must follow function - So important it's on the list twice! Expect to show some flexibility and be prepared to move away from complete geographical accuracy or historical authenticity: the look and theme of the map must be utterly subservient to gameplay and legibility.

yes ideally the gameplay and the theme go hand in hand and fit perfectly but clearly this is not the situation here. so i honestly don't care that Silla was a powerful kingdom or that Wa can't bombard if that means the map is unplayable. and frankly that's what it is right now. take a look at 1v1 games where players get 20+ bonuses by round 3. that's bad.

you need to drastically reduce the bonuses and create more borders in some areas perhaps by adding junks.

[natty dread]

I am NOT going to add bombardments to the map.

There's absolutely no reason to add bombardments to the map. None.

As for your other complaint,

if the 1 for 1 for silla doesn't work, we can change it in the next update. No big deal.

Now can we get the f*ck on with it.

[AndyDufresne]

I am NOT going to add bombardments to the map.

There's absolutely no reason to add bombardments to the map. None.

I'd agree that I don't think bombardments would be very fun with this map.


--Andy

[The Bison King]

I am NOT going to add bombardments to the map.

There's absolutely no reason to add bombardments to the map. None.

I'd agree that I don't think bombardments would be very fun with this map.


--Andy

I third this notion. There is nothing that requires this kind of device, or rather there are alternative better solutions.

[natty dread]

Yes, like the one in my latest update.

[Coleman]

I have absolutely no problems with your large version of the map.

As someone who only views the small versions of the map when they play ( shocking I know ) I find the small version of this map causes considerable eye strain to read. I don't know if it is how dark the map is or that the text which is perfectly legible on the large map is simply too grainy on the small map.

I realize you've already passed graphics but it would really help me and probably other people if the text on the small map was given a bit more err solidarity? weight? shadow? Something. Especially in the legends.

Some words, such as donghuyeo are fine, but liaodong, hwangasanbeal, and muju give me some problems if that helps you pinpoint what it is about the text I am having trouble with.

[natty dread]

I'll see what I can do...

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, I want to reiterate the "hard to read" and "hard to tell colors apart" bit. I cannot remember if I said this earlier, but if you really don't want to make the colors on the junks brighter, how about using some kind of symbols that could match (like flag designations). I know that might not be as historically accurate, but sometimes a compromise is necessary.