Moderator: Cartographers
This appears to be a result of the changed XML posted on the 9th, in which one of the Tiki's was coded neutral. This will have to be addressed cairns. Are any other regions other than the Tiki's coded as neutrals? I haven't counted the regions myself, but based on the first post, there are 73 starting regions and 16 neutrals, leaving 57 regions to be distributed, which would give each player 19 regions in 1v1. Ideally, you put it down to 53 starting regions so 1v1 will start with 17 and 4 player games will start with 13, but 57 is a decent enough number (though not perfect, since dropping 6 will make it easier to take 3 or more regions from your opponent on the first turn).Bruceswar wrote:First time playing this map. I will say this. Looks to be a very interesting map. I am fan of 1 vs 1 games and 18 spots to start gives a pretty big advantage to those who go first. Example.. Yes I had killer dice, but the point of 6 vs 5 or 4 to drop stands. Maybe 1 more neutral would fix this?
Game 12204881
After me playing 1 turn..
Bruceswar 4.9 1 24 59 8
shaneback 4.8 0 12 36 4
I am 23 men up and 8 deployments up.
no, there are only 16 neutrals on tikis.nolefan5311 wrote:This appears to be a result of the changed XML posted on the 9th, in which one of the Tiki's was coded neutral. This will have to be addressed cairns. Are any other regions other than the Tiki's coded as neutrals?Bruceswar wrote:First time playing this map. I will say this. Looks to be a very interesting map. I am fan of 1 vs 1 games and 18 spots to start gives a pretty big advantage to those who go first. Example.. Yes I had killer dice, but the point of 6 vs 5 or 4 to drop stands. Maybe 1 more neutral would fix this?
Game 12204881
After me playing 1 turn..
Bruceswar 4.9 1 24 59 8
shaneback 4.8 0 12 36 4
I am 23 men up and 8 deployments up.
There are 72 terts (FP now changed)...my badI haven't counted the regions myself, but based on the first post, there are 73 starting regions and 16 neutrals, leaving 57 regions to be distributed, which would give each player 19 regions in 1v1. Ideally, you put it down to 53 starting regions so 1v1 will start with 17 and 4 player games will start with 13, but 57 is a decent enough number (though not perfect, since dropping 6 will make it easier to take 3 or more regions from your opponent on the first turn).
Code: Select all
<reinforcements>
<reinforcement>
<lower>1</lower>
<upper>72</upper>
<divisor>4</divisor>
</reinforcement>
</reinforcements>
yes MB, there's a fix coming for that shortly.ManBungalow wrote:Is the Tiki "+1 bonus when held" an autodeploy?
"Where are mine eyes".Leehar wrote:It's still somewhat tough to tell which terr. exactly have the planes. Gisborne (and perhaps Auckland) are the best because they're right next to the actual troops (which you click on for clickable maps etc)
Perhaps put mini-airports inside the actual territories, or some other identifier like you have with the tiki's?
Or I see now that the planes are alongside the territory names, so perhaps make that explicitly stated, since sometimes I thought ashburton or mt. taranaki had a plane etc
Also, is there anyway to make mt. cook & twizei seem more seperated? the curving of the river right near the mountain made it seem they were connected.
In that same vein, is it possible to say that the rivers have Bridges?
for me is question about planes clear. maybe because I´ve looked at the map more often...cairnswk wrote:"Where are mine eyes".Leehar wrote:It's still somewhat tough to tell which terr. exactly have the planes. Gisborne (and perhaps Auckland) are the best because they're right next to the actual troops (which you click on for clickable maps etc)
Perhaps put mini-airports inside the actual territories, or some other identifier like you have with the tiki's?
Or I see now that the planes are alongside the territory names, so perhaps make that explicitly stated, since sometimes I thought ashburton or mt. taranaki had a plane etc
Also, is there anyway to make mt. cook & twizei seem more seperated? the curving of the river right near the mountain made it seem they were connected.
In that same vein, is it possible to say that the rivers have Bridges?
We'll see if anyone else has these problems.
Yes i could do that, and planes would have to be smaller ti fit inside the frame of name and to me spoil the look of the map.Oneyed wrote:for me is question about planes clear. maybe because I´ve looked at the map more often...cairnswk wrote:"Where are mine eyes".Leehar wrote:It's still somewhat tough to tell which terr. exactly have the planes. Gisborne (and perhaps Auckland) are the best because they're right next to the actual troops (which you click on for clickable maps etc)
Perhaps put mini-airports inside the actual territories, or some other identifier like you have with the tiki's?
Or I see now that the planes are alongside the territory names, so perhaps make that explicitly stated, since sometimes I thought ashburton or mt. taranaki had a plane etc
Also, is there anyway to make mt. cook & twizei seem more seperated? the curving of the river right near the mountain made it seem they were connected.
In that same vein, is it possible to say that the rivers have Bridges?
We'll see if anyone else has these problems.
...but cairn for those who have this problem you could do that frame around names will be longer and planes will be in frame with names...
Oneyed
thanks tnb80thenobodies80 wrote:The updated images and xml have been sent.
Nobodies
me toocairnswk wrote: I think Oneyed, that if some players simply take the time to examine the map, they will see that most of the names sit at the end of the name frames, and that had they applied that association to Mt Taranaki or Ashburton they see exactly where the planes were.
...but you know people...no, i think you might have mentioned it, and i am almost certain i fixed it, but no...somehow it hasn't translated.ender516 wrote:The word "Mountains" is misspelled "Moutains" in the legend. (I am getting a feeling of déjà vu. Did I mention this here before, or is it just a common mistake that I have encountered elsewhere?)
Bugger.you know, i don't think the kiwis hold the license on "bugger"...my father taught it to me when i was young and he is not kiwi.thehippo8 wrote:Ah that most kiwi of expressions "bugger" - a reference to Footrot Flats and a series of Toyota adds based on the dog!
ANyway, as to the planes - the only other solution I can think is to bold the territory border (or even shade the whole territory) so it stands out?
You have my partial support, cairnswk. I think that the planes flying into the territory names is quite clear enough. That said, the purpose of the Beta phase of development is to expose the map to the whole community and check for flaws. You cannot write off comments at this point just because the commentator has not frequented the Foundry.cairnswk wrote:you know, i don't think the kiwis hold the license on "bugger"...my father taught it to me when i was young and he is not kiwi.thehippo8 wrote:Ah that most kiwi of expressions "bugger" - a reference to Footrot Flats and a series of Toyota adds based on the dog!
ANyway, as to the planes - the only other solution I can think is to bold the territory border (or even shade the whole territory) so it stands out?
anyways. appreciate your suggestion, but i am now reluctant to improve the planes image any at all.
my reason is this, and i don't care if i argue with the foundry chiefs...very few people bothered to come in and comment on this map while it was in production, and certainly the instigator of this request was not one of them.
I mentioned the problems I had, if you prefer these things to be learned by trial & error, and my comments to be unconstructive than so be it.ender516 wrote:You have my partial support, cairnswk. I think that the planes flying into the territory names is quite clear enough. That said, the purpose of the Beta phase of development is to expose the map to the whole community and check for flaws. You cannot write off comments at this point just because the commentator has not frequented the Foundry.cairnswk wrote:you know, i don't think the kiwis hold the license on "bugger"...my father taught it to me when i was young and he is not kiwi.thehippo8 wrote:Ah that most kiwi of expressions "bugger" - a reference to Footrot Flats and a series of Toyota adds based on the dog!
ANyway, as to the planes - the only other solution I can think is to bold the territory border (or even shade the whole territory) so it stands out?
anyways. appreciate your suggestion, but i am now reluctant to improve the planes image any at all.
my reason is this, and i don't care if i argue with the foundry chiefs...very few people bothered to come in and comment on this map while it was in production, and certainly the instigator of this request was not one of them.
ender516. not wanting to put anyone off side, you have been around long enough to know that my pet peeve is community leaving it until the last minute (after graphics stamp) to come into the foundry and make suggestions on imporvements for the maps when the map sits around in the foundry without comments for weeks on end. I always thought that someone who could devote so much time to creating tournies, could at least also give the foundry sometime....but no this appears to not have been the case.ender516 wrote:You have my partial support, cairnswk. I think that the planes flying into the territory names is quite clear enough. That said, the purpose of the Beta phase of development is to expose the map to the whole community and check for flaws. You cannot write off comments at this point just because the commentator has not frequented the Foundry.cairnswk wrote:you know, i don't think the kiwis hold the license on "bugger"...my father taught it to me when i was young and he is not kiwi.thehippo8 wrote:Ah that most kiwi of expressions "bugger" - a reference to Footrot Flats and a series of Toyota adds based on the dog!
ANyway, as to the planes - the only other solution I can think is to bold the territory border (or even shade the whole territory) so it stands out?
anyways. appreciate your suggestion, but i am now reluctant to improve the planes image any at all.
my reason is this, and i don't care if i argue with the foundry chiefs...very few people bothered to come in and comment on this map while it was in production, and certainly the instigator of this request was not one of them.
Leehar. i have no problems im making changes to maps of mine...if these major graphcis changes are made predominantly when they are supposed to be made (in my mind) while the map is in graphics stage in the main foundry, not when it is in BETA. BETA to me is for absolute minor tweaks. I don't consider your suggestions to be minor tweaks nor indeed useless and i don't consider that you need to "butt" out of here...but for someone who spends all their time organising tournies (which you have my repesect for)...Leehar wrote:....
I mentioned the problems I had, if you prefer these things to be learned by trial & error, and my comments to be unconstructive than so be it.
I did try to make allowances that you may find my comment distasteful, so tried to mention other possible additions like adding a mention of bridges to the legend, but If I'm going to be tarred with a 'useless' brush I guess I can butt my head out of where it's not wanted.
you will notice that i did not cut off the Beta stage in my comments, but did say "preferably while a map is in production"So please visit us to give your feedback (1. preferably while a map is in production and 2. afterwards when the maps are in Beta and you have played them a while).
Leehar, it doesn't hurt at all, but rather pisses me off due to untimeliness of these comments and since you've been around since 2009 you really should perhaps know better.I recognise this comment may seem a bit butthurt, and that I should be bigger than to take offense, but meh, it's not worth it to try be more neutral, just as cairns is honest enough to say what he feels as well (which I can only applaud)
Oh, you are doing some good...i would prefer you to stick around but be more proactive in giving your requests like these major ones in a more timely manner.Perhaps I'm alone in not looking at my maps so closely as to not stumble on these small things, and if everyone else spends the time to not make my silly mistakes than I agree there's probably no good that I'm doing here.
I did pop in here because I thought cairns interview and the foundry section in the dispatch were nice enough to make it worthwhile mentioning these things, so I'll probably stick around but will try avoid raising hackles in the future
Mmm, salt on my shoes...seems once again i've left a bitter taste...and it is not because you are not a foundry regular that i made these comments...perhaps you'd take the time to add your comments to a map when the map is sitting around for weeks on end.And I completely acknowledge that I mentioned a very minor issue, and I probably would be like others and just not mention it all because it's no longer an issue once I've learned from my mistake. I just thought maybe it was worth leaving some feedback...
Heck even a response from cairns like he had in the newsletter "Thank you but No" would have made me feel better than "You're not a foundry regular so your mentions aren't worth the salt on my shoe"
If this was a place I frequented, I'd be willing to actually go to the effort of defend my views, but since as it was so eloquently stated that I don't bother to come here anyway, it's not worth the effort to stick to my guns?
if that was at me, the only tournies I've ever run, was when official teamcc ones needed assistance.cairnswk wrote: I always thought that someone who could devote so much time to creating tournies, could at least also give the foundry sometime....but no this appears to not have been the case.
