New Zealand [Quenched]

[cairnswk]

Now, back on topic.

The changes will be made to name tags and planes, but at a later date.

[Leehar]

As a tournie organiser who has accomplished over 30 and several general achievements, i would have thought you might have been a bit more organised in your timeliness.

As you can see from the Tourney comments, it's very easy to make these kind of tiny mistakes which snowball (You thinking that my medals are for tourney organising rather than winners medals); so I think it just helps serve my point that even if the problems can be solved by paying a bit more attention to those things, it would be far easier if they were just made a trifle clearer?


And I apologise for not popping into the other stages of the foundry, but the reality is that there are over 200 maps in play, many of which I still don't know very well and could provide input, that putting suggestions on ones that still haven't even come into play is sometimes beyond me.

Now, back on topic.

The changes will be made to name tags and planes, but at a later date.

Sorry for dragging it a bit off-topic
Thanks for taking it under consideration, thats all I could've asked for!

What did you think about my other comment on bridges, is it worth adding to the legend that they allow you to cross the impassable rivers?

[cairnswk]

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.

if that was at me, the only tournies I've ever run, was when official teamcc ones needed assistance.
...

Mmm, my error and apologies.
I too make mistakes...perhaps you gained these over 30 for winning.

[cairnswk]

As a tournie organiser who has accomplished over 30 and several general achievements, i would have thought you might have been a bit more organised in your timeliness.

As you can see from the Tourney comments, it's very easy to make these kind of tiny mistakes which snowball (You thinking that my medals are for tourney organising rather than winners medals); so I think it just helps serve my point that even if the problems can be solved by paying a bit more attention to those things, it would be far easier if they were just made a trifle clearer?


And I apologise for not popping into the other stages of the foundry, but the reality is that there are over 200 maps in play, many of which I still don't know very well and could provide input, that putting suggestions on ones that still haven't even come into play is sometimes beyond me.

Leehar...providing input on a map is required before quenching, not after it...so i doubt commenting on over 200 maps that are in play will help anyone.
If others can provide comment before coming into play, then perhaps you should try also. There are many maps sitting in the foundry awaiting comments.

Now, back on topic.

The changes will be made to name tags and planes, but at a later date.

Sorry for dragging it a bit off-topic
Thanks for taking it under consideration, thats all I could've asked for!

I too am sorry we went down that road, but was quite peeved as you know at the timing of this.

What did you think about my other comment on bridges, is it worth adding to the legend that they allow you to cross the impassable rivers?

Re the bridges...No. I have sometimes wanted to place things like that on my maps to clarify instructions, but have been told that providing what should be the obvious of normal style gameplay conditions re impassables, borders etc etc....players who are familiar with the initial game, are aware that bridges allow crossing of the impassable rivers, so it is a waste of time, which upon reflection is quite true. These are standard areas for this game and re-creating the wheel shouldn't have to occur.

[thenobodies80]

ok, some thoughts.

Every user has the right to say nothing about a map till a map reaches the beta stage. And we all know that Beta is the moment in which a map receives the biggest amount of suggestions.
In the same time an earlier comment would be really appreciated, this because make maps require lot of work and late changes are really stressing and unfreindly from a mapmaker's point of view.
Said that, I would like to not read unkind answer that might push users to not visit or suggest in the foundry anymore.
I understand the effort put to draw a map and i have respect for mapmakers, but in the same time the mapmakers should have respect for those who pay to play the maps.
I don't want to seems hars but like I have already said no one force people to draw maps. Mapmaking has rules here so if we want to draw maps we must live with the fact that maps must be changed accordingly a reasonable request of players till the moment a map is quenched.
In the same time, if a player want to play a game, he must know how to play it. A request just because a player is too lazy to read instructions or take the time to "study" a map is not reasonable imo.

Now, if a player takes the time to go to the browse maps page, study a bit the map and understand how it works before to start a game on it, issues like the planes wouldn't be issues. Then if that page is too hidden, and i can only agree about that, it's not a foundry or mapmaker fault.
Planes are not clear at glance, but I can't say they are so unclear. In real life, when someone buy a board game, some time is certainly spent on reading instructions and understand how the game works....no?
I have the feeling that it's some time that players think maps should be ready to play without spend 10 mins at looking at the map.
I'm not referring to Leehar , I'm just speaking about a feeling I have each time I read on this forum that people spend zero time to read instructions. (e.g. when people ask to explain killer neutrals on maps)
In addition, when something is unclear, it would be nice to not point out the problem and click submit, but instead try to spend a minute and suggest a possible solution for it.
Beta stage is done to test maps and if something deosn't work find a solution for it....problems without a solution remain problems! So please, if there's something that is not clear or doesn't work for a player, i think it's corteous to try to give a suggestion so to help the mapmaker to fix the issue without have to try 1000 times before to fix it. Unfortunately we are not able to read into people mind and understand what they would like to see.

Things like rivers that can be crossed via bridges are pretty clear to everyone who has a brain....but maybe those who says the opposite, in real life swim to reach the opposite side of a river?
With bridges the only thing required is a bit of common sense...and again if someone make a mistake for a "unclear" bridge on a map, then i think that the mistake can be done just once. In italy we say: "errare è umano, perseverare è diabolico"

On the opposite, I agree with Leehar about the river between twizel and Mt. Cook . It can be easily redraw to make the border more clear....something like this could work imo:


Finally, Beta stage is NOT for minor tweaks only. If maps have flaws, they must be fixed. It doesn't matter if they are big or small. Then..if they are big feel free to spank a CA for not spotting the issue when it was the right moment...but the mapmaker should fix it anyway. Also in this case, don't play a game if you're not keen to follow the rules.

Be aware, I'm not trying to argue with anyone here, just trying to explain to everyone that find a balance and a way to cooperate between mapmakers and players is the way to go.

Nobodies

[jcarter1]

Did not read through the whole topic, but why is it that every player in the game is suddenly getting +1 troop to deploy here:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=12221679

Could not find anything about that in the descriptions on the map itself. (note that everyone is below 12 territories, but suddenly has 4 troops to deploy)

[cairnswk]

Did not read through the whole topic, but why is it that every player in the game is suddenly getting +1 troop to deploy here:

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=12221679

Could not find anything about that in the descriptions on the map itself. (note that everyone is below 12 territories, but suddenly has 4 troops to deploy)

jcarter1...thanks for bringing that to my attention...i placed a min of 4 reinforcements in the xml...but it should have only been 3....my error.
but there will an adjustment to bonuses higher than that coz the divisor is now 4 instead of 3.
i'll do another map and xml adjustment shortly.
Apologies.

[cairnswk]

Files attached for adjustment to xml...
min reinforcement was set at 4 instead of 3...
divisor is still 4, not three.
instructions added to maps.

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... 2S_xml.png
http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s282 ... 2L_xml.png

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/12/21 ... /07_NZ.xml

[Oneyed]

so bonus for Taranaki is still +2? I realy think that +1 is better for so small area.

Oneyed

[cairnswk]

so bonus for Taranaki is still +2? I realy think that +1 is better for so small area.

Oneyed

Still waiting for ian feedback

[thenobodies80]

Mmmm..
If we compare taranaki with gisborne they look similar, in addition the central position is worth the +2. If we look at the northland bonus, which is +1, we can see the difference in the value due the position on the map.
If we want to change taranaki to +1, we should change also gisborne imo.

Nobodies

[Dukasaur]

Now, if a player takes the time to go to the browse maps page, study a bit the map and understand how it works before to start a game on it, issues like the planes wouldn't be issues. Then if that page is too hidden, and i can only agree about that, it's not a foundry or mapmaker fault.
Planes are not clear at glance, but I can't say they are so unclear. In real life, when someone buy a board game, some time is certainly spent on reading instructions and understand how the game works....no?
I have the feeling that it's some time that players think maps should be ready to play without spend 10 mins at looking at the map.
I'm not referring to Leehar , I'm just speaking about a feeling I have each time I read on this forum that people spend zero time to read instructions. (e.g. when people ask to explain killer neutrals on maps)

I must say, that the first game I played on this map I was totally lost, and I had a lot of "WTF?" moments. But I'm on my fourth game now, and already I have it pretty much figured out. And that, actually, is very good for a complex map. No reasonable person would expect everything to be clear on the first attempt, but if it can be clear by your fourth then that is probably better than average.

Minor issues:

I found myself confusing Picton with Nelson and Picton with Wellington a lot, and in particular whether the black plane is on Picton or Nelson, but there's not much to be done. It's a crowded area and it's just a matter of time to memorize the proper order that they go in.

"Moutains" needs to be fixed, but I see you're on it already.

I think the black planes could be replaced with 2 different colours for north and south, but it's not really essential. Might make it clearer, but again if I can figure it out by my fourth attempt maybe no clarification is really required.

Some of the borders like Twizei and Mt. Cook took some squinting, but again, I've got them figured out now.

On balance, I'd say nothing is really too difficult to figure out. I'm starting to like this map!

[Leehar]

Now, if a player takes the time to go to the browse maps page, study a bit the map and understand how it works before to start a game on it, issues like the planes wouldn't be issues. Then if that page is too hidden, and i can only agree about that, it's not a foundry or mapmaker fault.
Planes are not clear at glance, but I can't say they are so unclear. In real life, when someone buy a board game, some time is certainly spent on reading instructions and understand how the game works....no?
I have the feeling that it's some time that players think maps should be ready to play without spend 10 mins at looking at the map.

In addition, when something is unclear, it would be nice to not point out the problem and click submit, but instead try to spend a minute and suggest a possible solution for it.
Beta stage is done to test maps and if something deosn't work find a solution for it....problems without a solution remain problems! So please, if there's something that is not clear or doesn't work for a player, i think it's courteous to try to give a suggestion so to help the mapmaker to fix the issue without have to try 1000 times before to fix it. Unfortunately we are not able to read into people mind and understand what they would like to see.

On the opposite, I agree with Leehar about the river between twizel and Mt. Cook . It can be easily redraw to make the border more clear....something like this could work imo:


Be aware, I'm not trying to argue with anyone here, just trying to explain to everyone that find a balance and a way to cooperate between mapmakers and players is the way to go.

Nobodies

I'm one of those who prefer to learn through experience as opposed to learning through poring over a map for ages. With that I obviously anticipate and acknowledge any errors I make are largely my fault;
& wouldn't have mentioned it all since it's a relatively minor thing, but thought it couldn't hurt to mention that further clarification of those little things could be useful if they help to avoid mistakes by people who are somewhere between going the whole hog of all the way of reading a training manual before putting your toe in the water, and jumping in blindfolded. So while you may be somewhat critical of someone not taking the time to go research a map before playing it, the reality is that with over 200 maps around, it's also unreasonable to expect people to do that every time they play a game. I feel I'm relatively well-versed in the art of CC, but if even I am stumbling over some things, it stands to reason it's far more intimidating for others to try it out as well.

It was an easy mistake to make and I doubted I'd be the last one to make it, so if it could clear some small amount of confusion; to me there wasn't much harm in suggesting it...

I did try to suggest that perhaps mini-airports or something could make it a bit easier (Which I also know realise may have been a bit much at this advanced stage of development) but more felt it's better left to those who actually know how best to solve the problem. And Indeed a foundry regular came up with a decent sugg on perhaps just extending the name banner around the plane as well; which is far better than anything I could ever come up with.

I'm a bit ambivalent about bridges, as I said earlier it was something I had added to perhaps decrease the sentiment against me, since I assumed it was something explicitly stated in other maps. Since thats apparently not the case, I apologise.

Also, can I assume the difference in colours for some waterways, is to show the difference between rivers and lakes? (ie the TL portion vs Central Otago?)
Why is the lake in Taupo light blue then?

And similar to that same mt.cook border issue, is the area around Te Anau/Milford/Doubtful & Winton a bit congested with regards to the lakes and borders?
Perhaps a more contrasting colour between the bonus and the water/lakes/mountains?

Basically, you can the lake doesn't extend that far to the mountains, so there's space for Milford & Te anau to border, but there's a little wobble between the lake and the mountains to bring doubt into perhaps Milford & Doubtful Sounds also perhaps connecting(the mountain also blends in a bit)
Then the lake takes a little jump and now Winton's border extends a bit letting it connect to Doubtful but not to Fiordland and of course it connects to Te anau which itself doesn't connect to Doubtful because of the impassable and squiggly line next to the 'T' in Te Anau.

Tried to go into a bit of detail there just to expound on the issue, but if it's clearer for others then I apologise again for time-wasting.

[cairnswk]

...Also, can I assume the difference in colours for some waterways, is to show the difference between rivers and lakes? (ie the TL portion vs Central Otago?)
Why is the lake in Taupo light blue then?

no the difference is usually shown between see and rivers/lakes. Taupo is same solour as rivers.

And similar to that same mt.cook border issue, is the area around Te Anau/Milford/Doubtful & Winton a bit congested with regards to the lakes and borders?
Perhaps a more contrasting colour between the bonus and the water/lakes/mountains?

Basically, you can the lake doesn't extend that far to the mountains, so there's space for Milford & Te anau to border, but there's a little wobble between the lake and the mountains to bring doubt into perhaps Milford & Doubtful Sounds also perhaps connecting(the mountain also blends in a bit)
Then the lake takes a little jump and now Winton's border extends a bit letting it connect to Doubtful but not to Fiordland and of course it connects to Te anau which itself doesn't connect to Doubtful because of the impassable and squiggly line next to the 'T' in Te Anau.

This whole area is quite congested in real life (RL)...lakes are real sizes, Lake Te Anau is the second largest lake in NZ after Lake Taupo (Wiki). ....and it was my aim to convey some of this congestion with the mountains etc...i think the borders and all are quite clear enough, and it is notated in the legend that mountains, rivers and lakes are impassable.

[cairnswk]

...the reality is that with over 200 maps around, it's also unreasonable to expect people to do that every time they play a game....

I don't agree with you here, and many others wouldn't also.
Many of the maps on CC are quite complex, and i would think it is very necessary to read the instructions and gain some understanding of the map and how it plays before "jumping in". I think it is unreasonable that you would even consider it unreasonable not to be expected to do some research on these maps if you want to develop strategy etc.
Number of maps is irrelevant...you'll get to them all if that is your goal, but i think it is wrong making it an excuse for your own folly of not reading and researching.
You should know that from the degree you've jut completed.

[cairnswk]

...
Minor issues:

I found myself confusing Picton with Nelson and Picton with Wellington a lot, and in particular whether the black plane is on Picton or Nelson, but there's not much to be done. It's a crowded area and it's just a matter of time to memorize the proper order that they go in.

will address this issue when i address the planes issue.

"Moutains" needs to be fixed, but I see you're on it already.

done.

I think the black planes could be replaced with 2 different colours for north and south, but it's not really essential. Might make it clearer, but again if I can figure it out by my fourth attempt maybe no clarification is really required.

perhaps you too Dukasaur should know better that this should have been suggested in map development
i beleive there is no colour differentiation required.

Some of the borders like Twizei and Mt. Cook took some squinting, but again, I've got them figured out now.

Will fix that...eventually

[Oneyed]

I post this also in game chat:

Kaitaia is only airport with Tiki. is possible to change it to Whangarei? then maybe change bonus for Northland from +1 to +2 and leave bonuses for Taranaki and Gisborne as they are.

Oneyed

[cairnswk]

I post this also in game chat:

Kaitaia is only airport with Tiki. is possible to change it to Whangarei? then maybe change bonus for Northland from +1 to +2 and leave bonuses for Taranaki and Gisborne as they are.

Oneyed

No, tiki are sacred areas.http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p3780796...and plaees in those regions for specific reason.
But i'd be happy to change down Gisborne and Taranaki to +1

[Oneyed]

No, tiki are sacred areas.http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p3780796...and plaees in those regions for specific reason.
But i'd be happy to change down Gisborne and Taranaki to +1

I did not spoke about moving Tiki. I spoke that only this Tiki has airport, which is big difference from Tikis´s view or airports´s view. I spoke about replacing airport.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whangarei_Airport

Oneyed

[iancanton]

so bonus for Taranaki is still +2? I realy think that +1 is better for so small area.

If we want to change taranaki to +1, we should change also gisborne imo.

agreed in both cases. do we want to reduce the neutral on the tiki for each of these bonuses from n4 to n3, as some compensation for reducing the bonus value from +2 to +1?

I think that the planes flying into the territory names is quite clear enough.

i tend to agree here, though i haven't actually held any planes in my only game on this map so far, so i'm not speaking from experience. however, i initially thought that there were only 4 white planes and it took me several rounds to realise that those 4 white planes can be assaulted by queenstown, which also has a white plane. can the queenstown plane be made clearer by swapping the colour of southland with that of otago, which is very pale?

So while you may be somewhat critical of someone not taking the time to go research a map before playing it, the reality is that with over 200 maps around, it's also unreasonable to expect people to do that every time they play a game.

I don't agree with you here, and many others wouldn't also.

leehar makes a completely valid point. we have too many maps to know by heart and we're sometimes forced to play one that's not of our choosing, whether through joining a random map game or by taking part in a clan war or tournament. while we can say that it's largely someone's own fault for mistaking the location of a plane (for example), the fact that someone has bothered to post in the map thread during beta is a positive development and he certainly ought not to have to use an exceedingly apologetic tone for fear of being roundly criticised. this is an issue that comes to light during the hurly-burly of actual play and cannot easily be forecast while the map is being made.

ian.

[cairnswk]

so bonus for Taranaki is still +2? I realy think that +1 is better for so small area.

If we want to change taranaki to +1, we should change also gisborne imo.

agreed in both cases. do we want to reduce the neutral on the tiki for each of these bonuses from n4 to n3, as some compensation for reducing the bonus value from +2 to +1?

I think that the planes flying into the territory names is quite clear enough.

i tend to agree here, though i haven't actually held any planes in my only game on this map so far, so i'm not speaking from experience. however, i initially thought that there were only 4 white planes and it took me several rounds to realise that those 4 white planes can be assaulted by queenstown, which also has a white plane. can the queenstown plane be made clearer by swapping the colour of southland with that of otago, which is very pale?

Ian, i will not change colours for territories as that i consider a major change.
I will however, do something to clarify the plane on Queenstown and Nelson.

So while you may be somewhat critical of someone not taking the time to go research a map before playing it, the reality is that with over 200 maps around, it's also unreasonable to expect people to do that every time they play a game.

I don't agree with you here, and many others wouldn't also.

leehar makes a completely valid point. we have too many maps to know by heart and we're sometimes forced to play one that's not of our choosing, whether through joining a random map game or by taking part in a clan war or tournament. while we can say that it's largely someone's own fault for mistaking the location of a plane (for example), the fact that someone has bothered to post in the map thread during beta is a positive development and he certainly ought not to have to use an exceedingly apologetic tone for fear of being roundly criticised. this is an issue that comes to light during the hurly-burly of actual play and cannot easily be forecast while the map is being made.

ian.

ian, i have to disagree with you here again.

It seems to me some people are ( and this goes for many cross sections of our modern society) unwilling to take responsibility for their own errors, instead all to willing to blame others for not reading instructions etc etc.

yes there are 200 hundred maps, and whether we get there through random game or not, no-one is asking anyone to learn 200 hundred maps.

But i do expect that with (in most circumstances) an hour to make a move someone would give themselves the benefit of the doubt and read the instructions and not just jump in. and if they do jump in, then they must take responsibility for that action and not be content to say, i thought that was different because i didn't read the instructions.

you are well aware of the time it takes in some of these maps to get this wording correct, and for players to openly admit they don't read instructions, and then u supporting them or seemingly so, i think you're just pandering to them.

And i thought that getting all the issues ironed out like planes etc before graphics stamp was issued was supposed to alleviate these challenges that seem all to often to arise in beta. But of course i can't expect you guys to do what we used to to when Coleman and I ran the foundry way back when.
...the hurly burly of gameplay excuse can only be be used when you're playing freestyle or limited time turns, so i would expect that most players would take some of the hour allocated to read and examine the map before jumping.

i don't expect someone to be apologetic to me, but i do expect those people to at least give me the benfit of examing the map before gameplay and indeed when it is in production...otherwise we can close the foundry and make maps secretly and then just put them up for BETA testing. What a farce!

I won't argue anymore as i know i won't get my message through to you guys anyway...because of these silly foundry rules, so
getting down to tintacs...i have already said i will adjust the planes at a later date and when i do so i will adjust the +1 for Gisborne and Taranaki at the same time.

[thehippo8]

Thanks for explaining that cairns ... I think you are right that some of us want to see a scapegoat and forget to look in the mirror first! It is so much easier to flame and try and be a part of an (apparent) argument than to actually have something constructive to add. Sometimes I think that (some) people want to push a barrow and be someone rather than to actually see ... but then again what do I know (look at my rating!). I for one marvel at the cleverness that goes into these things and appreciate my own shortcomings (and they are many). Moving on .... Playing this map is so much different than intellectualising it! It is IMHO a huge amount of FUN! And do I want it perfect .... ah ... nah ... I want my dice to roll and realise that risking everything can sometimes be worth it. This map has a lot to offer and nitpicking aside ... brilliant!!!

[Oneyed]

this is from page 5:

at the first I have queston about Tikis. some of them are airports, some of them not. this makes difference between them. a little...

Yes they may need moving....i think there are 4 that i count.

just what with difference between Tikis with airport and Tikis without airport?

tikis on airport territories have been moved.

cairnswk, reaction on your reaction in game chat:

2013-01-23 11:25:14 - cairnswk: oneyed. airport on whangerei....that discussion took place in thread several weeks back when ian did the bonus adjustments for gameplay....no i am not moving it. end of story.
2013-01-23 11:33:01 - cairnswk: you too should take the benefit of actively participating in gameplay discussion when the map is in development.

Oneyed

[cairnswk]

this is from page 5:

at the first I have queston about Tikis. some of them are airports, some of them not. this makes difference between them. a little...

Yes they may need moving....i think there are 4 that i count.

just what with difference between Tikis with airport and Tikis without airport?

tikis on airport territories have been moved.

cairnswk, reaction on your reaction in game chat:

2013-01-23 11:25:14 - cairnswk: oneyed. airport on whangerei....that discussion took place in thread several weeks back when ian did the bonus adjustments for gameplay....no i am not moving it. end of story.
2013-01-23 11:33:01 - cairnswk: you too should take the benefit of actively participating in gameplay discussion when the map is in development.

Oneyed

i apologise Oneyed for saying that and not checkng first...
but you forget to add this....

hm, airport gameplay looks fine now....

from page 5 immediatley under map, and then nothing from you again until p16 about mountains.

[Oneyed]

i apologise Oneyed for saying that and not checkng first...
but you forget to add this....

hm, airport gameplay looks fine now....

from page 5 immediatley under map, and then nothing from you again until p16 about mountains.

yes, but there were no region with Tiki and airport together. you moved Tiki to Kaitara from Whangerei, but you did not moved airport from Kaitara...

cairns, I do not think that moving this airport is huge change. and it realy could helps in my opinion. and then Gisborne, Taranaki and also Northland could be +2...
it is not about "who said what", I just can help... now in Beta, because later it will be too late.

Oneyed

EDIT: also Nelson could be +3 and Wellington +2.