Conquer Club

BaldAdonis wrote:

RjBeals wrote:

pepperonibread wrote:Mercator map projections are always visually pleasing, though if you need space changing to an equal-area map could work better.

You mean do not keep the aspects of the land as they really are?

There are always nice compromises, like the Robinson projection. Those would give you more room to place territories as well.

Compromise is the key...

I have a suggestion that might allow this map (and maybe others) to get really big territory counts without the need to be grid based (i.e Maze Craze or Conquer 4)

Right now the problem is the name of the territory and the "88" army circle need to occupy the same space and there is only so much room in a map such as this. Especially when you want to have many countries (Europe) in a small space.

My solution is to remove the "88" from the map and put them into the legend. Now instead of looking at the map to see both name and army count, the army count is kept with the name in the legend and bonus numbers.
Now I know this is REALLY rough but you get the idea.

1) Each MEGA bonus group (North America, South America,etc) gets a legend header with bonus in parentheses (or whatever id deemed best looking)
2) Under each Mega Group are any Sub bonus groups with there bonus as well
3) Under those bonus groups there are the numbers of the territories and the "88" for them as well.

As you can see there is TONS of room left on the map to break it up into REALLY small and complex terts. But the issue is that it is not that easy to follow the borders and armies as when then are next to each other on the map. But that is the trade off.

What does everyoen think?

It's great theoretically and visually, but when it's translated into gameplay I can foresee a lotttttt of complaints/confusion and mistakes.

.44

well world 3.0 might just be like world 2.1, except with more territories, maybe you should think of some "significant" change in gameplay or other areas that clearly differentiates this map from world 2.1...

WidowMakers wrote:What does everyone think?

I love it. The legend may look like a mess, but the map itself would remain constant. You would not have 88's covering anything. I think if we go this route, we may just be able to create a large and small map.

BaldAdonis wrote:

RjBeals wrote:

pepperonibread wrote:Mercator map projections are always visually pleasing, though if you need space changing to an equal-area map could work better.

You mean do not keep the aspects of the land as they really are?

There are always nice compromises, like the Robinson projection. Those would give you more room to place territories as well.

Well said. World 2.1 compromised. There's no reason I couldn't eliminate some of the ocean and poles for more playable land.

There's always the possibility of naval fleets

You can't improve on world 2.1. Maybe some design touches here and there, but thats it. It has plenty of territories and they all have real names. Using numbers for names would be a step in the wrong direction.

If you really want to makea bigger better world2.1, you should probably aim for a land and sea 2.0

RjBeals wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:What does everyone think?

I love it. The legend may look like a mess, but the map itself would remain constant. You would not have 88's covering anything. I think if we go this route, we may just be able to create a large and small map.

Right, but it would be hell for gameplay. Having the numbers on the territories is nice because then you can quickly and easily see that there's a 10 attacking a 3, or something. But with this you could easily get mixed up and end up attacking a 30. Playing would be tedious, time consuming and, quite frankly, boring. I know I would never play on a map like that.

hecter wrote:

RjBeals wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:What does everyone think?

I love it. The legend may look like a mess, but the map itself would remain constant. You would not have 88's covering anything. I think if we go this route, we may just be able to create a large and small map.

Right, but it would be hell for gameplay. Having the numbers on the territories is nice because then you can quickly and easily see that there's a 10 attacking a 3, or something. But with this you could easily get mixed up and end up attacking a 30. Playing would be tedious, time consuming and, quite frankly, boring. I know I would never play on a map like that.

The ONLY way I could see a game like that working is if clickable maps became a feature of the site, and highlighting the numbers in the legend would highlight the armies in the legend AND the countries on the map.

If you have to look at the map for the connections and the legend for the names and armies it just won't work IMO.

Also, I love the idea of a map with more territories but I really don't see you doing it with the first map you have chosen. Too much area devoted to ocean, and the land masses in the center are far too small. To pull it off you will need to exaggerate the land mass or make the oceans playable as mibi said.

okay okay.. good points all. Let me think about this. I still think we need a standout map for the site, to replace the classic.

RjBeals wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:What does everyone think?

I love it. The legend may look like a mess, but the map itself would remain constant. You would not have 88's covering anything. I think if we go this route, we may just be able to create a large and small map.

Instead of listing all the territories and there army numbers, why not go with a minimap that has the numbers on there territories?

That way there is two maps, the main map can have the territory's name, the minimap can have the army counts. This will make comparision and gameplay easier than the listed idea by widowmaker.

I think that would take up too much space Gim. I may try and redraw the borders so their is not as much ocean.

I, for one, would love to see this go through, as I love a map with lots of terits. Hope you they let you do it! I know I never use the smaller map, so for me it doesn't matter if you do the small map or not. In my opinion they should at least put it to a vote, and if a lot of ppl don't mind the lack of a small map then why wouldn't they let you do it?

Does it have to really look that realistic? Who needs the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean to be more than 2 cm big?


--Andy

That is a great looking map, I think you will get a green light from a lot of players. Hope to see it being played soon !

why dont you make it so there are no oceans
How you ask?
simple
BEHOLD PANGAEA
[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Pangaea_continents.png[/bigimg]

simple proof of concept
its not great but it gets my point across
[bigimg]http://i333.photobucket.com/albums/m390/asub3293/pangaea.jpg[/bigimg]

or howabout like this one:

[bigimg]http://membres.lycos.fr/fantastoche/Pangaea%20Ultima6.jpg[/bigimg]

yeah actually, cept remove the mountains cuz they defeat the whole "simple game play" concept, and there is a lot of wasted space

WidowMakers wrote:What does everyone think?

Bad Bad Bad idea... Confusion, mistakes and downright nasty gameplay.

Bruceswar wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:What does everyone think?

Bad Bad Bad idea... Confusion, mistakes and downright nasty gameplay.

Fair enough. I figured it would nto fly but I had to ask.

Also the GP is not nasty because that is based on bonuses and borders not where the 88's are located.
The location of teh 88's however, does make it much MUCH more confusing.

Just a though...

Why not use a kind of "sqare" technique to zoom and unzoom (play with size) area so you can represent more land mass and less ocean... Example Let zoom out Groenland and the artic zone so it appear smaller than it actualy is (and put it within a "box" or something)... Let put Oceania nearer africa (and under india) than it's really are... Let put south america closer to afica; Now you could zoom in the land mass a little and add more territories.

Maybe that way you could create a more "abstract" map of earth very appealing and fun to play.

Franck

p.s. I love your work, especialy Charleston, sc

Another though...

Maybe we could add "petroleum pomping station" within water territory to represent a more like and feel 21st century...

That's not exactly possible with the current site code.

the oceans could be territory to