Conquer Club

ERM...Small problem, I fractured my hand and am struggling to more a mouse accurately...not good for map making...

You've spelt Grey wrong in your image - several times.

C.

Gray Grey Both look fine on my spellchecker

gray and grey are both right all depends on what side of the pond you are
ok np spin like i said we take r time just get healed m8

WL_southerner wrote:unriggale you mean its not your cup of tea

Yeah, I guess I just won't play it

unriggable the idea of this map is to have a 6 player map, and try and give a level start but like all maps it comes downs to the drop
but i would say play it the once

coleman i work it out we could do with an extra 50 pixels on the width on the small map
then we could add the legend to the left side that way it would not look cram up, the large map theres no problem map 800x800 ,its not a problem on the large map
i work on a rough map tomorrow to give you an idea how it will set up

WL_southerner wrote:coleman i work it out we could do with an extra 50 pixels on the width on the small map
then we could add the legend to the left side that way it would not look cram up, the large map theres no problem map 800x800 ,its not a problem on the large map

ye, we need more small map room...any is there nay chanse of this being quenched? even if it looks great will it ever be quenched?

ok if we could have an extra 50 to 75 pixels added to the width the map could look some thing like this, legend added to the left side so there will be not need to scroll down
this is 650 wide 600 deep




i know there are a few errors on the map ie its not glow and some numbers are mixed up
i will point out this is a rough drawing just to see what you think

Southy that looks amazing, do u still need me

yup i do m8 thats was done on paint i not got my coral draw cd any more i left it at the old place plus your brains are needed

WL_southerner wrote:yup i do m8 thats was done on paint i not got my coral draw cd any more i left it at the old place plus your brains are needed

Still, looks amazing for paint. I need to re-install fireworks (new computer) and I think I lost the file...

hmm... I am in the camp of users who have never played Crossword 1, and I don't know that this is a huge step up, but I would like to see it get better and I was asked my opinion, so here are my thoughts...

As a color blind player I can say that this map is slightly more eye-friendly than the original: the regions on the map are distinguishable from one another, though it is not immediately clear which bonus in the legend goes with which region on the map. This is another Bob-only map.

The legend was better in the older version. I recognize the effort to devote less room to the legend and I think it is something you should definitely do, but the arrows are confusing. I spent a few minutes trying to figure out how those colors went together to form a bonus before I realized that they don't - the "4" is just pointing to five different colors.

This is simply too big for a small map. Until recently I played exclusively on a laptop, and it sucked when a map wouldn't fit the screen in either direction. Spin's last version, however, would work quite well and it had many pixels to give around the border. And really, if each square is not a unique territory (which I think would actually be more interesting) you don't need the map nearly this large.

Grey v gray: my understanding is that one is the British spelling and one is the American... like color and colour. I've seen both all of my life so I don't actually know which is which... grEy is american I think? (This is the part where some brit tells us Americans we should learn to speak English. )

OK, so you are saying that...you do not object to the map but what needs work, the size and the legend?

oaktown wrote:Grey v gray: my understanding is that one is the British spelling and one is the American... like color and colour. I've seen both all of my life so I don't actually know which is which... grEy is american I think? (This is the part where some brit tells us Americans we should learn to speak English. )

Couldn't resist responding: "grey" is English - "gray" is spelled wrong

One thing to keep in mind, there must be no over lap in regards to side by side three digit coordinates.


--Andy

ty 4 input andy and oaktown
the idea of the map being large is for a 6 man plus game the other crossword way to small to have a 6 man game on, and if lacky do up the numbers that can play in games them we are going to need more space for maps

AndyDufresne wrote:One thing to keep in mind, there must be no over lap in regards to side by side three digit coordinates.


--Andy

We can sort that by not putting the army numbers on the number sq. but further along the row like i is done currently on crossword.

spinwizard wrote:OK, so you are saying that...you do not object to the map but what needs work, the size and the legend?

I was asked for my opinion on the new version of the map... my opinion is that it is too large for a small map, and the legend is unclear. I thought the earlier version was better (yours, Spin), but even that could be spead out to make better use of space. The alternative numbering system (87A, 42D, etc) may be better though... the old numbering system was confusing, because why are there two 3s and two 1s in green?

If you're asking me if I object to the map, my answer is no. I don't like it any more than the first Crossword map, but other people don't share my opinion so I certainly don't object to the map being made. Of course, if you'd like to know my opinion as to why I don't like it, read on...

On the first page of this thread I wrote:

if this is going to move forward you should do a bit of research into why people don't play the current crossword map so you avoid the same traps. This map could potentially have all of the problems of crossword PLUS all of the problems of symmetrical maps, which many users hate.

I continue to have the same concerns about this project that I did six weeks ago. No matter how well you two make use of space or how good the graphics are, it will still be the same exact game play as Cross 1.0, the least popular map on this site. And the basic problems of that map have not been addressed in this one.

Some problems I have with this project include:
1. Lines that look like borders within a territory. Anything that has so much potential to confuse is not player friendly.
2. You still haven't posted the basic required information on the initital post. I assume there are 90 territories based on the highest number on the map. How did you calculate bonuses?
3. The numbering is going to lead to misplacements. The army count for 45D will probably have to be below the 47A number, which will be extremely confusing. Unless, of course, you plan to squeeze the numbers in under the territory names, which gives you the problem noted above about numbers hitting each other (eg 56A-57D). Neither option is player friendly.
4. If you're doing a crossword puzzle, the 26A word would include the letter in the box that sayd 27D, but based on the color I don't think it does on this map - just a border. Or it does, but it isn't shown, which isn't player friendly. Same problem with 13D, 14D, and about 25 others.
5. Look at space #76... is that down, or across? I assume it is across because of the color, but couldn't it just as easily be down? Or is it just the square, which is weird because you'd never see that in a crossword puzzle. And which bonus is it a part of? Should be both, right?
6. The legend in the new version suggests that the attack bridges are territories that start neutral, which is odd because the Spin version makes them sound like attack routes. What are the new territories called? How do I place there? And if I conquer that continent, why on earth would I want to take out a neutral that creates a free wall between my neighbor and I? Bad use of starting neutral.
7. 90 territories: first player in a six player game begins with 15 terits and a placement of five, hits the player that goes after him, and that player starts with only 14 terits and a placement of 4. First player in a five player game starts with 18 terits and +6, which is worse. First player in a two or three player game starts with 30 terits and +10. See the thread on rethinking the number of starting territories.

I know this map has many supporters, so I think it is worth continuing. But it is my opinion that this map is going to require a lot more work and perhaps a complete re-think to make it playable.

I hate it without the title at the top.

oaktown wrote:

spinwizard wrote:OK, so you are saying that...you do not object to the map but what needs work, the size and the legend?

I was asked for my opinion on the new version of the map... my opinion is that it is too large for a small map, and the legend is unclear. I thought the earlier version was better (yours, Spin), but even that could be spead out to make better use of space. The alternative numbering system (87A, 42D, etc) may be better though... the old numbering system was confusing, because why are there two 3s and two 1s in green?

If you're asking me if I object to the map, my answer is no. I don't like it any more than the first Crossword map, but other people don't share my opinion so I certainly don't object to the map being made. Of course, if you'd like to know my opinion as to why I don't like it, read on...

On the first page of this thread I wrote:

if this is going to move forward you should do a bit of research into why people don't play the current crossword map so you avoid the same traps. This map could potentially have all of the problems of crossword PLUS all of the problems of symmetrical maps, which many users hate.

I continue to have the same concerns about this project that I did six weeks ago. No matter how well you two make use of space or how good the graphics are, it will still be the same exact game play as Cross 1.0, the least popular map on this site. And the basic problems of that map have not been addressed in this one.

Some problems I have with this project include:
1. Lines that look like borders within a territory. Anything that has so much potential to confuse is not player friendly.
I agree but we will struggle to find an alternative.

2. You still haven't posted the basic required information on the initital post. I assume there are 90 territories based on the highest number on the map. How did you calculate bonuses?
Yep, it is 90, bonuses was done by common sence. Any suggestions?
3. The numbering is going to lead to misplacements. The army count for 45D will probably have to be below the 47A number, which will be extremely confusing. Unless, of course, you plan to squeeze the numbers in under the territory names, which gives you the problem noted above about numbers hitting each other (eg 56A-57D). Neither option is player friendly.
We were going with the first option...
4. If you're doing a crossword puzzle, the 26A word would include the letter in the box that sayd 27D, but based on the color I don't think it does on this map - just a border. Or it does, but it isn't shown, which isn't player friendly. Same problem with 13D, 14D, and about 25 others.
It's true...:(
5. Look at space #76... is that down, or across? I assume it is across because of the color, but couldn't it just as easily be down? Or is it just the square, which is weird because you'd never see that in a crossword puzzle. And which bonus is it a part of? Should be both, right?
Meh, I see what u mean.
6. The legend in the new version suggests that the attack bridges are territories that start neutral, which is odd because the Spin version makes them sound like attack routes. What are the new territories called? How do I place there? And if I conquer that continent, why on earth would I want to take out a neutral that creates a free wall between my neighbor and I? Bad use of starting neutral.
U could also use it as an attack route to your neighbour!.
7. 90 territories: first player in a six player game begins with 15 terits and a placement of five, hits the player that goes after him, and that player starts with only 14 terits and a placement of 4. First player in a five player game starts with 18 terits and +6, which is worse. First player in a two or three player game starts with 30 terits and +10. See the thread on rethinking the number of starting territories.
I read that thread but we cant change the territ number without changing the whole gameplay!

I know this map has many supporters, so I think it is worth continuing. But it is my opinion that this map is going to require a lot more work and perhaps a complete re-think to make it playable.

Thanks for the contribution and now I have to go and re think the whole map...

reverend_kyle wrote:I hate it without the title at the top.

We have no room

spinwizard wrote:

reverend_kyle wrote:I hate it without the title at the top.

We have no room

i won't let it be quenched with the title as is. make room.

reverend_kyle wrote:

spinwizard wrote:

reverend_kyle wrote:I hate it without the title at the top.

We have no room

i won't let it be quenched with the title as is. make room.

Working on it!

I fixed some of the problems, now it is small map size...



Improved legend
Kept the colours
Added title
Changed the colours