Antarctica [Quenched]

[carlpgoodrich]

Sure, the only time it would come into play is late in the game when someone takes the SP. By that time they presumably are getting large bonuses and the +1 autodeploy would be pretty useless.

[natty dread]

Yeah, that was my reasoning as well. Plus that having less neutrals on them gives a player who loses his base a chance to grab a new one to stay in the game.

[Joodoo]

I feel like Base N is to easy to hold compared to all the other bases, as there's only two territories that can directly attack it.
Perhaps make the attack route from Base N to AP3 two way instead of one way?

[natty dread]

All bases can be only attacked from south pole, like it says in the legend.

[carlpgoodrich]

Yeah, that was my reasoning as well. Plus that having less neutrals on them gives a player who loses his base a chance to grab a new one to stay in the game.

You mean when a player loses one base but still has another, this would give him a chance to get a second one and therefore be safer? The losing condition kicks a player out the second someone else takes their last base.

[natty dread]

Yeah, that was my reasoning as well. Plus that having less neutrals on them gives a player who loses his base a chance to grab a new one to stay in the game.

You mean when a player loses one base but still has another, this would give him a chance to get a second one and therefore be safer? The losing condition kicks a player out the second someone else takes their last base.

It doesn't. When you lose all your bases you still have a chance to retake one the next turn.

Well, in theory at least. I'm not exactly clear on how it works (we haven't had a chance to play any losing condition maps yet.) But the specs say that the losing conditions are evaluated whenever you conquer or bombard a territory. (That is, your losing conditions are evaluated when you conquer, not everyone's.)

...so if that's true, in practice if you lose your bases you're still dead, since someone must go through south pole to take your bases, and that means you can't retake a base with just one assault (since you would also have to go through SP.) Except, I guess, in nuclear, when you hold SP but someone nukes all your bases.

[carlpgoodrich]

Maybe I'm wrong, but when the XML update came out they said that If I attack you and take a losing condition from you (i.e. your last base), then immediately you are kicked out and I get your cards, and all your territories go neutral (and in Terminator games I get your points). I'll see if I can find the topic discussion when I have a chance.

[natty dread]

Ok you're right. They just worded it kind of funny and I got confused.

The other reasons for having it as a 5 still apply though so it doesn't matter.

[natty dread]

Can we get a gameplay mod here?

[theBastard]

just one notice, the area with stripes (with penguin) not fit with the map for me. could it be done only white as are other impassable areas?

[natty dread]

I'll look into it when we get to graphics workshop.

[MarshalNey]

Sorry for the delay.

The map gameplay has come a long way and I have to say that the overall framework has crystallized (pun intended) into something very intriguing and not really like Oasis as I feared. In addition, it's a very pretty map, and fairly easy to read. That said, there are a few things that could use some attention:

(1) The 888's. I'd like to see them, just to be sure they fit. I don't really have any fears in this regard- the AP region is the only one where they might be a bit tight and I think there's plenty of space if it is.

(2) The number of South Pole neutrals should probably be stated on the map. I know that in many maps it isn't and clans for instance just consider this part of researching a map, but for the casual player it could come as a nasty shock to find out that there aren't 10 or 20 as they might have guessed. Especially since a player needs to commit to taking a sector and then hitting the Pole, it would be nice to know ahead of time that the Pole had 30 neutrals in a fog of war game.

(3) The Ice Shelf part of the legend passed my notice the first time I looked the map over, because the symbol wasn't as separated as the others. I think it would be good to separate the Ice shelf from the base icon.

(4) The FL area is just too crowded with bases I think. In particular, I would not want to end up on Base D, as there is a good chance that any route I'd take would very quickly put me into enemy-occupied territory and my strategy would devolve into a game of push-shove. Consider moving one of the bases in that upper-right area, possibly to AL, HL or SL.

Some other minor legibility tweaks:
(1) I don't like how the coastal impassibles look similar to the Ice Shelves. Since I really like the look of the Ice Shelves, maybe you could put a more distinct border or somthing to make the coastal impassibles as clear as the mountain impassibles.

(2) This is totally a matter of preference, but Sully did have a small point about how using just numbers for the Sectors makes them seem like another land region at first glance. An alphanumeric designation would make them stand out more, like "S1, S2, S3, S4".

(3) As Andy pointed out, the bottom seems overloaded with information. Although this can wait for graphics as you said, do you have any ideas while this gets ready for a sticky?


Overall, the gameplay is solid and hopefully it won't take much more work to address the points above. Again, sorry for the delay.

Marshal Ney

[natty dread]

The map gameplay has come a long way and I have to say that the overall framework has crystallized (pun intended) into something very intriguing and not really like Oasis as I feared. In addition, it's a very pretty map, and fairly easy to read.

Thanks!

(1) The 888's. I'd like to see them, just to be sure they fit. I don't really have any fears in this regard- the AP region is the only one where they might be a bit tight and I think there's plenty of space if it is.

I'll get on it.

(2) The number of South Pole neutrals should probably be stated on the map. I know that in many maps it isn't and clans for instance just consider this part of researching a map, but for the casual player it could come as a nasty shock to find out that there aren't 10 or 20 as they might have guessed. Especially since a player needs to commit to taking a sector and then hitting the Pole, it would be nice to know ahead of time that the Pole had 30 neutrals in a fog of war game.

If we can fit it nicely somewhere, then yeah... but I'm afraid we might get a bit tight on legend space. One could argue that knowing the neutral values is important on any map. Also, even though it is a nice gesture for the fog players, for the non-fog players it may just seem silly and redundant... we could always just post the neutral values on the first post.

(3) The Ice Shelf part of the legend passed my notice the first time I looked the map over, because the symbol wasn't as separated as the others. I think it would be good to separate the Ice shelf from the base icon.

Sure.

(4) The FL area is just too crowded with bases I think. In particular, I would not want to end up on Base D, as there is a good chance that any route I'd take would very quickly put me into enemy-occupied territory and my strategy would devolve into a game of push-shove. Consider moving one of the bases in that upper-right area, possibly to AL, HL or SL.

I'll discuss this with Isaiah and see what we can do.

(1) I don't like how the coastal impassibles look similar to the Ice Shelves. Since I really like the look of the Ice Shelves, maybe you could put a more distinct border or somthing to make the coastal impassibles as clear as the mountain impassibles.

One would think the lack of army numbers would be enough distinction... I'll try to add something for them though.

(2) This is totally a matter of preference, but Sully did have a small point about how using just numbers for the Sectors makes them seem like another land region at first glance. An alphanumeric designation would make them stand out more, like "S1, S2, S3, S4".

Eh... It's a large, round, grey slab. I don't see how anyone could confuse it for the land areas.
If it really becomes an issue I don't have a problem with S1-S4 though...

(3) As Andy pointed out, the bottom seems overloaded with information. Although this can wait for graphics as you said, do you have any ideas while this gets ready for a sticky?

I have some ideas...

[natty dread]

Ok, I hope the major concerns are addressed with this update.

v13

Click image to enlarge.

v13 with 888:s

Click image to enlarge.

[carlpgoodrich]

One minor thing I just thought of regarding legibility: with the extensive auto-decays, should there be an explanation that if you only have one troop on a territory it does not become neutral? I know not all maps with auto-decays have this explanation, but since the gameplay is based on them, I think an explanation would be helpful.

Also, the legend should read "Each land territory loses 1 troop each turn."

[natty dread]

Hm. We don't really have the space for it...

[natty dread]

Perhaps we should ask for a few extra pixels for this map, to get some more legend space?

[carlpgoodrich]

What about getting rid of the mini-map? All it does is tell the continent abbreviations, which can be done in a list with a lot less space.

[natty dread]

But I like the minimap

[natty dread]

Ok, I managed to slip it in there.

(man that sounded dirty...)

Click image to enlarge.

[MarshalNey]

Changed to a sticky. I'll make sure this gets into the next Map Surveyors bulletin.

As for the South Pole neutrals, did you see if you could put as part of the text describing the South Pole? Seems like there's room at the end to say "Starts at 30 neutral". In any case, I agree that putting that information near the top of the 1st post would help.

Marshal Ney

[natty dread]

I'll put all the neutral values on the first post.

ps. thanks for stickyness.

[Victor Sullivan]

Ok, I managed to slip it in there.

(man that sounded dirty...)

Yes... yes it did... But dirty's olay sometimes, right? Right?

I really don't think you needed to add that in, really. That's more of an understanding of the XML, rather than a map-specific implement.

As for the South Pole neutrals, I strongly suggest it be included in the legend, as per MarshalNey's comments on the matter.

-Sully

[MarshalNey]

Sent out this map in the Surveyors Bulletin; if nobody has a comment in the next several days, expect a stamp.

Marshal Ney

[MarshalNey]

Seeing no further concerns, I hereby stamp this for gameplay.



Gotta see this one through, 16 start positions should make for a lot of re-playability. And the decay with a bonus is something I've always wanted to see. Great work natty and isaiah

-- Marshal Ney