Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:07 pm**

The legend looks MUCH better.

Well, everything does, but I'm particularly impressed with the legend now.

I am personally satisfied with the gameplay (ie. bonuses and -3 on Grand Oasis seem good). But if you can, you should try playing on it to see how it works out.

Posted: **Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:20 pm**

The Legend pwns hardcore now, I agree. One thing is the background of the legend successfully washes out your name. I doubt you meant to do that.

Rest-of-map-wise, I think some of the territories need to be renamed. For one, the Oasis of Miracles needs to be replaced with the Oasis of Tactics. Sheep needs to be renamed Teeci, and Grover needs to be renamed Ecks. Thanks for your consideration.

Posted: **Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:26 pm**

TaCktiX wrote:The Legend pwns hardcore now, I agree. One thing is the background of the legend successfully washes out your name. I doubt you meant to do that. I'll find a better color to use.

Rest-of-map-wise, I think some of the territories need to be renamed. For one, the Oasis of Miracles needs to be replaced with the Oasis of Tactics. Sheep needs to be renamed Teeci, and Grover needs to be renamed Ecks. Thanks for your consideration. You area already on there once (tack, down in the left corner) how many more do you need!?!? and why Teeci and Ecks? why not another name?

EDIT. changed Sheep and Grover to Zora and Rocm (for rocky mountain, cause he has helped a lot also)

Posted: **Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:58 pm**

The bottom paragraph was completely tongue in cheek. If you put Teeci and Ecks next to each other, you get TCX, equating to my mapmaker sig. And the Oasis is rather apparent. I just wanted to get a good laugh out of you.

Posted: **Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:00 pm**

TaCktiX wrote:The bottom paragraph was completely tongue in cheek. If you put Teeci and Ecks next to each other, you get TCX, equating to my mapmaker sig. And the Oasis is rather apparent. I just wanted to get a good laugh out of you.

lol.
I tried to figure out what you were hiding in the Teeci and Ecks, couldn't figure it out, though.
Anyway, I changed Sheep and Grover (because I didn't like those two anyway) to Zora and Rocm (for rocky mountain, cause he has helped a lot also)

Posted: **Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:20 pm**

yay i'm on the map!

plus the legend looks great!!!! alot better than before.

Posted: **Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:52 pm**

The legend looks a lot cleaner now, but I don't love this new font very much. It feels very sterile and not desert-y. Still, it's a marked improvement over the old one.

Posted: **Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:55 pm**

ZeakCytho wrote:The legend looks a lot cleaner now, but I don't love this new font very much. It feels very sterile and not desert-y. Still, it's a marked improvement over the old one.

I flipped through the entire set of fonts, and this one seemed the best to me.
Yeah, its a bit boring, but all of the fancier ones were difficult to read against the background.

Posted: **Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:59 pm**

The top fifth of this map is a nightmare. As well as all the text.

The image itself is nice though

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:13 am**

Consider

Warning
You lose 1 army in the desert
You lose 3 armies in the Grand Oasis

or

- - - - - - - - - - -You lose 1 army in the desert
Warning
- - - - - - - - - - -You lose 3 armies in the Grand Oasis

(this one is meant to be Warning in the middle of the 2 lines - but not easily showable in this format!!)

Instead of

Warning: you lose 1 army per desert are per turn.
Warning: you lose 3 armies per Grand Oasis area per turn.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:08 am**

mibi wrote:The top fifth of this map is a nightmare. As well as all the text.

The image itself is nice though

....
suggestions please?
how do I FIX the nightmare?

Yeti_C wrote:change the "warning" text (see up the page a bit for the complete post)

I'll try something like that.
I think I'm gonna go with the second one, with warning in the middle (but the gap not so big. I think I know what you were trying to say)

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:42 am**

I have not read all of the discussion so far, so forgive me if I bring up something already mentioned.

First of all, I think the map looks great. I will definitely want to play on this when it is made. That being said, I have one major question. Are all of the green territories on the side going to work like normal territories on a standard map, meaning they will be distributed randomly between the players at the start of the game? Or, is this going to be like the feudal war map where we each player starts out with one territory.

Also, why don't you separate the the north half of the map from the south with a cliff or something. The way I see it, when the game begins, the two green areas will destroy each other until there are only two people left (one on each side) Then, they will just 'hop' their armies from oasis to oasis until they are each battling on both sides of the map. They will disregard the Grand Oasis altogether. Why don't you run a impassable border that runs across the center of the map and meets at the grand oasis. This way, there will be four major powers and they will all try to take the oasis. Here is an example of what I mean:

Click image to enlarge.

You don't have to follow my suggestion exactly, but I think something should be done to make sure that the Grand Oasis is used. Otherwise this will be just like the Age of Magic map where nobody goes for the sanctuary, but instead just kills each other to win.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:41 pm**

First off, welcome to the map foundry, Mr. Squirrel, and thanks for the good post.

My comments are in BLUE text. Inside this quote of what you said:

Mr. Squirrel wrote:I have not read all of the discussion so far, so forgive me if I bring up something already mentioned. The cliff Idea was mentioned once, I think, but no one ever actually talked about it. Thanks for reminding me about the possibility.

First of all, I think the map looks great. Thanks!I will definitely want to play on this when it is made. That being said, I have one major question. Are all of the green territories on the side going to work like normal territories on a standard map, meaning they will be distributed randomly between the players at the start of the game? That is correct. Or, is this going to be like the feudal war map where we each player starts out with one territory.

Also, why don't you separate the the north half of the map from the south with a cliff or something. The way I see it, when the game begins, the two green areas will destroy each other See my comment below this quote.until there are only two people left (one on each side) Then, they will just 'hop' their armies from oasis to oasis until they are each battling on both sides of the map. They will disregard the Grand Oasis altogether. Why don't you run a impassable border that runs across the center of the map and meets at the grand oasis. See after the quoteThis way, there will be four major powers and they will all try to take the oasis. Here is an example of what I mean:
I took the image out to make the quote smaller. Scroll up to see the original post and the image.
You don't have to follow my suggestion exactly, but I think something should be done to make sure that the Grand Oasis is used. Otherwise this will be just like the Age of Magic map where nobody goes for the sanctuary, but instead just kills each other to win. See after this quote.

Ok, this has been a topic I have thought for a long time about. Its the balance between fighting in the fertile land (green sides where players start) and moving for the Grand Oasis. I think the setup is fine as it is now, and here are my reasons:
1. It would be very difficult to kill people just by staying in the Fertile lands.
With no bonuses (except for those earned just by owning a number of territories), You would have a very difficult time taking out all 20ish places on your side of the map, cause they all start with 3 armies on each of them. Also, everyone will have armies start on both sides of the map, so you won't be able to kill anyone by staying on one side. Even if you were to completely take one side of the map, the other would still be there and the other players would still be alive. Plus, they would probably team up on you by then because you would have a ton of extra land.
2. The desert is very easy to use.
If you take a look at the image showing how many neutrals will be on each territory [CLICKY], you can see that the desert (especially the outer desert, where there are only 1 and 2 neutrals each) is very easy and you can take a few oases much more easily than attempting to keep the fight in the Fertile land. And after taking your first oasis, the others are very close to you, so you can easily take another (and with +3 bonus for each you hold, that is a huge advantage). Each Oasis brings you closer to the Grand Oasis.
3. The desert has all the bonuses and tons of extra space to move around.
The desert is basically freedom of movement, and it is where all the bonuses come from. I don't think anyone could win by avoiding it for the first half of the game.

And about dividing the map with a cliff.... I just don't think it will work out. I've made this whole map around the idea that you are completely free to go anywhere in the map, not blocked by borders. Also, I think dividing it would do more harm than good. It would break up the desert gameplay too much, and make it too easy to get an unbalanced game. If someone started with most of their armies in the same place, they would have an easy win. With the cliff protecting them on one side, they would have just a few countries to guard and stay completely safe. Then they could expand easily without any threat from opponents (which is very bad, what I want to avoid).

Thanks for the post, welcome to the map foundry.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:53 pm**

mibi wrote:The top fifth of this map is a nightmare. As well as all the text.

The image itself is nice though

come on mibi, I'd expect a more constructive (and informative) comment from you!

what part is a nightmare?
terrain.
map key text.
map key background.
borders.
oases.
desert #s.
territory names.
Or something else that I didn't list.

Which one are you complaining about and what can I do to improve it? I am failing to see why the "top fifth of the map map is a nightmare", and this is the first comment I've seen against the new map key.... what do you see that no one else does?

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:38 pm**

After looking at the map a bit more, I can see what you mean, wcaclimbing, about how all the bonuses are in the desert and how the horizontal cliffs would create unfair advantages in the game. But, I still think that something should be added to persuade people to go for the Grand Oasis, and not just destroy all of your enemies. The way I see it, there is no reason to try to take the grand oasis. Once you get a few minor oases you can just obliterate everyone else.

How about instead of making a cliff that runs horizontally, you make one that runs vertically through the desert. This way, you no longer have the green areas split up, and you are still free to move throughout your side of the map. But it will also make people want to go for the grand oasis.

Sorry for sounding annoying, but I don't want this map to be Like the Age of Realms: Magic map where it has an objective but no one really tries to complete it. So far, this is looking very similar.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:50 pm**

Actually, I am a little worried that it might be possible for the fight never get far from the Fertile lands... maybe this will be better suited for 4-6 players. I think with 8 players, some people may very well be taken out very quickly... I need to think about it.

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:12 pm**

maybe if the 6 inner oases have a +4 advantage, people would go for them, leading them closer to the grand oasis, making more people go for it for the win? and maybe a small wall horizontally going 2-4 territories out on each side?... whatever you think wcaclimbing

Posted: **Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:13 pm**

I don't really know if i have anything to say about the map. I like the way it is right now. except maybe i wish i had a territ to myself

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:03 am**

not at all a fan of the cliff idea, way I see it oasis=bonus Grand oasis= win, I'm at least going to get mayself a few oases to start, then fight in and out of the desert, I like that freedom to get to choose what I do, trying to entice me to go for the grand oasis and not pick my strategy is just annoying, takes away some of my decision making

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:09 am**

I am also strongly against splitting the desert. I think the map really embodies the spirit of the desert as it is right now. The wide, open gameplay is excellent as is; I feel that adding cliffs or some other form of division can only hurt the map.

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:21 am**

I'm gonna drop the number of neutrals on the Grand Oasis down to 8 (its currently 10)
Then it will be a bit easier to take and will encourage more people to go that way.
good idea?

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:22 am**

wcaclimbing wrote:I'm gonna drop the number of neutrals on the Grand Oasis down to 8 (its currently 10)
Then it will be a bit easier to take and will encourage more people to go that way.
good idea?

definately a good idea

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:59 am**

how about increasing the inner 6 oases bonus to +4 instead of +3? it will also encourage people to go towards the grand oasis as well... just a thought

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:13 am**

rocky mountain wrote:how about increasing the inner 6 oases bonus to +4 instead of +3? it will also encourage people to go towards the grand oasis as well... just a thought

sounds good to me.

Posted: **Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:43 am**

Just a note to gimil, to make sure its ok:
I added 10 extra pixels to the top of the map, so now the image will be 635 pixels tall (originally 625). I really really needed this extra 10 to:
1. use a better font: to use a better font I needed more space for it to stay readable.
2. add a +4 for the inner oasis and +3 for outer oasis.
3. Move the "capture all 3 areas" text to the left side of the key, giving me more space to include bonuses.
4. I really didn't like the font used on this most recent update for the paragraph on the left, but any better font needed a bit more space to be clear to read.\
5. I didn't want to crush the graphics for the map part to get more space, so I just added more on top.

So, its getting just a bit taller, and I just want to be sure that its ok to do that....

Conquer Club

Oasis [Quenched]

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)

Re: Oasis ---- Updated April 18th (V4.0 page 1 and 22)