Conquer Club

I wrote this paragraph in a forum dealing with the complaints on the new Canada map. But this would apply to all maps that have different versions but the same layout and logic (same number of territories, same movement, etc..).

So I have an idea. I am a software developer and I have a pretty good idea of how I would develop the code for this site. And I suspect this idea would be pretty easy to implement. For maps that have multiple versions with an identical layout and identical logic for bonuses, etc., why not offer a toggle/radio button to allow the user to select which version he/she wishes to view? This would be selectable on a per user basis. So within the same game, each user would choose the version they want to see. The code, when displaying the map, would just need to check the status of the selection and display the appropriate map.

Is this something that could be implemented? Is there any reason that it would be difficult? I think it would be a great feature.

i have already suggested that all revamps should be presented as optional.

simply put 2 more links in the upper right like this:

original map
[refresh] [small] [large]

revamp
[refresh] [small] [large]

i think this would solve all the problems with people complaining.

DiM wrote:i have already suggested that all revamps should be presented as optional.

simply put 2 more links in the upper right like this:

original map
[refresh] [small] [large]

revamp
[refresh] [small] [large]

i think this would solve all the problems with people complaining.

Well, I little less efficient/flexible than having radio buttons, or something similar, but whatever. For example, lets say there were 4 versions of a map. With your method, there would be 4 sets of links. With what I would suggest, you would always have 2 set of links, just possibly more links in the "map version" set.

But this is just UI design. The bottom line is that it would be nice to view different versions of maps and to make that user selectible within a game.

And what was the response when you suggested this?? Were they open to the idea?

That's an itneresting suggestion, though I wonder if it would apply to enough maps to be worth while. I know on Yahoo chess, each player gets to pick the map color and piece style they prefer, your idea would be similar to that, if I understand you correctly...

Already suggested and rejected in this topic:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32255

lackattack wrote:Already suggested and rejected in this topic:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32255

That is not the same suggestion. That suggestion was basically saying add the new map to the list of choices on the "Map page (or whatever you call it)."

This is saying to allow toggling between different versions of the map *within* the game. So the page with map selection doesn't get cluttered. And the users of the site get to use maps that they prefer. It isn't like the old maps disappeared. So you just have to add a few links onto the screen (or a radio button group or whatever) and add a few lines of code to read the selection and display the proper map.

Why would this be rejected? I can understand why the other suggestion was rejected (cluttering the page with all the maps), but I don't know of a good reason that this would be rejected.

The way I see it, a revamped map should be superior to the original and should replace the original. Otherwise we shouldn't revamp it. I don't like unnecessary options.

It's not such a ''Useless'' option.

It narrows down to the same thing, but it's all about personal preferences.

If it's simple to program, that is. Would give people a choice, instead of having the revamp forced on them.

But whatever happen, people won't be all happy. So why go the bother to do it?

But if enough people complaint...

I actually like the idea. And I don't see a reason why the revamped should be superior.
For me it's like... lets say that I think that Mona Lisa would look better with eyebrows. I'll just take a copy of Mona Lisa, paint her eyebrows and for some wicked reason they decide that M.L. with brows is better so they take Da Vinci's painting, put it to archive and put mine to Louvre

lackattack wrote:The way I see it, a revamped map should be superior to the original and should replace the original. Otherwise we shouldn't revamp it. I don't like unnecessary options.

Isn't it obvious that people have differing opinions of which version of a map is better? Some people have stated that they like a map that looks like a gameboard. Others like a map that looks like a satellite image.

I honestly think you are looking at this as a debate instead of looking at it with common sense and an open mind. What I am saying is a fact.

I would consider this an enhancement. Others would too. Sometimes end users should get what they want even if the developer thinks it is useless. I can guarantee that this option would be used and appreciated.

I wouldn't be surprised to find some people wanting a clean, neat graphic-free version of each map. Mind you, I enjoy the art-work, especially on Age of Merchants, but when game-play is your focus, the amenities can seem to get in the way.

Piestar wrote:I wouldn't be surprised to find some people wanting a clean, neat graphic-free version of each map. Mind you, I enjoy the art-work, especially on Age of Merchants, but when game-play is your focus, the amenities can seem to get in the way.

Very well stated. It seems that when most people think about it, they conclude that this would be a good enhancement to the system.

To the powers that be: Is there any chance this could make it to the future enhancements list?

I would let the Canada map be a lesson to people that stay out of the Foundry and let other people decide maps for them, assuming you don't like it.

I'm not sure what people expect to achieve here. Everyone but lack would probably have to like the old Canada map better (something I consider to be a sign of insanity) for him to consider allowing it to be playable.

Coleman wrote:I would let the Canada map be a lesson to people that stay out of the Foundry and let other people decide maps for them, assuming you don't like it.

I'm not sure what people expect to achieve here. Everyone but lack would probably have to like the old Canada map better (something I consider to be a sign of insanity) for him to consider allowing it to be playable.

Not everyone has time to read the messages in the Foundry. Period. But what does that have to do with the idea that is evolving? Every map could have a graphically intense version and a board game version.

We are talking about a feature in the system here that is not specific to the Canada map. It is something that could be used for most, if not all, maps. The Canada map situation is what prompted this discussion, but that is all. No need to dwell on that discussion here.

If you are "not sure what people expect to achieve here" I would suggest you read the messages. We are hoping to have a pretty useful feature added to the system. Or at least given proper consideration.

Really, read the messages with an open mind. You are stuck in "the New Canada map is better" gear and you aren't understanding what is being said.

freezie wrote:It's not such a ''Useless'' option.

It narrows down to the same thing, but it's all about personal preferences.

If it's simple to program, that is. Would give people a choice, instead of having the revamp forced on them.

amazzony wrote:I actually like the idea. And I don't see a reason why the revamped should be superior.
For me it's like... lets say that I think that Mona Lisa would look better with eyebrows. I'll just take a copy of Mona Lisa, paint her eyebrows and for some wicked reason they decide that M.L. with brows is better so they take Da Vinci's painting, put it to archive and put mine to Louvre

Piestar wrote:I wouldn't be surprised to find some people wanting a clean, neat graphic-free version of each map. Mind you, I enjoy the art-work, especially on Age of Merchants, but when game-play is your focus, the amenities can seem to get in the way.

These guys all make valid points. It comes down to personal preference when deciding what map people like if given a choice. So why is there resistance to the idea of this being a useful feature?

Again, I have to say that if there is demand for a feature or option, it's easy to code, it doesn't clutter up the game pages, and it has no adverse affects on players or gameplay, then there is really no good reason not to include it. I personally love the new Canada map, and for all of the maps that we've revamped, I prefer the revamps. I'll be damned before I say that that's a fact though.

insomniacdude wrote:Again, I have to say that if there is demand for a feature or option, it's easy to code, it doesn't clutter up the game pages, and it has no adverse affects on players or gameplay, then there is really no good reason not to include it. I personally love the new Canada map, and for all of the maps that we've revamped, I prefer the revamps. I'll be damned before I say that that's a fact though.

I recently played another game on the New Canada Map. The gameplay has suffered because of the intricate graphics. I don't expect my opinion will ever change..it isn't just a first impression...

So....we agree....that we (and others) are gonna have different preferences. It is obviously a fact. But...I don't think anyone is listening....

TheProwler wrote:I recently played another game on the New Canada Map. The gameplay has suffered because of the intricate graphics.

Really? How so?

insomniacdude wrote:

TheProwler wrote:I recently played another game on the New Canada Map. The gameplay has suffered because of the intricate graphics.

Really? How so?

Because it isn't as easy to read...so it isn't as clear who has what and who is strong where, etc..

I suppose an analogy would be a crossword puzzle where they used jagged lines for the boxes instead of straight lines...it is just too "busy" and it takes away from what the focus should be....

Maybe it doesn't affect all others the same way, but it does affect me. Although I would say overall my game strategy is the same..it just takes a little longer to get a clear picture of the status...