Conquer Club

This is without doubt the worst looking map I have seen on Conquer Club. Post in the map thread and get gangbanged by the map crew, but how did this map even get a graphics stamp? What's worse is that it's by one of the most experienced mapmakers on this site.

I think the graphics are really cool, and had fun trying this map out.

Well i kind of liked it...

I really like the look of it. And the fact that it fits on one screen!

I like it too!

Doesn't look that bad. Does look very simple and boring though.

"Which way do I go? Oh, one way. Awesome."

iAmCaffeine wrote:This is without doubt the worst looking map I have seen on Conquer Club.

Sorry for the double post, but was just looking through the map tab above. You really think this is worse than Crossword? Philippines? Conquer Man? Extreme Global Warming? USApocalypse? Just to name a few that are graphically challenged (IMO).

I don't want to hear any shit about how any new maps are terrible. If you don't want terrible maps, GO POST WHEN THEY ARE IN DEVELOPMENT instead of bashing on them later!

By the way, the graphics are fine.

Butters1919 wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:This is without doubt the worst looking map I have seen on Conquer Club.

Sorry for the double post, but was just looking through the map tab above. You really think this is worse than Crossword? Philippines? Conquer Man? Extreme Global Warming? USApocalypse? Just to name a few that are graphically challenged (IMO).

Yes, this is the worst I have seen.

Gilligan wrote:I don't want to hear any shit about how any new maps are terrible. If you don't want terrible maps, GO POST WHEN THEY ARE IN DEVELOPMENT instead of bashing on them later!

By the way, the graphics are fine.

I knew this was coming. I was going to pre-empt it when making the thread but I was posting from my phone so didn't bother.

I haven't had much time for the forums lately and I have only been posting in topics where required. Recently I decided to take a look around the map foundry and voice up little suggestions or compliments, and I hope to get more involved in the near future.

The fact remains that there is no way this map should have received a graphics stamp. Whether only the cartographers were commenting or more people were involved; that is essentially irrelevant.

Can someone, like myself, who actually has a clue about art/design voice their opinion please?

I see 5-1-1 (5 likes, 1 dislike, 1 maybe) so far.

And if you don't have time, fine! That's totally okay. Just don't bash it if you won't do anything about it.

I prefer to just play with BOB and no graphics anyways. A map is just borders and bonuses.

100% whiteness, 10% opacity (they don't let me go to 0, but sometimes i luck out and the graphic doesn't load).

Map looks fine. The bigger issue is it seems a 1v1 map. If so, this map won't get much activity. Best to expand map size to accompany up to 8 players.

universalchiro wrote:Map looks fine. The bigger issue is it seems a 1v1 map. If so, this map won't get much activity. Best to expand map size to accompany up to 8 players.

Why do you think that? A full 50% of games on this site are 1v1.

universalchiro wrote:Map looks fine. The bigger issue is it seems a 1v1 map. If so, this map won't get much activity. Best to expand map size to accompany up to 8 players.

How many maps do we have to accommodate 8 players? I like to think of this as a new age of maps where we don't have to listen to every setting available. Would you also think that an only-triples map would be an issue, too?

Not the greatest looking map, but not as bad as OP makes it seem and not the worst.
Better than I could do lol

DoomYoshi wrote:

universalchiro wrote:Map looks fine. The bigger issue is it seems a 1v1 map. If so, this map won't get much activity. Best to expand map size to accompany up to 8 players.

Why do you think that? A full 50% of games on this site are 1v1.

Sure 50% of games are 1v1, but the statistic is misleading, for most of that 50% are 1v1 is played on maps that can handle 3+ players.

If there is a need for exclusive 1v1 maps then this map will get action. But I'm thing that the lack of versitality will limit the maps action. There is a reason there are very few 1v1 exclusive Monoploy board games. But a fair counter argument is chess, checkers, Stratego, jousting, etc.

Summary: I accept there may be a need for exclusive 1v1 maps.


@ Gilligan: I see your premise of why should Quads be the standard. Why not Deca-maps, etc. & for this instance, why not dedicated 1v1 maps.

Gilligan wrote:I don't want to hear any shit about how any new maps are terrible. If you don't want terrible maps, GO POST WHEN THEY ARE IN DEVELOPMENT instead of bashing on them later!

By the way, the graphics are fine.

if you go to the forum and express that sort of opinion, you are run out of the thread, period... everyone that has been around here for a long time know this... i think it is a total rip off of that Mountain Climber game on The Price Is Right!! incidentally, i think that would be a cool map, since this one has already been made... the black jesus is amused...-el Jesus negro

The graphics are hard to look at. Something disjointed when I view it???
Also, although I have not played it, it seems to lack any real strategy and is just a drop and the best dice win kind of map. Am I missing something?

owenshooter wrote:

Gilligan wrote:I don't want to hear any shit about how any new maps are terrible. If you don't want terrible maps, GO POST WHEN THEY ARE IN DEVELOPMENT instead of bashing on them later!

By the way, the graphics are fine.

if you go to the forum and express that sort of opinion, you are run out of the thread, period... everyone that has been around here for a long time know this... i think it is a total rip off of that Mountain Climber game on The Price Is Right!! incidentally, i think that would be a cool map, since this one has already been made... the black jesus is amused...-el Jesus negro

That's bullshit. I go to the foundry and express unpopular opinions all the time. Nobody has run me out yet. Well, natty dread did his best, but since then, the mapmakers have learned to put up with my bitching. Some of them even accept that it's ultimately good for their trade. Others still tell me to basically go f*ck myself, but none have "run me out."

Anyway, I don't think Promo Summit is a ripoff of anything, but if it does borrow from somewhere, I think it borrows from Sid Meier's Railway Tycoon, which just happens to be one of my favourite games of all time, so I'm good with that.

I commented simply asking how the map was awarded a graphics stamp, whilst it was waiting to go into beta. I am aware that it was late to comment, and therefore didn't offer any advice as it was already through that stage. I was promptly given a sarcastic reply from Gilligan along the lines of "great way to improve the map". The fact that I didn't offer advice is irrelevant. If Conquer Club wants to release poor quality maps then fine, it has done so for some time, but this is a new low.

iAmCaffeine wrote:I commented simply asking how the map was awarded a graphics stamp, whilst it was waiting to go into beta. I am aware that it was late to comment, and therefore didn't offer any advice as it was already through that stage. I was promptly given a sarcastic reply from Gilligan along the lines of "great way to improve the map". The fact that I didn't offer advice is irrelevant. If Conquer Club wants to release poor quality maps then fine, it has done so for some time, but this is a new low.

if you want to have a say in the mapmaking process then it's best to do it as early as possible. coming to a map thread when that map is almost ready to be released and saying it sucks doesn't help anybody.

i think that a lot of the maps that are currently live and even some that are near completion aren't as good looking as they should be. but i wasn't around when they were being made so i'll keep my mouth shut and that's it. even if my suggestions would be valid, that map has already gone through months of work and debate to be approved.

so best thing to do is follow the foundry regularly and whenever you see a map you like start offering feedback on a regular basis. it helps the map maker do a better job, it helps the foundry to be more active and it helps everybody by providing better maps.

waiting till a map is done to come and criticise it, is not a good idea.


PS: i noticed you mentioned somewhere that you have graphic know-how. that means that you should be able to provide quality feedback that includes proper suggestions and solutions and not just things like "this sucks" "map is ugly", etc. see you in the foundry.

DiM wrote:

iAmCaffeine wrote:I commented simply asking how the map was awarded a graphics stamp, whilst it was waiting to go into beta. I am aware that it was late to comment, and therefore didn't offer any advice as it was already through that stage. I was promptly given a sarcastic reply from Gilligan along the lines of "great way to improve the map". The fact that I didn't offer advice is irrelevant. If Conquer Club wants to release poor quality maps then fine, it has done so for some time, but this is a new low.

if you want to have a say in the mapmaking process then it's best to do it as early as possible. coming to a map thread when that map is almost ready to be released and saying it sucks doesn't help anybody.

i think that a lot of the maps that are currently live and even some that are near completion aren't as good looking as they should be. but i wasn't around when they were being made so i'll keep my mouth shut and that's it. even if my suggestions would be valid, that map has already gone through months of work and debate to be approved.

so best thing to do is follow the foundry regularly and whenever you see a map you like start offering feedback on a regular basis. it helps the map maker do a better job, it helps the foundry to be more active and it helps everybody by providing better maps.

waiting till a map is done to come and criticise it, is not a good idea.


PS: i noticed you mentioned somewhere that you have graphic know-how. that means that you should be able to provide quality feedback that includes proper suggestions and solutions and not just things like "this sucks" "map is ugly", etc. see you in the foundry.

I agree totally, and there are several other maps I would have offered advice on, but I have a lot of dedications both here and in real life and haven't had nearly enough time to spend on more pressing concerns than the map foundry. Now that this is becoming more relaxed I will be vocal in the map foundry. On this occasion, I thought it so bad that I had to at least say something.

I find it amusing how nobody has actually given a reason as to why the map passed the graphics stage.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Now that this is becoming more relaxed I will be vocal in the map foundry.

excellent news. it's always great to have more people in the foundry, especially if they can offer detailed feedback.

iAmCaffeine wrote:On this occasion, I thought it so bad that I had to at least say something.

I find it amusing how nobody has actually given a reason as to why the map passed the graphics stage.

a map is started and gets feedback. if there's enough interest it gets moved forward and the gameplay and graphics are refined.
this refinement process is based on feedback from other users. if the map reaches a point where most of those users are pleased with how the map feels and looks then it is stamped and moved forward unless the map is really really ugly, in which case a cartography assistant intervenes and tries to help the map maker improve.

the biggest problem is that the foundry is a rather small community. not a lot of people go there and very few offer good feedback. so sometimes map of poorer quality may surface. the few people interested in them are content and the maps aren't so hideous as to force a CA to step in and take action.

i can't comment on this particular map as i haven't analysed it properly but this is generally how the foundry works.

iAmCaffeine wrote:
I find it amusing how nobody has actually given a reason as to why the map passed the graphics stage.

Because there's nothing wrong with it?

Everything is clear and easy to see?

You're the one claiming that there's something wrong, so the onus is on you to provide some specific problem that you think should have been addressed. And saying "it's ugly" is an irrelevant subjective opinion. A specific problem would be something like "there's not enough contrast between the background and the font, so the legend is hard to read."

It's definitely not a map that I find very appealing from a graphics point of view, but I've mostly retired from the Foundry so I know that if I am not active during the process, my right to complain after the fact is pretty limited.


--Andy