Conquer Club

Its actually more of a question, but here goes:

What is the general consensus about maps which are nothing more than the imagination of the maker? Let me elaborate. When bored in class i draw random landscapes from time to time, to form some kind of world map (not like we know, with different continents, forms, etc).
Its not really based on something, but we can achieve maps like classic this way. Same type of gameplay, but a different map with other routes. How interesting is this, and who would be able to make such a map?

If you want an example i'll try to scan one of my images.
Im no artist by any means, but if anyone wants some ideas or a draft to start with, i can show you some exaples to work with.

I think almost all of us are not opposed to "fantasy" maps. This simply means it's not based on the earths real geography. Ask DiM what he thinks of it

Scan one of your doodles, and lets see what your thinking of. You should try to make a map, if your that interested in cartography that your sketching them in class instead of paying attention!

EDIT
Sort of like this?

i love imaginary maps that's why all of my creations are based solely on my own twisted thoughts.
BUT that doesn't mean any random shape becomes a great map.
first of all you must give it some sort of story to attract the people
second you must create either a weird gameplay or if you chose the classic style than you must make sure it's damn perfect.
thirdly graphics must be top notch.

if you make a map based on Lord of the Rings people will probably play it even with shitty graphics and average gameplay just because they love LOTR but the imaginary map you plan has no story and no appeal so you must excel in all aspects in order to attract people.

People tell you it's not useful to make maps that have no basis in actual geography or in a fandom, unless they have some kind of gameplay quirk. I believe DiM said it before...

DiM wrote:i mean making up a bogus archipelago just for the sake of it is wrong. if you want to create a special gameplay yes you can come up with fantasy realms to suit your needs but if it's classic gameplay then why not do a real place?

I agree that we can call it "fantasy", but its still a little different as there would be no gimmicks, different bonuses, gameplay, etc. If you broaden it up a bit, the AoR maps and several others fit that category, but i, personally, have the most fun in playing "normal risk maps", meaning: straightforward, no gimmicks, normal bonus, medium amount of territories, etc...

I hope I can still find one of my drafts, otherwise i'll have to make a new one. Usually theyre on the back of my papers i need in class
I'd be somewhat interested in creating a map, but just not working on it all the way. I can provide the idea, but im pretty sure i wont have the time or will to complete it all the way through the foundry, let alone i have any graphical skills! No, that would be too much effort to even learn it, and i know it wouldnt work out anyway

@Rj: Yes something like that. Although my continents are usually more like classic, not that close together, not that many sea connections, and stuff like that. Aditionally I sometimes try to make a connection like alaska-kamchatka on classic. It isnt always possibly but there are not that many maps who have something like that. It makes it feel more like a globe, and its actually more interesting for gameplay too.

@DiM: I have to agree with you on almost everything, but its a damn shame that it has to be perfect to have success, as opposed to, say LotR, as you mentioned before. The map may have a good gameplay, good bonuses, but isnt that enought o encouage people to play? I for one value the level of gameplay more than the graphics or theme, after all, thats what the game is about, right? If you are right in your assumption, its depressing... because i'd hope to see people with the same valuation as me, play a map just for the gameplay! (in my case: no gimmicks )

Thats basically the purpose of this thread, to se whether there are people who like what i just explained... if enough interest, and someone can pick it up.. all the better

Mjinga wrote:People tell you it's not useful to make maps that have no basis in actual geography or in a fandom, unless they have some kind of gameplay quirk. I believe DiM said it before...

DiM wrote:i mean making up a bogus archipelago just for the sake of it is wrong. if you want to create a special gameplay yes you can come up with fantasy realms to suit your needs but if it's classic gameplay then why not do a real place?

I still pretty much agree with that sentiment...

Mjinga wrote:People tell you it's not useful to make maps that have no basis in actual geography or in a fandom, unless they have some kind of gameplay quirk. I believe DiM said it before...

DiM wrote:i mean making up a bogus archipelago just for the sake of it is wrong. if you want to create a special gameplay yes you can come up with fantasy realms to suit your needs but if it's classic gameplay then why not do a real place?

and i still stand by my opinion as seen in the post above.

second you must create either a weird gameplay or if you chose the classic style than you must make sure it's damn perfect.

archipelago unfortunately has zero appeal to me.
it has no story so it lost me from the start.
i might have given it a shot if it had stunning graphics but it doesn't.
so even if it has a perfect gameplay i wouldn't know cause i'm not tempted to try it

Riazor wrote:@DiM: I have to agree with you on almost everything, but its a damn shame that it has to be perfect to have success, as opposed to, say LotR, as you mentioned before. The map may have a good gameplay, good bonuses, but isnt that enought o encouage people to play? I for one value the level of gameplay more than the graphics or theme, after all, thats what the game is about, right? If you are right in your assumption, its depressing... because i'd hope to see people with the same valuation as me, play a map just for the gameplay! (in my case: no gimmicks )

in theory gameplay should be the most important aspect of a map.
and to be honest a few years ago i would have played a map with perfect gameplay even if it had no theme and horrible graphics BUT the foundry is expanding and the maps available have breached the 100 mark.
this means the competition is more fierce than ever. and people have more and more maps to chose from.
think at the maps as products and the players as customers.

you're a new customer in a toy store. do you buy the game in a stunning box that has real cardboard map and metal action figures that everybody is talking about? or do you buy the crappy looking tolet paper drawn piece of crap that nobody ever heard of?
keep in mind you have no idea how good they are. 99.99% will buy the first one even if the second one might play better.

the best way to see how important the graphics are is to check the revamps. brazil has great gameplay but people hardly play it. once it will be revamped i'm willing to bet that the number of games will multiply 10 times. and bare in mind this is just because of the graphics. the map has a proven gameplay and a theme and still it's not played as much as it should be.

Mhmm. I'm just letting him know that I don't think that this...

RjBeals wrote:I think almost all of us are not opposed to "fantasy" maps. This simply means it's not based on the earths real geography.

... is in fact the prevailing opinion in regards to classic-gameply fantasy maps.

But it seems that he isn't making a map after all, so there's no worries.

Unrelated to the topic: I'm fine with Arch having zero appeal to you on account of not having stunning graphics, but I will say that I don't find this a logical reason for it to have no appeal.

DiM wrote:it has no story so it lost me from the start.

I mean, come on. Are you honestly saying that if I made a detailed map of Guinea-Bissau, you would know the story of that real-life place without looking it up? Even if you did, I would wager you that 99% or greater of CCers would have no idea of G-B was a real place or not. In effect, it would be the same as a fantasy map for most people.

Mjinga wrote:Unrelated to the topic: I'm fine with Arch having zero appeal to you on account of not having stunning graphics, but I will say that I don't find this a logical reason for it to have no appeal.

DiM wrote:it has no story so it lost me from the start.

I mean, come on. Are you honestly saying that if I made a detailed map of Guinea-Bissau, you would know the story of that real-life place without looking it up? Even if you did, I would wager you that 99% or greater of CCers would have no idea of G-B was a real place or not. In effect, it would be the same as a fantasy map for most people.

actually the simple fact that i can look up on the internet and find articles about a certain place featured in a map is worth a lot to me.
for example before i started giving feedback on the cairns metro map i actually googled it to see what that area is all about. at the end of my googling session i decided it's a great place that i would once love to visit (justgoogle it and see how nice it is)
so when i will play that map i will already have something to relate to. for me this is important and just because it's a real place this map has a bonus from the start when i decide what to play.

PS: this should be in discussions forum

im curious to see some of these doodles of yours... i like fantasy maps more then real geography, mostly because its new and interesting to see what people can come up with, even without a storyline

Natewolfman wrote:im curious to see some of these doodles of yours... i like fantasy maps more then real geography, mostly because its new and interesting to see what people can come up with, even without a storyline

Ok, so ive finally managed to upoad it, i hope its clear enough!
No storyline or nothing, but this is what i came up with during class

Meh... it's a doodle. Maybe you should start paying attention in class

RjBeals wrote:Meh... it's a doodle. Maybe you should start paying attention in class

Of course it is! I never said it wouldve been a fully made map
Thats the original question though, what if we made a map like such into a real map? Would it gauge interest? Or would it really need perfect graphics and good storyline?

I dont say this is the perfect layout, but drawings like these can be optimalised (gameplay-wise) and id play it for sure.. Guess it wont have any success in this world then

Btw, do any of you guys know where discworld is based on? I dont, yet i like the map...


PS: Dont worry, i pay *enough* attention in class to pass my exams

discworld is based on a novel series called (surprise surprise) "Discworld"
i havent read any but my sis is a fan of them and has said that in each book the world is described/shown differently so its impossible to get an accurate map
...but then again she doesnt play risk so ive only had this lecture once many, many months ago

I have a "doodle" that took 4 years to finish and takes up roughly 15 sheets of paper...

InkL0sed wrote:I have a "doodle" that took 4 years to finish and takes up roughly 15 sheets of paper...

try making it into a map series