Chinese Checkers [Quenched] May '07 re-opener?

by **Lone.prophet** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:10 pm

because it is different

by **Enigma** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:34 pm

i really like this map. its very eye-pleasing, though i agree that the kanji needs some work, im not sure the characters work because black is too dark, and it might look strange w/ green characters or something. the dragon is really nice.
as for the bonuses, i dont like the idea of splitting the triangles at all. there isnt any natural barrier. it does seem kindof strange having 25 territories neutral, but im open to having to create new strategies.

the problem is, say in a 6 player single game, each person will go for one triangle, and then itll turn into a waiting game. then theyll fight for the opposite triangle, and if 3 people eventually get it, itll turn into a waiting game again. i agree with the need for some kind of bonus that every1 will fight for. something to do with the center, perhaps?

i think this map is going to make a fun freestyle board. itll add an extra element of uncertainty.

by **oaktown** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:37 pm

changes to this version:

- All territory names reworked. I think it's better.

- Bonuses changed to add partial triangle bonus. Let me know if we should go +1 or +2 for A, B & C.

- Kanji lightened up. I agree that something is needed there, and while I like the idea of the "risk" character I'm not sure if this is the right graphic. The grey soldier doesn't work against the red background.

by **Lone.prophet** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:38 pm

maybe if u got a connection between the 2 u own (through middle middle) u get like +4 for the connection

by **oaktown** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:49 pm

Lone.prophet wrote:maybe if u got a connection between the 2 u own (through middle middle) u get like +4 for the connection

we played with this idea. trouble is there are multiple ways to go from side to side through the middle. You could score four or five bonuses for going through the center once, and there's no way around this given the current XML limitations.

As for the board setting up stalemates and waiting games - yeah, it's possible. But I'm in a couple of stalemates games right now in other maps, so it's can happen to the best of us.

Too bad there's no way to field test a map before it goes live to everyone. Wouldn't it be possible to load the maps and XML, but only provide the link to the field testers? Andy??

by **Lone.prophet** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:56 pm

i mean if u control red and green u need 2 control white J,O,K,L,M,N,P and that figure in every direction, this is very possible with the current XML (u need 2 make this countries and the 1 from the Triangle together than)

by **oaktown** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:24 pm

Lone.prophet wrote:i mean if u control red and green u need 2 control white J,O,K,L,M,N,P and that figure in every direction, this is very possible with the current XML (u need 2 make this countries and the 1 from the Triangle together than)

So, why not a bonus for controlling red, green, and D, E, F, L, G, H, I? This completes a link between the two triangles. Or D, E, F, L, M, N? I originally proposed giving a bonus for connecting opposing colors, as it approximates the play of the board game. But it was pointed out that there are many potential ways across.

What if to gain the additional +3 you have to control the center circle? Suddenly the middle of the board becomes attractive - even more so if you make it a +5. :-)

by **AK_iceman** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:26 pm

oaktown wrote:Too bad there's no way to field test a map before it goes live to everyone. Wouldn't it be possible to load the maps and XML, but only provide the link to the field testers? Andy??

You could print out a copy and play at home. :idea:

by **Enigma** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:35 pm

maybe make the characters bigger? the map isnt balanced as it is

by **Enigma** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:38 pm

also maybe make the letters in yellow and orange the same black as the letters in the center

by **wcaclimbing** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:49 pm

i think there should be a bonus of 4 for each triangle, with a bonus of 10 for holding two opposing colors (fits with your continuous idea thing, jsut with out them being connected)

by **AndyDufresne** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:14 pm

Hm, I like this map, but I'm not sure I'll have as many comments as I wish I could have.

The visuals are very appealing. Definitely look into tweaking the tones and shades of colors, and maybe even adding artwork texture, though perhaps not. Buit colors seem a tad too bright.
I'm not a real big fan of the Letters for countries idea, but I'm not sure what else would work. It seems like this map might have the problem of people placing armies on the wrong territories. 'Damn, I wanted to place on Blue B, not Blue C!', etc. Also, I think you should look into renaming the middle 'L', just because it is so centralized.
Regarding the legend, you get +2 for holding A,B,C. Have you thought about adding some sort of outline around those 3, to sort of signify that to the visual eye? So, is it a total of +6 for holding the entire triangle? Seems rather high, but interesting. And then if you get the opposite...you get hm..12+3=15 for a max borders of 8! yowza...
The dragon, I like the idea, but it doesn't seem to quite flow with the map, in it's current state. Also, have you considered making the title slightly bigger and perhaps in more of script font, similar to that Eastern Style of writing?
I'm not sure what you can do about the legend, I don't know if a border around it would look right in this map. But I think it can be spruced up a bit...hm I'll think about that one. Maybe if you go the route of outlining ABC...come up with a name of that, to use. **Shrugs**

--Andy

by **Zackismet** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:38 pm

Lone.prophet wrote:because it is different

i think a chutes 'n' ladders board would be different...

by **oaktown** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:48 pm

Zackismet wrote: think a chutes 'n' ladders board would be different...

somebody was working on one, but i think it's dead.

If I ever get past this one, my next map is going to play like chutes and ladders - I want to map out a Mount Conquer ski resort, with ski runs that go down, lifts that go up, a terrain park, and a lodge at the base. Since there's no snow this winter I have to satisfy my craving somehow.

by **sully800** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:59 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:[*]Regarding the legend, you get +2 for holding A,B,C. Have you thought about adding some sort of outline around those 3, to sort of signify that to the visual eye? So, is it a total of +6 for holding the entire triangle? Seems rather high, but interesting. And then if you get the opposite...you get hm..12+3=15 for a max borders of 8! yowza...

No, you get +2 for ABC and +4 for the whole triangle. So its another subcontinent/continent idea. That would give you 11 total bonus for holding opposing continents with a minimum of 5 border territories.

by **AndyDufresne** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:17 pm

I'd make the legend clearer then.

--Andy

by **Enigma** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:01 pm

ya, i still think itd be better without the split bonuses. just make the whole thing 4.

by **oaktown** on Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:32 pm

Enigma wrote:ya, i still think itd be better without the split bonuses. just make the whole thing 4.

it would certainly be more clear... this map has enough to get confused about. I would be happy to go back to four if that's the will of the forum.

by **Molacole** on Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:49 am

OK I've been thinking about it and the 1 is probably a bad idea because somebody could start off with a 2 bonus or even no bonus and that could make for a very big disadvantage. On the other hand it would maybe promote an all out attacking game from the start battling it out for the 1 bonus. Probabaly better to scrap the idea of that.

It needs something more than a simple 4 bonus because nobody is going to have much of an interest in traveling through the middle to attack somebody. Unless you were on the "adjacent" triangle you would have to attack 5 other territories just to get to it. So for yellow to break up red they would have to attack X,T,K,L,O and only then would they be able to challenge reds bonus. it just seems like too much. Give us something to fight over not the option to peace bear and build strong into a stalemate.

Would it be viable if you made another bonus pertaining to the middle. For example if you scrapped the split bonus idea and went with 4 bonus for holding a single triangle you could spice things up by adding a huge bonus for holding a part of the middle. Say you held RED...

add D-J-O-Q to the bonus for red
add D-E-B-A to the bonus of purple
add A-C-H-I to the bonus of blue

this would force purple to fight blue and red to advance in a bonus and while trying to protect his borders he is vulnerable from attacks coming from the middle of the board which might even make the middle of the board actually appealing to control and especially in a team game.

This way people wouldn't be able to sit back and just let things happen around them without trying to advance for an even bigger bonus. I think this could really transform the map into a very aggressive style map.

edit* another option is to make every single triangle a bonus of 1. so if you owned A-B-F it would be worth 1 bonus if you owned A-B-F+C-D-E you could get a bonus of 4 and nothing would change and when you grabbed A-B-F+C-D-E+W-V-U-T for red it would give you a bonus of 9. Add F to that and you get a bonus of 10 which would probably prove hard to obtain given the amount of bonuses everyone would have for individual triangles. This would probably confuse the shit out of everyone though, but it's just another bonus option I'm throwing out there.

lol yeah what the guy below me just posted!! so maube it is a good idea!

by **Teya** on Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:57 am

I dont know if its been mentioned but what if you have it so if you own 1 triangle you get the bonus of 4 (or 3 if that is decided) If you own 2 triangles you get an extra bonus of 2 If you own 3 triangles you get an extra bonus of 3 etc.....

by **KEYOGI** on Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:06 am

oaktown wrote:it would certainly be more clear... this map has enough to get confused about. I would be happy to go back to four if that's the will of the forum.

I think keeping any map simple is the key to its success. I think the problem with maps such as Circus Maximus and Crosswords is that most people probably just don't get them.

by **sully800** on Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:06 am

What is there to not understand about circus maximus? It's a little different than other maps but probably the simplest on the site.

Crossword I agree with though. And I think Going Underground will be similar if it was ever put up for live play.

by **Teya** on Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:24 am

I dont understand circus maximus. But Ive also never taken the time to try to understand.
As for crosswords..... Its beyond me, but I dont care. Neither maps intrest me.

This map does though.

by **oaktown** on Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:31 am

here's a thought - I'm thinking the concern is that players will just grab a circle and slug their way into the next circle... what if I removed the white spaces that connect the side by side triangles, eg. White-A, White-D, White-I, etc? I would add spaces around the center circle so there isn't one bottleneck. Thus would have the effect of adding importance to the center of the board despite the lack of a bonus, especially in team games where it'd be the only reinforcement route.

hmm.. already changed my mind - it means the triangles are defendable through just one point - everybody gets an australia and stacks their armies in one spot.

I'll play with it later this week. Meanwhile keep throwing ideas at me.

by **Molacole** on Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:54 am

circus maximus is simple... you can only attack and fortify counter clockwise. that's all there is to it. you can not attack anything behind you or adjacent to the territory you're attacking from nor can you fortify...

I've never even played cross word though. Took one look at it and it just didn't look appealing... maybe one day I'll play it.

Chinese Checkers [Quenched] May '07 re-opener?

Who is online