Conquer Club

Wow, looks like I've missed a lot over the weekend If you have concerns with the Foundry, Riskismy, and are prepared to express them in a level-headed manner, feel free to stop on by the Foundry Concerns thread in Foundry Discussions and post your concerns

So, with that, let's try to keep this thread clean, eh? Alright, let's get down to business:

1. The one-way attacks must go. It stifles movement, and better protects the larger bonus areas.
2. This leads me to my next point: all starting positions must be equal, and I can assure you this is not the case as it stands.
   
   • First, your starting positions should start in bonus areas of equal bonuses.
   • Second, each starting position should be equally accessible. Props for "G", as it certainly helps (though you should rename Giant territory "G" so there's less confusion for the time being), but it still protects the outer realms a lot with its 10 killer neutral... Try something like a lower killer, or a decay.
3. I also think a collective bonus would be good for the numbered territories. Makes them a little less useless...
4. Do you think there might be room for more territories? Or at least more connections? The design is just so simple, I'm having difficulty seeing how the gameplay would be fresh every time you play, if that makes sense.

Well, thanks for the draft, Riskismy! I hope my comments serve you well.

-Sully

Riskismy wrote:
Also, natty, f*ck you too. You're clearly completely incapable of having a discussion based on arguments, resorting to childish name-calling and insults when cornered.
Try again when you've grown up.

dude take a chill pill

Ok, I think the main problem with the map is that it's too symmetric. Symmetricity makes for boring maps... I think the subject could well be made into a more interesting map.

Also the gameplay seems way too constrained, there's too many narrow pathways.

Why not try making a real geographical map of Asgård and incorporate it here?

@thenobodies, sully: Many thanks! I'll get to work tonight!

@kengyin: Done. I admit I could use whatever drugs got you through the 6 months

well its been 6 months since i started but most of that time i wasnt working on it

@the nobodies: Right! Sorry.
I think I even pointed that out to someone earlier today

Sully wrote:The one-way attacks must go. It stifles movement, and better protects the larger bonus areas.

Yeah, those one-ways was a concern of mine. Guess they really were a bad idea. I was thinking about the, erm, 'Circus Maximus' (?) map, where they go round and round in 3 concentric circles. Really like that concept. Doesn't really work here, agreed.

Sully wrote:This leads me to my next point: all starting positions must be equal, and I can assure you this is not the case as it stands.

Well, I agree they must provide equal opportunity to have a win, but if you mean that they must provide the same bonus we're gonna have words
For now I've set both inner and outer realms to a +3 bonus, but there are lots of other points to address in this regard.

Sully wrote:Second, each starting position should be equally accessible. Props for "G", as it certainly helps [...], but it still protects the outer realms a lot with its 10 killer neutral... Try something like a lower killer, or a decay.

I could set it lower for sure, but I'm not sure I like the idea of a decay. I could lower it some, but I wanna hear your thoughts on the current paths first.

Sully wrote:I also think a collective bonus would be good for the numbered territories. Makes them a little less useless...

Done. I just don't want those territories to become too important. I want them to be more of a means to an end, rather than an objective in themselves. I'm actually inclined to lower the current bonus a bit.

Sully wrote:Do you think there might be room for more territories? Or at least more connections? The design is just so simple, I'm having difficulty seeing how the gameplay would be fresh every time you play, if that makes sense.

natty wrote:Also the gameplay seems way too constrained, there's too many narrow pathways.

I quite agree! I just wanted to get us started - have a foundation and build on it. I think the current is about right in terms of number of territories, though the paths are certainly debatable.

Many thanks for your feedback Sully, which served me well indeed!

natty wrote:Ok, I think the main problem with the map is that it's too symmetric. Symmetricity makes for boring maps...

Heh, I take it you're not a big fan of Chess?
Well, many are, me included. One of the basic premisses of this map has been symmetry all along, and it's not gonna change because one person happens to find that boring.

natty wrote:Why not try making a real geographical map of Asgård and incorporate it here?

I think there's room for both kinds of maps. As I suggested in my first post, someone might do just what you say in the future, it might even be me, but there's no harm to either map for that.


Here's the new version:
[bigimg]http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww203/Nongolf/YggdrasilDraft44.jpg[/bigimg]

A note on graphics: Imagine jormungand territories as a snake biting its own tail, with its body intertwined around itself like a rope. This representation is clearer for gameplay discussion though.

Gampley Concerns:
The inner realms now have much more to worry about. Many more points of attack, and more bonuses to fighter over between themselves. The same goes for the out realms, though to a lesser degree.
Outer and inner realms have the same amount of territories to grab for their area bonus, but inner realms have potential for a greater bonus (innner + 7, outer +5), but like I said, they have more to worry about.

I'm not sure about the one-way attack of Gin anymore. I think it might as well be both ways. Not at all sure here.

I think there should probably be some cross-overs between the two jormungand rings (that don't go over the inner realms). Have to think on were to place those. Maybe I can have my one-way attacks somewhere here!

I guess that's the gist of it. Any and all comments appreciated!!

Riskismy wrote:Heh, I take it you're not a big fan of Chess?

Haven't played it for years, so I'm probably more than a bit rusty, but when I was playing I probably could have whipped your ass

Anyway, chess bragging aside... Chess and CC are very different beasts.

There are problems with a totally symmetric map... There's no variation of strategy, it easily becomes a one trick map where you stick to the one "perfect" strategy and (if your opponent also follows it) hope you get the better dice...

I just think that when the subject is Norse mythology, there's so much more you could do than a symmetric map with generic gameplay. The gameplay should always complement the theme of the map.

You could make the 8 different areas different shapes and sizes, and the connections between them could have some variation. This would force players to alter their strategy according to where they start. They could still be balanced, it just requires some more thought to it.

You could still keep the key features and thematic elements of the map. All I'm saying is to mix it up a little.

natty wrote:Haven't played it for years, so I'm probably more than a bit rusty, but when I was playing I probably could have whipped your ass

It hasn't been years for me, but I'm rusty as well. Maybe we'll put it to the test some day.

natty wrote:There are problems with a totally symmetric map... There's no variation of strategy, it easily becomes a one trick map where you stick to the one "perfect" strategy and (if your opponent also follows it) hope you get the better dice...

I agree that they aren't the same, but that doesn't mean that there's any problems at all with having a symmetrical map at all. Far from it. There's a 'perfect' strategy to every map here, and whether it's symmetrical or not has next to no bearing on that. I'll admit that having fixed starting positions doesn't help, but all it does it provide a different kind of game.
Take chess, if I may. You have standard openings and standard counters to those openings. Then white has standard counters to those counters and so forth. This can go on for quite a few turns, but with each move you 'narrow the path down', so to say, until finally you are out of 'book moves'. You have progressed so far into the game that only minds like Deep Blue can find precedents in other games.
You may find this process boring, but many people find that very aspect fascinating.

CC has a handful of symmetrical maps already:
Chinese Checkers
Conquer 4
Conquer Man
Crosswords
US Senate
And finally D-day: Omaha Beach, which is very nearly so.

Try as you might, you can't have every map conform to your personal preferences. This map will stay symmetrical or not a map at all.

Yes! This looks loads better! I, for one, am not one to easily write off symmetric maps So, let's break down this version:

1. Label all your territories!
2. Not really sure what you mean by "+2 auto-deploy on homes" and "+1 per territory, max +2". They aren't entirely clear.
3. Connections - BD, AH, AP, and AX should all be connected to the two closest inner ring pink territories, and U, X, Y, and Z should be connected to their nearest pink territory.
4. The "half" territories you could make something completely different - like maybe warps or their own collection bonus or something.
5. Consider the prospect of using the new losing conditions feature for the starting positions.
6. I think the pink territories could be used as drop territories, to make each game a little more different.
7. Along the lines of what natty said, experiment with non-symmetrical layouts as well.
8. I'll comment on bonuses more once the layout is more set-in-stone.

Cheers,
Sully

There's a 'perfect' strategy to every map here

No, stop right there. That simply isn't true, not in the sense I was talking about.

You see, a gameplay can be either linear or dynamic. A dynamic gameplay allows multiple different paths to victory. A linear gameplay is more just rote playing, you follow a predetermined path because any other strategy would be stupid.

You are again using chess as an analogy, even though I keep telling you, CC is nothing like chess. The largest difference is that chess doesn't have a random factor, but it's not the only difference. Chess is a very rigid game, in a way: you interact with your opponent directly at all times, it's move and counter-move from start to end. The best you can hope is to obfuscate your real intent and hope you outsmart your opponent.

Not so at CC. Depending on game type there are various factors at play... one is of course the random element: drop, dice and possibly the spoils. The other is the social dynamics between the players... even if you don't use game chat, you can try to affect how player 2 plays indirectly, by forcing player 3 to act in a certain way, etc... depending on game type, there can be even more factors (fog, freestyle, assassin, escalating, etc.) and then we come to map dependent dynamics: a conquest map plays very differently from a standard gameplay map... etc.

Yes, CC already has symmetrical maps. The question is, should we have any more? Most of those maps were made at the beginning of CC, and we have so much more practical knowledge and experience of mapmaking and gameplay design...

I think new maps should strive to bring something new and innovative to the CC map roster. I think you should think this through, and stop looking at CC like a chess-like game, which it definitely is not. Don't be so hasty to make absolute decisions or limit your design choices. Think hard on what you want to accomplish here, gameplay-wise. That's all.

imagine a chess board map? like one with pieces and the pieces attack other squares how they would in chess

kengyin wrote:imagine a chess board map? like one with pieces and the pieces attack other squares how they would in chess

Like this?

[bigimg]http://i49.tinypic.com/2jg48hu.png[/bigimg]

viewtopic.php?f=242&t=27101&start=0

Thanks for your feedback guys!
I'll get back to you tonight.

natty wrote:Depending on game type there are various factors at play... one is of course the random element: drop, dice and possibly the spoils. The other is the social dynamics between the players... even if you don't use game chat, you can try to affect how player 2 plays indirectly, by forcing player 3 to act in a certain way, etc... depending on game type, there can be even more factors (fog, freestyle, assassin, escalating, etc.) and then we come to map dependent dynamics: a conquest map plays very differently from a standard gameplay map... etc.

Well, I think you make a strong point here. That is, in favour of symmetry.
There really are many, many factors at play in CC. Plenty to allow for varied games every time. That this map will have less variation than others is not an issue to me. One of the points of this map (which I now realize I somehow failed to mention earlier), is to not have lots and lots of options from the start. Rather, you have maybe 3-5 viable strategies (which really isn't less than many other maps), and choosing which to use is a matter of what the other guys are doing - yes, much like chess. Once the game progresses the options will multiply and you'll have more variation than you can keep track of.
I appreciate your input, but I reject the notion of introducing asymmetry to the map. I hope you'll share your insights on the map regardless.

Sully wrote:Label all your territories!

Hmpf. I just can't catch a break here.

Sully wrote:Not really sure what you mean by "+2 auto-deploy on homes" and "+1 per territory, max +2". They aren't entirely clear.

I think the update clears it up, but thinking on it I don't really like it. Just wanted to do something a little different from the normal +3 bonus. Changed it a bit and am very open to suggestions here (regarding 'minimum' armies per turn).

Sully wrote:The "half" territories you could make something completely different - like maybe warps or their own collection bonus or something.

What are 'warps'? Never heard that term before.
I'm loathe to introduce more bonus areas. Well, at the very most I'd introduce 1 more, since that would fit with some representations of Yggdrasil - which has either 8 or 9 worlds, depending on who you ask. This is why I chose to make them fight over an additional bonus that both neighbours can use, rather than introducing another bonus area.

Sully wrote:Consider the prospect of using the new losing conditions feature for the starting positions.

I actually did, but I chose not to because the map was rather small at first, which would mean a couple of unlucky rounds could leave you eliminated. That's much too fast I think (yes, Doodle Earth is one of the maps I dislike the most, which may seem odd in light of my replies to natty, but there we are).
I've added the new losing condition to the legend.

Sully wrote:I think the pink territories could be used as drop territories, to make each game a little more different.

Yes, I agree - but not all of them I think. I'd like for the players to focus on their 'home areas', spreading out from there. Having 8 of the territories 1-16 as additional drops might be a good way to create just a bit more variation - as well as creating a bit of an advantage to the outer realms, allowing them to put some pressure on the inner realms from the start.
Another of the ideas I have apparently failed to mention is that I'd like it to take some time before the realms can reach eachother - at least inner vs. outer. Jormungand would serve as the primary fighting ground before either inner or outer realm can reach the other side.

Sully wrote:Connections - BD, AH, AP, and AX should all be connected to the two closest inner ring pink territories, and U, X, Y, and Z should be connected to their nearest pink territory.

U, X, Y, Z does now connect as suggested, and to a degree so does BD, AH, AP and AX. I've made these last four one-way, with complimentary lines of attack from the outer ring to the inner. Like I said, I do not want to have the lines of attack between inner and outer realms be too direct.
To that end I've placed another territory in the inner realms and made that the starting territory, so as to remove it a bit from the new connection from outer realms to Jormungand's outer ring.

All in all I'm still unsure about a lot of these connections. My overall aim is for the players to take and build up their home areas, then venture out onto Jormungand and seek to break though to the other realms.
Inner realms should be a bit tougher to get and hold, but have higher bonus and the extra path of attack through Ginnungagab(Gin).

I appreciate your comments muchly - please keep them coming!

[bigimg]http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww203/Nongolf/YggdrasilDraft45-1.jpg[/bigimg]

To get moving, what's next?

More feedback, prettier graphics, submitting draft brief?

What, what, what?

Easy does it. You can keep developing the map no matter what forum you are in.

Anyway... well, the gameplay is nice enough. I can see that it could possibly work as a map. But it is also bland and generic, you could stick the same gameplay in any other theme and it wouldn't make a difference.

Which is to say, the gameplay plan you have doesn't really match the theme here. The gameplay feels too generic, you know?

I mean, this is Norse Mythology for crying out loud. It's not like you don't have ample material to develop whatever crazy things you can imagine.

You have 2 sets of 4 generic bonus areas, each giving the same bonus, having the same borders and territory configuration. There's no character in them.

You have bonus areas that are named "Asgård" or "Midgård" or "Hel", but they feel like they could just as easily have any other labels sticked on them. They all play the same way, give the same bonuses, have same borders and inner structures...

I think this is going to need more development. I think you should not limit yourself to a dogmatic adherence to a symmetric gameplay plan. The gameplay and theme should complement each other, and right now they are not doing so on this map.

hm. Point taken. It is generic and other than the (would be) graphics there really is no telling the theme.
I'm not gonna stray from the symmetry of the map, but maybe we could add some spice in some other way.

Maybe we could add 8 gods or notorious characters from the mythology, and have them sort of 'hover' outside the regular map. These god-territories could provide various bonuses and unusual opportunities (e.g. bombardment).

hm. I'll think on this, but suggestions are most welcome!!

Can I ask you, why exactly are you so Hel bent on keeping the map design symmetric?

You certainly can!

It's a matter of keeping it simple and most importantly: Fair. Even more than bad dice, I hate getting a bad drop, and it happens all the time. I want to make a map where you're sure to start on even terms. When the start is even without a question, you only have to contend with the roll of the dice. This is my major reason, but as I've mentioned above, it's also a matter of developing clear strategies which can evolve predictably from game to game (chess).

Riskismy wrote:You certainly can!

It's a matter of keeping it simple and most importantly: Fair. Even more than bad dice, I hate getting a bad drop, and it happens all the time. I want to make a map where you're sure to start on even terms. When the start is even without a question, you only have to contend with the roll of the dice. This is my major reason, but as I've mentioned above, it's also a matter of developing clear strategies which can evolve predictably from game to game (chess).

Ok. I think I get the idea here.

Look, a map can be balanced even if all starting areas aren't exactly equal. In fact, if all starting areas are exactly the same, it only means that whoever gets the best dice gets the advantage.

When you have variation in the starting territories, it encourages players to develop different strategies based on their start. There are players who manage consistently good win rates on certain maps, even when they get bad drops.

There will always be a random element in CC games, and that's something you can't help. You can only balance the map as well as you can to eliminate drop advantages.

Gameplay updates:

- Introduction of Gods. This map is now one of the least convoluted I can think of. Surely the paths of attack have increased by several magnitudes. Not at all what I had in mind, but I like it nonetheless

- Removed Ginungagab. The gods made it more or less pointless. Center territory is now disputed by all 4 inner realms.

I'm still one god short. Would like to have 4 'evil' gods and 4 'good', but there's a definite shortage of the evil kind. I could find a notorious Giant, but the major problem is the 'ability' of this last god-territory. Preferably it should be a counterpart to Fenris, who devours all in his dreadful pain. Maybe it could just be a simple bonus for holding any 4 territories? Please let me know if you have an idea!

I'd love to hear from anyone who has suggestion or observations of any kind!

[bigimg]http://i720.photobucket.com/albums/ww203/Nongolf/YggdrasilDraft5.jpg[/bigimg]

Hey

Just some thoughts

Why do you use the true names of the world for Midgard, Asgard, and Hel while fire, Ice, and giant for the others? If you want to use the true names use all of them. If not then don't for all of them.

Vanir is a name for a group of gods while the world you are thinking of is Vanaheimr(which means "Home of the Vanir")

Why did you split it into inner and outer realms? On the tree they are separated into three groups of three, the upper, middle and lower worlds. Seemed strange to split it into two groups.

With Jormungand, I believe you would wish to change it to Nidhogg. Jormungand was the Midgard serpent and he encircled Midgard with his size. He was only connected to a few of the worlds. Nidhogg gnawed at one of the three roots of Yggdrasil and in my opinion would make more sense as being connected to all of the worlds.

Where is Alfheimr? You only have 8 of the 9 worlds.

Have you considered adding the Norns for a strategy aspect?

Thats all for now. Will most likely have more ideas later

Hey naxus!

Thanks for taking the time to comment!

I might start off by pasting in a paragraph from my first post, in order to answer you generally:

"I've had a hard time incorporating 9 worlds into 8 starting positions in a mythology which places those worlds into 3 layers, while keeping a stern eye on equal opportunities and team play. So I'd like to make very clear that the purpose of the map is not to portrait Yggdrasil as a tree with roots in various worlds, or in any significant way related to how the 'Asetro' religion might perceive the order and relation of these worlds. Rather, my aim is to create a map which provides exiting and fast action no matter the number of players. I'm aware that the map, as is, has very little resemblance to how traditional (and not-so-traditional), nomenclature describe Yggdrasil. As I said, I'm aiming for balance and fairness in starting positions. That said, I have tried as best I could to take into account the attributes and relations of the various realms. "

That should give you an idea about where I'm coming from with this map.

Why do you use the true names of the world for Midgard, Asgard, and Hel while fire, Ice, and giant for the others? If you want to use the true names use all of them. If not then don't for all of them.

Vanir is a name for a group of gods while the world you are thinking of is Vanaheimr(which means "Home of the Vanir")

Yeah, I know, Niphelhiem and so forth. I'll put them in if I get as far as graphics.

Why did you split it into inner and outer realms? On the tree they are separated into three groups of three, the upper, middle and lower worlds. Seemed strange to split it into two groups.

Well, that depends on your source. I've found some where there are only 2 layers to the trees, and just 8 worlds. Certainly the 8 worlds is a quite common interpretation.
My major concern is gameplay, even at the sacrifice of an entire world!

With Jormungand, I believe you would wish to change it to Nidhogg. Jormungand was the Midgard serpent and he encircled Midgard with his size. He was only connected to a few of the worlds. Nidhogg gnawed at one of the three roots of Yggdrasil and in my opinion would make more sense as being connected to all of the worlds.

All true, but again I've sacrificed accuracy for gameplay and convenience. I agree it's a stretch of the mythology to have Jormungand connect to all worlds, but I like the idea of a squirrel doing it even less, I must say.

Have you considered adding the Norns for a strategy aspect?

Actually I have! Maybe they could be my missing god-territory. hm...
You have any ideas as to what they might 'do'? Preferrably they should compliment either Loke or Fenris.

Thanks again for your feedback! I hope I've explained my motivations, but if not please do ask for clarification.

Why call it Yggdrasil, then?

Victor Sullivan wrote:Why call it Yggdrasil, then?

That's the inspiration.