Oasis [Quenched]

[wcaclimbing]

ok DiM. you can sit in the fertile lands while the rest of us go take bonuses.

I'm not doing fixed starting positions. I'd rather get rid of the map entirely than use fixed starting positions.
If assassin is bad, just don't play it on Oasis. Doesn't seem that difficult...

EDIT: I'm sorry if this comment is not a great comment. I was feeling rather bad earlier today and was a bit annoyed by everything.

My opinion is still the same, I just should have chosen a better way of explaining it.

[ZeakCytho]

ok DiM. you can sit in the fertile lands while the rest of us go take bonuses.

I'm not doing fixed starting positions. I'd rather get rid of the map entirely than use fixed starting positions.
If assassin is bad, just don't play it on Oasis. Doesn't seem that difficult...

QFT!

I hate maps with fixed starting positions. I also think that anyone who sits on the fertile land without grabbing bonuses will be at a serious disadvantage. Then again, I also never play assassin games, so I'm hardly fit to comment on that matter.

[DiM]

ok DiM. you can sit in the fertile lands while the rest of us go take bonuses.

I'm not doing fixed starting positions. I'd rather get rid of the map entirely than use fixed starting positions.
If assassin is bad, just don't play it on Oasis. Doesn't seem that difficult...

don't act like that mate. you don't want starting positions then fine let's try finding another solution.

as for your other comments sorry but the rules stipulate this:

Game type flexibility. The map should support various game types and not be designed specific/limited game settings in mind (standard, assassin, fog of war, 2 players, etc.).

and this:

4. All sound advice must be followed unless a logical rebuttal by the cartographer or another member of the community is provided.

[rocky mountain]

there is a map that cannot be played with assassin: Das Shlob (however you spell it)

Game type flexibility. The map should support various game types and not be designed specific/limited game settings in mind (standard, assassin, fog of war, 2 players, etc.).

plus it states that you can't think of only one game type in mind. not that it can't omit a game option...

[DiM]

there is a map that cannot be played with assassin: Das Shlob (however you spell it)

Game type flexibility. The map should support various game types and not be designed specific/limited game settings in mind (standard, assassin, fog of war, 2 players, etc.).

plus it states that you can't think of only one game type in mind. not that it can't omit a game option...

(that B is a sharp s and can be written as double s)
anyway das schloss was made as a request from lack and it will be blocked from assassin games (meaning you won't be able to start such games on it) similar to how AoR is limited to 2-6 players.
here however we do not have such a situation. assassin games are possible on this map but they aren't balanced well and will lead to poor gameplay.

[wcaclimbing]

I guess we need an official comment from a mod on this topic.
I'll PM andy.

[InkL0sed]

Hm... I know it seems a little implausible in a geographic sense -- but maybe the fertile land could completely surround the desert? And you could also make only one "level" of fertile land, instead of the two you have now. I think that would even out to about the same number of desert territories and fertile territories, but probably even out the gameplay a little too. Just a thought.

[rocky mountain]

i was thinking of the desert being totally surrounded as well... i think the 1 level thing is a good idea also . however, it will make the map have to be bigger, and it has already been enlarged, so maybe not... but whatever you do, don't take out Rocm!

[AndyDufresne]

First off, I don't believe Lack is going to code Assassin and Terminator games "invalid" for Das Schloss (At least for now---I'll get back to you about this later also---...It's too much work, unfun, the usual I think)...you just won't be able to win by any of those rules...etc. The map is a "True Objective" map.

It'll probably be good for Oaktown to weigh in on the perhaps unbalanced issue regarding assassin, but I'll talk a little also. A map will never be perfect on every setting. I think in general cartographers should try to make their maps universally playable...for the obvious fact more play will come out of them. But as usual, certain game play will grow "unique" to the map.

But in the case of Das Schloss...there is no real disadvantage added to the player...they still have an equal chance to win from the beginning hypothetically. If this map unusually "jails" a player and makes it easy for them to win/lose (more so than say a good/bad drop in other maps)...you may want to rethink how the map is...as that seems to open a door to abuse, and I know no cartographer wants their map to be "abused" and known as such a map.

I'm not sure I've touched on everything I need to. Or if I made sense at all.


--Andy

[yeti_c]

First off, I don't believe Lack is going to code Assassin and Terminator games "invalid" for Das Schloss (At least for now---I'll get back to you about this later also---...It's too much work, unfun, the usual I think)...you just won't be able to win by any of those rules...etc. The map is a "True Objective" map.

Correct...

You will still be able to play these games... but you will only be able to win by holding the objective... so it does still work for both ass & termy games.

C.

[DiM]

i like the idea of the desert being encircled by grass. it will allow easier movement and most of all it will provide more starting terits thus greatly reducing the chances of a guy getting all his terits stranded in a corner. it will still be possible by the chances will be so slim they can be ignored.

[ZeakCytho]

I'm indifferent on encirclement. I think the desert is nice as it is now, for a few reasons. One, encircled deserts are not realistic at all, whereas a desert valley is conceivable. Two, as it is now, in order to eliminate another player, there's a large chance you will have to cross the desert, which is the point of the game. Having fertile land all the way around makes it possible to win without setting foot in the desert, unlikely as that is.

However, having the desert separate raises the issues that Dim pointed out.

So, I'd prefer the desert as it is now, but that's because I never play assassin games and the like.

[cicero]

I'm indifferent on encirclement. I think the desert is nice as it is now, for a few reasons. One, encircled deserts are not realistic at all, whereas a desert valley is conceivable. Two, as it is now, in order to eliminate another player, there's a large chance you will have to cross the desert, which is the point of the game. Having fertile land all the way around makes it possible to win without setting foot in the desert, unlikely as that is.

However, having the desert separate raises the issues that Dim pointed out.

So, I'd prefer the desert as it is now, but that's because I never play assassin games and the like.

Thinking aloud ...

First off I think encirclement most certainly is realistic. If one accepts that no desert goes on "forever" in any direction then one accepts that at some point the edge of the desert is reached in every direction ... at which point fertile land takes over surely ?

Secondly re the point that encirclement would allow the game to be resolved without setting foot in the the desert. I think you're right and that this would spoil the aim of the map ... However unless WCA reconsiders re starting territories ...

WCA how about 16 starting territories, two for each colour, one on each side of the desert .... ?
This would leave 22 territories to be divided up randomly as usual.
The starting territories to have no special properties after game start (ie we're not talking Feudal War castles or anything like that ...)

Or how about 16 starting territories, two for each colour, one small oasis and one regular territory (paired such that if you receive a small oasis on the left of the desert you will receive a fertile territory on the right etc).

[InkL0sed]

I'm indifferent on encirclement. I think the desert is nice as it is now, for a few reasons. One, encircled deserts are not realistic at all, whereas a desert valley is conceivable. Two, as it is now, in order to eliminate another player, there's a large chance you will have to cross the desert, which is the point of the game. Having fertile land all the way around makes it possible to win without setting foot in the desert, unlikely as that is.

However, having the desert separate raises the issues that Dim pointed out.

So, I'd prefer the desert as it is now, but that's because I never play assassin games and the like.

Thinking aloud ...
First off I think encirclement most certainly is realistic. If one accepts that no desert goes on "forever" in any direction then one accepts that at some point the edge of the desert is reached in every direction ... at which point fertile land takes over surely ?

Secondly re the point that encirclement would allow the game to be resolved without setting foot in the the desert. I think you're right and that this would spoil the aim of the map ... However unless WCA reconsiders re starting territories ...
WCA how about 16 starting territories, two for each colour, one on each side of the desert .... ?
This would leave 22 territories to be divided up randomly as usual.
The starting territories to have no special properties after game start (ie we're not talking Feudal War castles or anything like that ...)

While it certainly would be possible to get from one side to the other with encirclement (since there wouldn't really be any sides), I seriously doubt it would be possible to win without entering the desert. Think about it -- you have to go through all this trouble to get around the desert via fertile land, and never once are you tempted to pick up an oasis along the way? No -- in fact, I think it would only encourage use of the desert. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of encirclement.

[ZeakCytho]

Thinking aloud ...
First off I think encirclement most certainly is realistic. If one accepts that no desert goes on "forever" in any direction then one accepts that at some point the edge of the desert is reached in every direction ... at which point fertile land takes over surely ?[/quote]

That argument makes sense on a larger scale, but if you look at the map, you can tell that it hardly encompasses a large area. The size of the houses and animals, for example, make me believe that the entire map shown couldn't be more than two square miles. Though, if that were true, crossing the desert would be a non-issue, which would ruin gameplay. So either my estimation is off or the houses are scaled way up from what they are supposed to be.

If my estimation was simply off, then there is no problem. If the houses are too large, I think shrinking them to the correct size would make them too small to be recognizable and make the map feel quite empty. Thus, even if they're wrong, I think they should stay as they are.

Despite all this, however, there is no way that this desert is large enough to be a major geographic feature in the sense that it could not go on "forever." To me, this seems to be a small section of a much lager desert that runs between two fertile valleys, which is altogether possible. To encircle the desert would be to imply that it is actually a vast tract of land, in which case the houses, oases, etc., must all be scaled down, which, as I have pointed out, is a minor problem.

I'm still definitely against pre-selected starting territories. The randomness of a drop is part of what makes maps fun, at least for me.

[wcaclimbing]

Comments in RED

That argument makes sense on a larger scale, but if you look at the map, you can tell that it hardly encompasses a large area. The size of the houses and animals, for example, make me believe that the entire map shown couldn't be more than two square miles. Though, if that were true, crossing the desert would be a non-issue, which would ruin gameplay. So either my estimation is off or the houses are scaled way up from what they are supposed to be. Its a bit of both. The houses are bigger than they are supposed to be, but its still a small area overall, probably less than 4 miles across). Oases are usually kinda small, because they form around lakes and rivers, so on this map they are probably a few hundred yards across. I agree with what you are saying on the actual size. if this was to be surrounded by fertile land, that would leave us with a very small desert. Since most deserts I've heard of are rediculously big (a few hundred miles) this will be just a small part of one.

If my estimation was simply off, then there is no problem. If the houses are too large, I think shrinking them to the correct size would make them too small to be recognizable and make the map feel quite empty. Thus, even if they're wrong, I think they should stay as they are. I agree.

Despite all this, however, there is no way that this desert is large enough to be a major geographic feature in the sense that it could not go on "forever." To me, this seems to be a small section of a much lager desert that runs between two fertile valleys, which is altogether possible. To encircle the desert would be to imply that it is actually a vast tract of land, in which case the houses, oases, etc., must all be scaled down, which, as I have pointed out, is a minor problem.

I'm still definitely against pre-selected starting territories. The randomness of a drop is part of what makes maps fun, at least for me. I agree. Forced starting positions would cause a lot of problems, also. the guys on the edges of the map would have the longest distance to reach the fertile land, and that couldn't be balanced out with the neutrals, because everyone would be starting very close together.

I'm indifferent on encirclement. I think the desert is nice as it is now, for a few reasons. One, encircled deserts are not realistic at all, whereas a desert valley is conceivable. Two, as it is now, in order to eliminate another player, there's a large chance you will have to cross the desert, which is the point of the game. Having fertile land all the way around makes it possible to win without setting foot in the desert, unlikely as that is. [b][color=#BF0000]I agree.

However, having the desert separate raises the issues that Dim pointed out.

So, I'd prefer the desert as it is now, but that's because I never play assassin games and the like.

Thinking aloud ...

First off I think encirclement most certainly is realistic. If one accepts that no desert goes on "forever" in any direction then one accepts that at some point the edge of the desert is reached in every direction ... at which point fertile land takes over surely ? This is a very small section of a desert. by the scale of the houses, the desert area on this map would only be the size of a large modern-day farm.

Secondly re the point that encirclement would allow the game to be resolved without setting foot in the the desert. I think you're right and that this would spoil the aim of the map ... However unless WCA reconsiders re starting territories ...

WCA how about 16 starting territories, two for each colour, one on each side of the desert .... ?
This would leave 22 territories to be divided up randomly as usual.
The starting territories to have no special properties after game start (ie we're not talking Feudal War castles or anything like that ...) How would we decide which ones to make into starting territories?

Or how about 16 starting territories, two for each colour, one small oasis and one regular territory (paired such that if you receive a small oasis on the left of the desert you will receive a fertile territory on the right etc). Nope. Oases start neutral. the point is to enter the desert and take your bonuses. if you started already controlling an oasis, the fertile land would be ignored because you would be putting all your armies on the oasis.

[DiM]

i think you guys are going crazy with the size of the desert. so what if it's 4 miles wide and encircling it with grass is not realistic??
do you really thin you'll find 20 oases in a 4 mile wide desert? i doubt it. i'd say you'll most likely walk 10 times that distance and consider yourself lucky if you find just 1 oasis. so if you really want realism then remove the oases

honestly now if the encirclement makes the gameplay better, why not do it? as it stands the gameplay needs either encirclement or starting locations otherwise it is flawed.

[bryguy]

my opinion:


Go ahead and circle it. Its ok if its not "realistic", since it doesnt have to be realistic. Is AoR realistic? not really, but its a loved map.

[t-o-m]

i think its good without army cirlces, but for some reason i get confused with which number is on what terit only on the destert terrain. (but only from a quick glance)

[yeti_c]

Perhaps instead of a full circle (or square really) - Consider a U shape...

C.

[InkL0sed]

Perhaps instead of a full circle (or square really) - Consider a U shape...

C.

I thought I'd mentioned that already!

[bryguy]

Perhaps instead of a full circle (or square really) - Consider a U shape...

C.

I thought I'd mentioned that already!

i thought i had to.... or maybe i just thought of mentioning it, idk....

[yeti_c]

Perhaps instead of a full circle (or square really) - Consider a U shape...

C.

I thought I'd mentioned that already!

Apologies if I missed that.

C.

[wcaclimbing]

Perhaps instead of a full circle (or square really) - Consider a U shape...

C.

I thought I'd mentioned that already!

A U shape would work for me.

there are a ton of extra desert areas down there, adding a bit more fertile would work nicely.
This next update might take a while. school finals and projects and everything, but I'll work on this whenever I can.

[ZeakCytho]

U-shaped sounds good to me. Make it two territories thick, though, like the current fertile land is.