Conquer Club

The font is looking much like it is much easier to read. And I think I actually like the legend now. It must have been the font.

Regarding the light vs dark, perhaps if you tried some experimentation you could people some areas darker and lighter like a real old map. I think the feel could be achieved, but perhaps not to the extent of the older version's darkness.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:The font is looking much like it is much easier to read. And I think I actually like the legend now. It must have been the font.

Regarding the light vs dark, perhaps if you tried some experimentation you could people some areas darker and lighter like a real old map. I think the feel could be achieved, but perhaps not to the extent of the older version's darkness.


--Andy

ok i'll see what i can do but if people start complaining it's too dark i'll hold you responsible.

later today i'll post an image. hopefully a final one.

omg the bonuses are way too complicated. I don't see this getting played anymore than US Apocalypse, and it's bonuses are much easier to undersand than this.

actually it's pretty simple. each "continent" only has one resource pair, one factory and one market.

own the resource pair and market on your continent get 1 army. own the resource pair and factory on continent get 1 army.


I'm sure many people will like this map. it's different than your standard maps so of course some people will be put off, but others will like the uniqueness.

No it's not simple and I think most people won't be bothered with this map. However apparently it's the map maker's desire to make something different and that's his main objective not how many people like or play the map...

Ruben Cassar wrote:No it's not simple and I think most people won't be bothered with this map. However apparently it's the map maker's desire to make something different and that's his main objective not how many people like or play the map...

yes the map is more complicated than the classic risk game but there's nothing that can't be handled it's not like you have to perform brain surgery.

and yes it's my desire to make something different. BUT i had 2 polls about this map and in both polls the majority wanted me to continue working on it. if it had been a map that nobody wants to play then polls would have indicated me to stop just like it has happened to many maps that were rejected by the foundry community. it's obvious some people won't play it and some will. i never aimed to make the most played map on the site i just aimed to do something different that pleases at least a large part of the community and the poll results and feedback were in my favor.

wicked wrote:omg the bonuses are way too complicated. I don't see this getting played anymore than US Apocalypse, and it's bonuses are much easier to undersand than this.

nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to play it. i guess this is that kind of map that you either love it or hate it. at least give it a try and then draw your conclusions and decide if you'll ever play it again.

edbeard wrote:actually it's pretty simple. each "continent" only has one resource pair, one factory and one market.

own the resource pair and market on your continent get 1 army. own the resource pair and factory on continent get 1 army.


I'm sure many people will like this map. it's different than your standard maps so of course some people will be put off, but others will like the uniqueness.

thanks for the support edbeard. your perfectly right about the bolded part.

here is the darkened map.


large 100%
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/aom-large-100-dark.jpg


small 100%
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w250/DiM-topia/aom-small-100-dark.jpg


xml:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/bbq8ov

xml tests:

DiM wrote:

Ruben Cassar wrote:No it's not simple and I think most people won't be bothered with this map. However apparently it's the map maker's desire to make something different and that's his main objective not how many people like or play the map...

yes the map is more complicated than the classic risk game but there's nothing that can't be handled it's not like you have to perform brain surgery.

and yes it's my desire to make something different. BUT i had 2 polls about this map and in both polls the majority wanted me to continue working on it. if it had been a map that nobody wants to play then polls would have indicated me to stop just like it has happened to many maps that were rejected by the foundry community. it's obvious some people won't play it and some will. i never aimed to make the most played map on the site i just aimed to do something different that pleases at least a large part of the community and the poll results and feedback were in my favor.

Hehe. Mine was just a statement. I did not expect a response or a justification for your work.

Personally I don't think it will be a popular map, but hey, I stand to be corrected...and some people actually play Crossword...or at least I believe they do...

Ruben Cassar wrote:Personally I don't think it will be a popular map, but hey, I stand to be corrected...and some people actually play Crossword...or at least I believe they do...

i am certain it won't be a popular map. but i hope it will have at least more success than crossword

Dim...you do need to change that avatar though...it freaks me out and it keeps getting worse...think about it! :p

i don't think it's creepy. it's actually kinda sweet

Hey, another map I like. (It may seem like I say that a lot, but I don't comment on the ones I don't like.) Sure, it's complex and not everyone is going to play it, but that seems fine to me.

Also, I think the complex maps grow on you. I was completely lost on Crossword for the first game, but now that I can picture the parallel countries attacking their interlopers, the board makes much more sense.

I don't think every map has to work for every player or every situation. If someone made a map that sucked for almost every variant, but was great for 3-player/assassin/no cards, wouldn't that be OK?

Edit
I might suggest removing (or at least reducing) the flavor text on the right. With the considerable amount of text on the bottom it looks intimidating. What if it were something short, that looked hand-written on the map? That way it would not come across as another block of rules. Or maybe a graphic element there.

Sparqs wrote:Hey, another map I like. (It may seem like I say that a lot, but I don't comment on the ones I don't like.) Sure, it's complex and not everyone is going to play it, but that seems fine to me.

Also, I think the complex maps grow on you. I was completely lost on Crossword for the first game, but now that I can picture the parallel countries attacking their interlopers, the board makes much more sense.

I don't think every map has to work for every player or every situation. If someone made a map that sucked for almost every variant, but was great for 3-player/assassin/no cards, wouldn't that be OK?

Edit
I might suggest removing (or at least reducing) the flavor text on the right. With the considerable amount of text on the bottom it looks intimidating. What if it were something short, that looked hand-written on the map? That way it would not come across as another block of rules. Or maybe a graphic element there.

thanks for the appreciation mate. i hope you'll enjoy playing the Age of Merchants.

as for the story in the corner. i actually held a story contest and the one on the map won the poll. i would not like to shorten it as it will lose some of the feeling.

DiM wrote:here is the darkened map.

I also have a suggestion to reduce the wording of the rules text. I think breaking it into the extra bullet also helps make it easier to understand. I suggest changing the order and text thusly:

Ports...
Docks...
...Pirate Cove
* +1 for each Resource Pair and Factory on the same continent.
* +1 for transporting a Resource Pair to the local Market.
* +2 for transporting a Resource Pair to a foreign Market.
* For local transport of Resources you must own the Pair and their local Market.
* For foreign transport you must own the Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.

You could reduce the text further, making it even less intimidating, by combining the transport explanation with the bonus:

* +1 for owning a Resource Pair and their local Market.
* +2 for owning a Resource Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.

I suppose that might impact the flavor of the map, but I think it would be clear that owning Resources and their Markets give a bonus because you are transporting one to the other.

Hmm, I'm full of suggestions today.

Since Pirates Cove is a unique location and a juicy target for Port-holders, perhaps it could be highlighted slightly on the map - to help distinguish the skull-and-bones from the other map symbols. Maybe a little blood stain nearby?

Sparqs wrote:I also have a suggestion to reduce the wording of the rules text. I think breaking it into the extra bullet also helps make it easier to understand. I suggest changing the order and text thusly:

Ports...
Docks...
...Pirate Cove
* +1 for each Resource Pair and Factory on the same continent.
* +1 for transporting a Resource Pair to the local Market.
* +2 for transporting a Resource Pair to a foreign Market.
* For local transport of Resources you must own the Pair and their local Market.
* For foreign transport you must own the Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.

You could reduce the text further, making it even less intimidating, by combining the transport explanation with the bonus:

* +1 for owning a Resource Pair and their local Market.
* +2 for owning a Resource Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.

I suppose that might impact the flavor of the map, but I think it would be clear that owning Resources and their Markets give a bonus because you are transporting one to the other.

the first suggestion would not fit so well. it would stretch the egend from 9 rows to 10 rows and this means i'll have to decrease the font size which is a bad thing.

the second suggestion was already proposed before and i turned it down for the exact same reason you posted. feeling. by eliminating the word transportation i'll lose some flavour and i don't want to. i put a lot of effort into creating a certain flavour for this map.

Sparqs wrote:Hmm, I'm full of suggestions today.

Since Pirates Cove is a unique location and a juicy target for Port-holders, perhaps it could be highlighted slightly on the map - to help distinguish the skull-and-bones from the other map symbols. Maybe a little blood stain nearby?

while i agree the pirate cove is an important part of the map, it isn't the core. it is just as a bonus. the map is about merchants and resources not about pirates. and if i highlight the pirate icon i'll somewhat make the map more pirate oriented than i want to. i want people to act like merchants on them map not like pirates. i actually wanted the pirate cove to be hidden and to have a random location on each game but since fog of war and random xml files aren't yet available i couldn't.

DiM wrote:

Sparqs wrote:I also have a suggestion to reduce the wording of the rules text. I think breaking it into the extra bullet also helps make it easier to understand. I suggest changing the order and text thusly:

Ports...
Docks...
...Pirate Cove
* +1 for each Resource Pair and Factory on the same continent.
* +1 for transporting a Resource Pair to the local Market.
* +2 for transporting a Resource Pair to a foreign Market.
* For local transport of Resources you must own the Pair and their local Market.
* For foreign transport you must own the Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.

You could reduce the text further, making it even less intimidating, by combining the transport explanation with the bonus:

* +1 for owning a Resource Pair and their local Market.
* +2 for owning a Resource Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.

I suppose that might impact the flavor of the map, but I think it would be clear that owning Resources and their Markets give a bonus because you are transporting one to the other.

the first suggestion would not fit so well. it would stretch the egend from 9 rows to 10 rows and this means i'll have to decrease the font size which is a bad thing.

Are you sure it would create 10 rows? I tried to word the local transport so that "Market" would move up to the same line. "must" is shorter than "need to" - maybe switch back from my suggestion of "their local" to "the local".

Sparqs wrote:

DiM wrote:

Sparqs wrote:I also have a suggestion to reduce the wording of the rules text. I think breaking it into the extra bullet also helps make it easier to understand. I suggest changing the order and text thusly:

Ports...
Docks...
...Pirate Cove
* +1 for each Resource Pair and Factory on the same continent.
* +1 for transporting a Resource Pair to the local Market.
* +2 for transporting a Resource Pair to a foreign Market.
* For local transport of Resources you must own the Pair and their local Market.
* For foreign transport you must own the Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.

You could reduce the text further, making it even less intimidating, by combining the transport explanation with the bonus:

* +1 for owning a Resource Pair and their local Market.
* +2 for owning a Resource Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.

I suppose that might impact the flavor of the map, but I think it would be clear that owning Resources and their Markets give a bonus because you are transporting one to the other.

the first suggestion would not fit so well. it would stretch the egend from 9 rows to 10 rows and this means i'll have to decrease the font size which is a bad thing.

Are you sure it would create 10 rows? I tried to word the local transport so that "Market" would move up to the same line. "must" is shorter than "need to" - maybe switch back from my suggestion of "their local" to "the local".

yep i'm sure.
each of these phrases occupies 2 rows. actually 1,5 rows each so a total of 4 rows instead of the current 3 i have.

* For local transport of Resources you must own the Pair and their local Market.
* For foreign transport you must own the Pair, a foreign Market, and the connecting Ports.

Methinks the poll was skewed since only those that frequent here and have a passion for maps probably voted. I doubt you reached the masses with that poll, but no worries, what's done is done. Good luck with it. Hope I'm wrong.

wicked wrote:Methinks the poll was skewed since only those that frequent here and have a passion for maps probably voted. I doubt you reached the masses with that poll, but no worries, what's done is done. Good luck with it. Hope I'm wrong.

come on wicked you're being absurd here. there were 2 polls and both were favorable. and if you say they were skewed then you can say it about all the polls in the foundry. you don't really expect all the users to come and vote for a map. all the maps have roughly the same users that vote and nobody said the polls were skewed before. what do you want me to do? send a pm to each and every member on this site to come and approve my map? this is crazy.

Polls are never a proper indication. Keyogi has said it many times.

Also, the poll that had the most votes was the one about your third eye. I think that says it all.

Teya wrote:Polls are never a proper indication. Keyogi has said it many times.

Also, the poll that had the most votes was the one about your third eye. I think that says it all.

i don't know if that one had the most but i belive but one thing i know, that poll was on for the longest time hence the number of votes.