edbeard wrote:I've said this before, but I don't think there was a response from you to it so I'll say it again.
On the previous version, the borders between Kingdoms were easily distinguishable from other borders. Now, they are essentially the same so figuring out where a kingdom ends and the other one starts is a bit difficult. It's not terribly bad, but before I could just look and know right away that the kingdom ended at that border. Now, I have to think about it and possibly look towards the mini-map and territory numbers for help.
I did in deed take your point in and attempted to fix it (failure lol), Ill give it another bash for hte next update
As for teh gamepaly changes, Id like a little more discussion but if theres real opposition ill put it back
Id like detailed discussion on each change I made to see wether its good or bad etc
CoolC wrote:This last version is awesome, except for still pretty ugly header/logo. I think it's better then the original both visually and gameplay wise!
I need more information than this is you want me to fix it . . .
Well it does the job, but I'm all about making you do more work.
Honestly, I think it's a bit too much. You have to walk that fine line. You want it to stand out enough where it is noticeable (didn't happen in your previous version), but not so much that it's becomes too much of a focus (as it is now).
Maybe other people disagree about this one though. But, I'd like to see it slightly less intense.
I've never been wild about the language of the legend, as it leaves room for misinterpretation. Plus the text is just kinda fuzzy.
Let's nit-pick it...
• "Every two kingdom territories gives an additional bonus of +1." Additional to what? That's the first thing you read, so it's not in addition to anything. But this is less important than the fact that i don't know what you mean. Are you trying to say that you receive one army for every two territories within a kingdom? If so, say so. And does this include the castle in the kingdom, because the castle is a territory.
• Start with the victory conditions. I'd say this is more important than anything else in the legend. Don't bury the lead.
• the next two lines are clear, but auto-deploy should be hyphenated (i think). And I'd put these in the fist column under the Victory conditions.
• "Castles can bombard non adjacent kingdom areas" - again, hyphenate "non-adjacent." And we saw a complaint about this line in general discussions - does this mean you can bombard territories that aren't adjacent to the castle, or kingdoms that aren't adjacent to it?
I think what may be needed here is a term to describe a territory that is neither a castle nor a village. Plains? Grassland? Battlefield? Field?
Last edited by oaktown on Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
oaktown wrote:I've never been wild about the language of the legend, as it leaves room for misinterpretation. Plus the text is just kinda fuzzy.
Let's nit-pick it... • "Every two kingdom territories gives an additional bonus of +1." Additional to what? That's the first thing you read, so it's not in addition to anything. But this is less important than the fact that i don't know what you mean. Are you trying to say that you receive one army for every two territories within a kingdom? If so, say so. And does this include the castle in the kingdom, because the castle is a territory. • Start with the victory conditions. I'd say this is more important than anything else in the legend. Don't bury the lead. • the next two lines are clear, but I auto-deploy should be hyphenated (i think). And I'd put these in the fist column under the Victory conditions. • "Castles can bombard non adjacent kingdom areas" - again, hyphenate "non-adjacent." And we saw a complaint about this line in general discussions - does this mean you can bombard territories that aren't adjacent to the castle, or kingdoms that aren't adjacent to it?
I think what may be needed here is a term to describe a territory that is neither a castle nor a village. Plains? Grassland? Battlefield? Field?
Thank you oaktown ill will look into this later today
qwert brought this up in another thread, as you might know. I don't think this map needs the 630px width.
If this map gets it, I think his roman map should get it as well. Honestly, I don't think either needs it, but if this one has it then certainly his should.
edbeard wrote:qwert brought this up in another thread, as you might know. I don't think this map needs the 630px width.
If this map gets it, I think his roman map should get it as well. Honestly, I don't think either needs it, but if this one has it then certainly his should.
I know, this is still set from the base image of te old map that has 630px width, It will be resized closer to the end of production so that I can remeber the pixel dimension etc of boarder and thinks like that
Legend is better... the line about two kingdom territories getting +1 could still use a tweak, because if you hold four terits in a kingdom you get +4, right? So it's +1 for EVERY two territories.
Graphically, I'd say the villages could use a little something extra to set them apart. It would be sweet to see this as an animated map, with smoke rising from the villages.
oaktown wrote:Legend is better... the line about two kingdom territories getting +1 could still use a tweak, because if you hold four terits in a kingdom you get +4, right? So it's +1 for EVERY two territories.
Graphically, I'd say the villages could use a little something extra to set them apart. It would be sweet to see this as an animated map, with smoke rising from the villages.
I would love to animate the smoke put the GIF quality wouldnt be able to handle the color variations in my map
OH and you want the legends changed to "+1 for every two kingdom territories"
gimil wrote:OH and you want the legends changed to "+1 for every two kingdom territories"
technically it would be best to say "+1 for every two territories within a kingdom" since you don't get a +1 for holding any two non-aligned kingdom territories, right?
gimil wrote:OH and you want the legends changed to "+1 for every two kingdom territories"
technically it would be best to say "+1 for every two territories within a kingdom" since you don't get a +1 for holding any two non-aligned kingdom territories, right?
Any two terrs within a single kingdom, so your wording is probably better.
