[Abandoned] - Colisevm

[callybear]

another suggestion, the center can attack one area, or one place in each ring

Looking great, can;t wait to try it

[isaiah40]

Looking good! One thing I noticed between ring #3 and ring #4. You said earlier (can't remember what page) that the one way attack arrows where showing which way the next ring attacks in. Well I think you have the arrows pointing in the wrong direction? You have then pointing clockwise instead of counter-clockwise. I agree with danyael, space out the names, army numbers and helmets etc. As far as I can see for game play it looks great!

[Suzy1]

I am happy to see the support youa re receiving for this map. Way to go! I hope it makes all the way. Good luck!

[iceco]

Congrats on the stamp.

I don't know how to help any further, I'm not really into the technical stuff, but I'll make sure to help wherever I can.
(I don't always have access to internet, so my activity will be low, as it has been the last few weeks already.)

Some graphical remarks:
- Your main gates still not are in the perfect perspective, especially the lower right one
- The new gates in the tribune also need some work, but I trust that you left it for a later update
- "BALEVS" isn't readable, it disappears behind the troop square.

[JJ41375]

The map looks great.

I think the only confusion for some people will be the movement. Especially within the rings. It may take a tunr or two to get used to.

Overall still a great map.

JJ

[hip-hop-opotamus]

i like it, keep it the same or very similar

[PepeAtila]

Good job on receiving your Draft Stamp. Thank you very much for the help.
Now for the next step Gameplay:
Balanced Play ??
-I'm not sure if it would be considered 100% balanced of course I am not a big conquest style
player but I'm not sure if how close some of the initial starts are to each other. So you have
8 Starting points. How many places would each player get to start say in a 1 v 1 or a 4 v 4
would a player start with only 1,2 or would the 8 places be spread out evenly? Always and only one start point for each player.
-This is important because say if only 1 start each how many moved would it take for one
player to wipe out the other players having the clock type movement does help even them
out and would need pretty good dice but i think some starts have clare advantages over
others. Lets study the areas ...
6 "free" areas in outer ring, they might be asigned with these limits: for 2players (3 each) , 3 players (2 each), 4-6 players (1 each), 8 players (none)
we also can look 6 areas (not comming from helmets) in second ring

go for the closest 'gladius' ....
Normally you can look for a route conquering 3 areas:
from Domitianvs-Germania, Gallia(to Spatha) or Galervs(to Pilvm),
Vitelivs, Britania & Ocrea or Vespasianvs & Gallia (to Spatha)

You have better positions (just with 2 steps) Nero, Septimvs, Caesar and Hadrianvs
and the others 4 initial positions need at least 3 steps.
SICA: Septimvs S. 2, M.Avrelivs 3
PARMA: Caesar 2
PUGIO: Nero 2, Caligvla 3
SPATHA: Domitianvs 3, Vitelivs 3
PILVM: Hadrianvs 2, M.Avrelivs 3, Domitianvs 3

Caesar is the best start point (I will fix it changing the neutrals... mainly in Baetica and also in Achaia, Lycia and Aquitania)

-This all depends how the starts will be divided up.
like i said I'm not an expert in conquest maps but these are questions that arise
Solid bonus system
- I agree its pretty good but i think +1 auto deploy on the initial start "helmet"
might be a slap in the face to a player that gets bad dice to start i know i would curse
-if i lost 3 men against the 2 neutral it would take two turns to gain better odds of taking
that neutral. in the meantime the other players grow and become to powerful to stop to
early in the match. Maybe a +2 would be a little better at least then you could roll a 3v2
intensity cube or stack and at least have a better chance of catching up to the other player
making the game funner in the long run mainly at the beggining you have 3 men and you take 4 so you would have 7 men for the initial attack, I was thinking to increase this bonus, but then it is not so important to go for the gladivs that should be the first aim.
Game flexibility
-should be good for all types assassin could be very interesting Yes mainly, but also for terminator
Player Friendliness
-you have alot of overlapping army squares on the names and icons this for sure needs fixing
and im sure you are working on that. yes I was making it with a mask aplied to the map deppending on the size, making it directly on the map it would be easier and better, I am thinking to apply directly on the map the troops from Xml.
-I suggest keep small names for small spaces and use the bigger one for the bigger spaces.
This should help for space issues I guess I have enough space, if I need more space I have 20% to increase till the biggest allowed size, but also I can reduce the grand stand a little... for me is important the names be clear.
-Its all about alignment look at maximino see how you have the army indicator, name
and icon are pretty must evenly place between each other as not all can be setup exactly the
same for space reasons at least align all graphics in the region evenly apart but not flying all
over the place like commodus you are right ... the reason ... the mask was a little moved.
Open Play
I think you are good here but i'll have to continue looking at all paths to be sure
Function trumps form
fixing the player friendliness issues i mentioned should make this ok as well

as for graphic nitpicks I guess so.
i'm a bigger fan of two way arrows over the droplet imo
- I just think there could be better thing then the droplet its ok on the map but i'm sure
there is better thing to use as a two way attack(i'm thinking maybe other types of weapon
that might be used. like the net, mace or flail) crossing of swords might be neat too
And yes i'm keeping in mind space it might take up yes, but I guess it is going to confuse the first impression confussing bonus and ways to attack.
When you draw the graphic draw it in it most confining area and it will help you see what
will work best I tried several, I would prefer the red stain, but the drop looks better.
- there is extra space on the top and bottom(white wierdness) you should crop it out as i
think you don't want it there do you? aha, very attentive ... I know it is there, It is because I make first 840x800 authomatically I can fix it, but it takes 5 minutes more
but lets keep focused on gameplay for now good job

true thanks. I almost finished the changes you made me see.

[PepeAtila]

Congrats on the stamp.
it is also your fault
I don't know how to help any further, I'm not really into the technical stuff, but I'll make sure to help wherever I can.
(I don't always have access to internet, so my activity will be low, as it has been the last few weeks already.)

Some graphical remarks:
- Your main gates still not are in the perfect perspective, especially the lower right one
- The new gates in the tribune also need some work, but I trust that you left it for a later update
- "BALEVS" isn't readable, it disappears behind the troop square.

Thank you, I try to fix it, ... well the new gates are just a try

[PepeAtila]

Looking good! One thing I noticed between ring #3 and ring #4. You said earlier (can't remember what page) that the one way attack arrows where showing which way the next ring attacks in. Well I think you have the arrows pointing in the wrong direction? You have then pointing clockwise instead of counter-clockwise. I agree with danyael, space out the names, army numbers and helmets etc. As far as I can see for game play it looks great!

Thank you for your support, the arrows help you to know the ring movement direction in the outer ring ... from Hadrianvs you can attack to Lycia and also to Antoninvs ... in the 3rd ring from Pilvm you can attack to avroram and also to Manica.
Anyway I changed with more angle some of them trying to make it clearer.

About your map I dont understand why Canada has more bonus than Amexica with less countries,

[PepeAtila]

The map looks great.

I think the only confusion for some people will be the movement. Especially within the rings. It may take a tunr or two to get used to.

Overall still a great map.

JJ

PePe your way beyond me i can add nothing but go do it and you know i'll play

i like it, keep it the same or very similar

I am happy to see the support youa re receiving for this map. Way to go! I hope it makes all the way. Good luck!

another suggestion, the center can attack one area, or one place in each ring

Looking great, can;t wait to try it

Thank you for the support ... about the suggestion... I guess it is going to make the map more difficult to understand... when/if I finish this map I have a more complicated to develop idea, but first I want to see how this about maps works, mainly learning what in graphics, programming and rules is allowed to develop.

[PepeAtila]

[bigimg]http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8288/arena145.png[/bigimg]

[isaiah40]

Much better!

[PepeAtila]

Much better!

Thank you very much, I will change the neutral troops while smbdy from CC tell me smthing.

[ghirrindin]

The title of this map "Arena for Gladiators" sounds awkward and wordy. This suggestion may seem fairly obvious, but why don't you rename it to simply "The Colosseum"? Or, if you want it to be a generic arena not representative of the one in Rome city proper, "The Coliseum"?

Just a thought.

[PepeAtila]

The title of this map "Arena for Gladiators" sounds awkward and wordy. This suggestion may seem fairly obvious, but why don't you rename it to simply "The Colosseum"? Or, if you want it to be a generic arena not representative of the one in Rome city proper, "The Coliseum"?

Just a thought.

I will ask if it is possible to change the name, I guess I will try "Coliseum" or "Arena"

[bigimg]http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/9949/arena15num.png[/bigimg]

[captainwalrus]

Why are you using V's instead of U's? Like Titus is Titvs, which makes no sense.

eheheh.. it's make sense cause in old italian languages the U was written V. i'm italian and i never understood why cause in proununced words the U was U, but in the past written text of my country the U was V.. ^_^

Hmmm... I have never really heard that but I will take your word for it. V is usually pronounced like a W in latin though, so that sort of seems to mess things up.

How did you find what to call things, some things make sense, like using emperor's names, but other things don't, like the center ring is just like "night" and "day" and "morning". They all relate, but not to anything else.

[PepeAtila]

Why are you using V's instead of U's? Like Titus is Titvs, which makes no sense.

eheheh.. it's make sense cause in old italian languages the U was written V. i'm italian and i never understood why cause in proununced words the U was U, but in the past written text of my country the U was V.. ^_^

Hmmm... I have never really heard that but I will take your word for it. V is usually pronounced like a W in latin though, so that sort of seems to mess things up.

How did you find what to call things, some things make sense, like using emperor's names, but other things don't, like the center ring is just like "night" and "day" and "morning". They all relate, but not to anything else.

yes, I made like this to differenciate the different rings (like different neiborhood) from outer the names are Emperors, regions, 'tools' of gladiators, and time during a day.

[captainwalrus]

Why are you using V's instead of U's? Like Titus is Titvs, which makes no sense.

eheheh.. it's make sense cause in old italian languages the U was written V. i'm italian and i never understood why cause in proununced words the U was U, but in the past written text of my country the U was V.. ^_^

Hmmm... I have never really heard that but I will take your word for it. V is usually pronounced like a W in latin though, so that sort of seems to mess things up.

How did you find what to call things, some things make sense, like using emperor's names, but other things don't, like the center ring is just like "night" and "day" and "morning". They all relate, but not to anything else.

yes, I made like this to differenciate the different rings (like different neiborhood) from outer the names are Emperors, regions, 'tools' of gladiators, and time during a day.

But why times of day? It doesn't seem to fit.

[MeanestBossEver]

I think it would add to the map if you could tell without consulting the key which direction each ring went in. Perhaps by reshaping the territories (see bad ascii drawing below)
___ ___
\ \
___/___/
/ /
\___\___

[PepeAtila]

But why times of day? It doesn't seem to fit.

Well, it is more because at the beginning I was going to include regions with shodow, wet and sunny on the sand. Also it is a way to remember the circular movement.

I think it would add to the map if you could tell without consulting the key which direction each ring went in. Perhaps by reshaping the territories (see bad ascii drawing below)
___ ___
\ \
___/___/
/ /
\___\___

Yes I think I understand what you mean, I was trying (versions 5 to 8 ) ... I also made more tries and I guess reshipping we will have similar problem to version 8, it looks like different levels of sand.

Thanks both I will keep in mind.

[Teflon Kris]

Gameplay

I like the scheme in general - especially the scutum's protecting players from being the victim of a quick-kill.

A couple of potential problems:

Some helmets are adjacent to scutum's, giving them an advantage to the non-adjacent positions (possible to build on the auto-deploy then take the scutum and only have 2 spots to defend there - as opposed to 3 spots to defend from the non-adjacent positions).

Similarly, some Gladius swords are closer to the helmets than others.

It is not necessary for everything to be equal position-wise, but it would certainly be better if you could equalise the distances a little.

[PepeAtila]

Gameplay

I like the scheme in general - especially the scutum's protecting players from being the victim of a quick-kill.

A couple of potential problems:

Some helmets are adjacent to scutum's, giving them an advantage to the non-adjacent positions (possible to build on the auto-deploy then take the scutum and only have 2 spots to defend there - as opposed to 3 spots to defend from the non-adjacent positions).

Similarly, some Gladius swords are closer to the helmets than others.

It is not necessary for everything to be equal position-wise, but it would certainly be better if you could equalise the distances a little.

Thank you.
I am not sure about what situation is better. Think about these non-adjacent have just ONE troop of difference, if you are going to wait to directly attack the scvtvm you can do it the same if it is adjacent or not. in both cases you just have to defend your backs... I mean your back in outer ring and the best way to defend is also the back in second ring. You never are able to attack both areas (or the previous area to the scutum or the scutum).

About swords(gladivs) similar situation, these helmets closer to the sword has to kill 3 troops while those farther just 2 and 2...

The way the neutral troops are distribuited it is made thinking to 'equalise' the eforts. (I hope)

[Teflon Kris]

Gameplay

I like the scheme in general - especially the scutum's protecting players from being the victim of a quick-kill.

A couple of potential problems:

Some helmets are adjacent to scutum's, giving them an advantage to the non-adjacent positions (possible to build on the auto-deploy then take the scutum and only have 2 spots to defend there - as opposed to 3 spots to defend from the non-adjacent positions).

Similarly, some Gladius swords are closer to the helmets than others.

It is not necessary for everything to be equal position-wise, but it would certainly be better if you could equalise the distances a little.

Thank you.
I am not sure about what situation is better. Think about these non-adjacent have just ONE troop of difference, if you are going to wait to directly attack the scvtvm you can do it the same if it is adjacent or not. in both cases you just have to defend your backs... I mean your back in outer ring and the best way to defend is also the back in second ring. You never are able to attack both areas (or the previous area to the scutum or the scutum).

About swords(gladivs) similar situation, these helmets closer to the sword has to kill 3 troops while those farther just 2 and 2...

The way the neutral troops are distribuited it is made thinking to 'equalise' the efforts. (I hope)

I take your point about the swords - the distribution of neitrals helps a lot - and this is probably less important than the scutums.

In a game with adjacent forts the scutums distance could be key in moving the auto-deploy troops to the scutum to attack the next helmet. However, otherwise you are right - I was incorrectly worried that it would be harder to attack a scutum adjacent to a helmet - however, this wouldn't be the case due to the way you have set the two-ways attacks.

You have thought through the bonuses well - having the scutum bonus linked to the swords is good as it means opponents can prevent it happening by attacking swords (much easier) - otherwise holding a scutum could lead to easily wiping out an opponent's helmet and steam-rollering into a position that would be hard to rein back.

[PepeAtila]

I take your point about the swords - the distribution of neitrals helps a lot - and this is probably less important than the scutums.

In a game with adjacent forts the scutums distance could be key in moving the auto-deploy troops to the scutum to attack the next helmet. However, otherwise you are right - I was incorrectly worried that it would be harder to attack a scutum adjacent to a helmet - however, this wouldn't be the case due to the way you have set the two-ways attacks.

You have thought through the bonuses well - having the scutum bonus linked to the swords is good as it means opponents can prevent it happening by attacking swords (much easier) - otherwise holding a scutum could lead to easily wiping out an opponent's helmet and steam-rollering into a position that would be hard to rein back.

As I understand, if the person behind you wants 'your helmet' so much perhaps it is easier and better to go for one sword but later return to recover it . More or less you are going to be in the same condition 2 bonus for sword and 1+1 for two helmets, but who took the 2 helmets wasted more troops to take it and also if you are able to arrive and hold the scutum you will be stronger... even can be a luck that another player try to get your helmet...
[bigimg]http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/9949/arena15num.png[/bigimg]

[Blitzaholic]

Good work PepeAtila, I like the idea of a larger version of circus maximus for trips and quads play.