Clandemonium [GP,GX,XML,BETA]

[Mr_Adams]

crap, now I've fallen behind. this will be a bit to catch up on. btw, nice birdy blitz. Polly want a cracker?

[Blitzaholic]

crap, now I've fallen behind. this will be a bit to catch up on. btw, nice birdy blitz. Polly want a cracker?

lol, thx, if the cracker is free, sure.





griff, for example if this map was played on quads, even though there is 10 starting points, wouldn't only 8 be used? The other 2 starting points would be neutrals?

[natty dread]

griff, for example if this map was played on quads, even though there is 10 starting points, wouldn't only 8 be used? The other 2 starting points would be neutrals?

That is correct. Whatever the amount of starting positions, they are always distributed equally. eg. if you have 10 positions: 8 players get 1 each and 2 are neutral. In a 5 players game everyone gets 2. In a 4 players game each gets 2 and 2 are left neutral.

[grifftron]

Ya, sorry i was talking about if we went with the new idea that IH threw out there, if we went with that kind of idea then 2 players could possibly be thrown in 2 different mini war zones, and as we would have 5 mini war zones with 2 drop points each, the other 6 would get thrown in the other 3 mini war zones to fight it out, this would give the 2 that were thrown in the other 2 war zones a big advantage even if the drop zones that were not taken were neutrals, right? ...

but if we stick with the layout we have now i don't think players will get such a big advantage... what does everyone think? We need to make a decision on how we want the actual layout of this map to be so we don't keep switching back and forth.

-griff

[natty dread]

That is if you're going to make 5 areas with 2 starting points each... then yes, it is impossible to make sure that no player starts alone in an area.

So making these kind of "war zones" is not a good idea, but 10 starting points is still good IMO... If Lack ever agrees to make 10 player games possible then you'll be all set for that...

Just make 10 starting points, but don't isolate them into groups of 2.

[Blitzaholic]

That is if you're going to make 5 areas with 2 starting points each... then yes, it is impossible to make sure that no player starts alone in an area.

So making these kind of "war zones" is not a good idea, but 10 starting points is still good IMO... If Lack ever agrees to make 10 player games possible then you'll be all set for that...

Just make 10 starting points, but don't isolate them into groups of 2.

agreed with natty here griff. I did like the warzone idea, but, if it cause unbalanced map, then no, we do not want unfair advantage. so stick with the 10 starting points and no warzone.


If and when Lack ever makes 5 vs 5, and rumors are he may, we will be ahead of the time.


I would suggest adding more territories and having this closer to 150 lands total, again snow, swamps, grass, wastelands, jungle, mud, desert, forest, etc. Take your time though, no rush, as we want this moved to graphics.

[Blitzaholic]

feel free to use the name of the brethren of the Fat Mermaid on your map, we would prefer something a little closer to the coast,

thanks

GallantPellham

ok










any updates griff?

[grifftron]

actually working on the map right now, but because I am redoing new boarders to fit more in, plus redoing the graphics on the map itself it might take a bit to get it out...i will try my best to get it out soon but real life is really busy right now so hopefully I can get some downtime. I am going to work on it some tonight. Thank you all for your patients...

-griff

[Blitzaholic]

actually working on the map right now, but because I am redoing new boarders to fit more in, plus redoing the graphics on the map itself it might take a bit to get it out...i will try my best to get it out soon but real life is really busy right now so hopefully I can get some downtime. I am going to work on it some tonight. Thank you all for your patients...

-griff

take your time matey

[grifftron]

[bigimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4331749480_8b43359c4a_o.jpg[/bigimg]

Blitz and I have decided to go 15 territories for each clan, and keep castles and portals at 6 neutral as for now. After a lot of thought and complications on unfair game play we decided not to go with the mini war zone idea, but we are going to go with 5 different kinds of landscapes on the map to make a "clan world" like was suggested. This map is not near being finished as i have been packed full in REAL LIFE. but i will continue working on it and the next update will most likely be a finished draft of this map unless changes need done. Let us know your thoughts, i hope the 3 clan territories i have done plus the NM land/pinnacle gives you a good idea of the gameplay we are going for now, all other clans will be 15, there will be 7 more i need to complete for boarders. 2 per landscape, we will have mtns, wasteland, forest, maybe a desert and some kinda water/lake kinda land. this will probably change as more ideas come in and if we move into graphics after we get gameplay sorted out first.

-griff

[yeti_c]

Just gotta say - the theme of this map is so totally "Meh".

C.

[grifftron]

Just gotta say - the theme of this map is so totally "Meh".

C.

Yeah, trying to make it more appealing for those not in Clans. What do you think about the game play?

[denominator]

Just gotta say - the theme of this map is so totally "Meh".

C.

Yeah, trying to make it more appealing for those not in Clans. What do you think about the game play?

I think it's going to play like another Feudal War, AoR, Pelo War, etc. There are those who are good at those types of games and there are those who will avoid it for that reason alone.

It's another map along those lines, so the gameplay certainly isn't the hook here. Your big hook is the clans, and following the thread, there seems to be as much dissent against making a clan-based map as there is approval for it. If you could find some new hook in the gameplay, then I think you'd convert all of the people that don't want to see a clan based map.

As it stands now, this looks like a Feudal ripoff with elitist territory names.

[Mr_Adams]

as I've mentioned previously, the one major difference here is that there is no territory bombardment. this will massively alter the gameplay from feudal, because you can't simply sit in your little cubby hole and build (theoretically) infinitely.

[waseemalim]

a balanced map does not have to be symmetrical. This dogmatic pursuit of balance by symmetry only shows a lack of ability to consider new ideas (or criticisms) -- this is looking awfully similar to 8 thoughts with a feudal twist (and mind you 8 thoughts has a very nice theme). Waterloo is a balanced map in my opinion, and just look at the fantastic gameplay on that.

If you guys think that you have put a lot of work on this map and couldn't afford to change then think again. If you want to see lot of work, take a look at trafalgar -- and it didn't even make to final forge.

[waseemalim]

as I've mentioned previously, the one major difference here is that there is no territory bombardment. this will massively alter the gameplay from feudal, because you can't simply sit in your little cubby hole and build (theoretically) infinitely.

just because its different doesn't make it better. It's a flawed concept to seek difference for the sake of difference.

[Chariot of Fire]

Thing is Wase, Waterloo is not a map where the players each start on a home base and therefore it cannot be compared.

I'm in a Jamaica game right now and already I can tell you that Holland is the worst starting position, closely followed by France (Holland is nowhere near a sea route, and France has 6 neuts facing it on the drop - more than any other starting ship. Why the imbalance?). And easily the best starting point is Calico Jack. To me, in a game where all things should start equal, this is a gross misjudgment and a design flaw. Same can be said of Clandemonium if it becomes apparent that one or two starting points have the edge, and for this reason there has to be symmetry for a level playing field.

The way around this is to create a more dynamic gameplay. Reward territory grabs, with +1 for every two terrs owned. And have depreciating terrs, such as the portals and No Man's Land (portals revert to a neut 4, and NML terrs lose 1 each round). This would prevent stacking on a portal, effectively blocking any move by an oppo. If a portal reverted to a neut 4 it would make a player either have to go through two to get out the other side, or hold back adjacent to the portal, giving a window of opportunity to another player to come thru that portal and bypass his stack. To me this has all the good merits of such games as Dustbowl, Feudal and Oasis (it would combine three of their features) and yet would be totally unique.

Dynamic gameplay is the key (or it's just going to become another stacker or stalemate map) yet it's only fair for each of the starting points to hold the same potential and therefore there must be a balance.

[waseemalim]

Thing is Wase, Waterloo is not a map where the players each start on a home base and therefore it cannot be compared.

I'm in a Jamaica game right now and already I can tell you that Holland is the worst starting position, closely followed by France (Holland is nowhere near a sea route, and France has 6 neuts facing it on the drop - more than any other starting ship. Why the imbalance?). And easily the best starting point is Calico Jack. To me, in a game where all things should start equal, this is a gross misjudgment and a design flaw. Same can be said of Clandemonium if it becomes apparent that one or two starting points have the edge, and for this reason there has to be symmetry for a level playing field.

The way around this is to create a more dynamic gameplay. Reward territory grabs, with +1 for every two terrs owned. And have depreciating terrs, such as the portals and No Man's Land (portals revert to a neut 4, and NML terrs lose 1 each round). This would prevent stacking on a portal, effectively blocking any move by an oppo. If a portal reverted to a neut 4 it would make a player either have to go through two to get out the other side, or hold back adjacent to the portal, giving a window of opportunity to another player to come thru that portal and bypass his stack. To me this has all the good merits of such games as Dustbowl, Feudal and Oasis (it would combine three of their features) and yet would be totally unique.

Dynamic gameplay is the key (or it's just going to become another stacker or stalemate map) yet it's only fair for each of the starting points to hold the same potential and therefore there must be a balance.

may be the starting point concept should be thrown down the drain. Or have some sort of mix with one fixed starting point along with multiple other terrs.

[Chariot of Fire]

may be the starting point concept should be thrown down the drain. Or have some sort of mix with one fixed starting point along with multiple other terrs.

I like that idea already. It would be Feudal With Spies

It certainly would create interesting gameplay, balancing defence with attack each time. Great idea mate. With valid contributions like this from seasoned players I think you might have an excellent map on the drawing board.

Shame we weren't around when Jamaica was being drafted.

[yeti_c]

Just gotta say - the theme of this map is so totally "Meh".

C.

Yeah, trying to make it more appealing for those not in Clans. What do you think about the game play?

The problem is - I have no feeling towards wanting to dissect the gameplay...

At a glance it looks like Fuedal war with an objective...

Should probably play OK if you stick to the smaller bonus route rather than the AOR multiplying bonuses.

C.

[Blitzaholic]

I think what we need is this moved to graphics workshop, the game play is pretty well laid down, we can still tweak it some, but, I think in order for this to pass, we need to invest more time into the graphics, we need more graphic solutions. I think you are on to this Griff by making some can starting points snow, others mountains, desert, swamps, wastelands, mud themes, etc .


Maybe you could create a coats of arms for every clan?

We also could create resources Griff for every clan homeland area? Kind of like age of merchants. I mean you could keep all that you have the same but have a a resource pair within each clan area, so for example every 2 lands owned is still +1 troop, but, also, You could have 2 small horses drawn on 2 lands in Thota somewhere, obtaining those 2 resources pair lands would increase the value of Thota lands, so maybe an extra +1 for all resources pairs as well.


I think we work more on the graphics and take our time, it is looking 100x better than when we first started Griff, great job in all your efforts. I know you working hard.

[natty dread]

I think what we need is this moved to graphics workshop, the game play is pretty well laid down

No no no no no. The gameplay is not even close yet... sorry to say this, but it's true.

You need to consider all the aspects of gameplay. This is what the gameplay shop is for. Bonus values, neutral values, game dynamics, all must be perfected.

The latest version doesn't even have all the territories drawn, so how can you possibly think gameplay is "well laid down"?

My advice: stop worrying about the graphics and coming up with more fancy graphical solutions. There will be time enough for that. Concentrate on the gameplay. First you need to finish all the territories on that latest version of yours, then start dissecting the gameplay bit by bit until all concerns of gameplay imbalances are addressed. Then you can start worrying about the graphics.

As for the gameplay, the idea of mixed starting points/random drop (like the one in third crusade) sounds like it would work for the map. Third crusade also has bonus areas that are very different, yet it works even with the starting points, because the gameplay is so well thought out and balanced. On the other hand, consider this: if your gameplay doesn't work, then no amount of fancy graphics is going to save the map.

[Chariot of Fire]

I think what we need is this moved to graphics workshop, the game play is pretty well laid down

No no no no no. The gameplay is not even close yet... sorry to say this, but it's true.

You need to consider all the aspects of gameplay. This is what the gameplay shop is for. Bonus values, neutral values, game dynamics, all must be perfected.

The latest version doesn't even have all the territories drawn, so how can you possibly think gameplay is "well laid down"?

My advice: stop worrying about the graphics and coming up with more fancy graphical solutions. There will be time enough for that. Concentrate on the gameplay. First you need to finish all the territories on that latest version of yours, then start dissecting the gameplay bit by bit until all concerns of gameplay imbalances are addressed. Then you can start worrying about the graphics.

As for the gameplay, the idea of mixed starting points/random drop (like the one in third crusade) sounds like it would work for the map. Third crusade also has bonus areas that are very different, yet it works even with the starting points, because the gameplay is so well thought out and balanced. On the other hand, consider this: if your gameplay doesn't work, then no amount of fancy graphics is going to save the map.

There's no point doing the bodywork on a car that don't run.

[Blitzaholic]

I think what we need is this moved to graphics workshop, the game play is pretty well laid down

No no no no no. The gameplay is not even close yet... sorry to say this, but it's true.

You need to consider all the aspects of gameplay. This is what the gameplay shop is for. Bonus values, neutral values, game dynamics, all must be perfected.

The latest version doesn't even have all the territories drawn, so how can you possibly think gameplay is "well laid down"?

My advice: stop worrying about the graphics and coming up with more fancy graphical solutions. There will be time enough for that. Concentrate on the gameplay. First you need to finish all the territories on that latest version of yours, then start dissecting the gameplay bit by bit until all concerns of gameplay imbalances are addressed. Then you can start worrying about the graphics.

As for the gameplay, the idea of mixed starting points/random drop (like the one in third crusade) sounds like it would work for the map. Third crusade also has bonus areas that are very different, yet it works even with the starting points, because the gameplay is so well thought out and balanced. On the other hand, consider this: if your gameplay doesn't work, then no amount of fancy graphics is going to save the map.

ok, well I did say: we can still tweak it some, but, I think in order for this to pass, we need to invest more time into the graphics, we need more graphic solutions. I think you are on to this Griff by making some can starting points snow, others mountains, desert, swamps, wastelands, mud themes, etc .


Maybe you could create a coats of arms for every clan?

We also could create resources Griff for every clan homeland area? Kind of like age of merchants. I mean you could keep all that you have the same but have a a resource pair within each clan area, so for example every 2 lands owned is still +1 troop, but, also, You could have 2 small horses drawn on 2 lands in Thota somewhere, obtaining those 2 resources pair lands would increase the value of Thota lands, so maybe an extra +1 for all resources pairs as well.


What is your thoughts on my other game play ideas here natty?

[natty dread]

I did say: we can still tweak it some, but, I think in order for this to pass, we need to invest more time into the graphics

And I did say: if your gameplay doesn't work, then no amount of fancy graphics is going to save the map. You're going to need more than a little tweaking here.

Really, I'm trying to help you here. Stop worrying about the graphics for now. The graphics are fine.

In order for this to pass, you will need balanced and working gameplay. This is more than just deciding how many territories, how much bonus values, etc. It is about balancing every aspect of the map so that the map will not get decided by the drop.

But first you need to finish those territories on the latest map.

We also could create resources Griff for every clan homeland area? Kind of like age of merchants. I mean you could keep all that you have the same but have a a resource pair within each clan area, so for example every 2 lands owned is still +1 troop, but, also, You could have 2 small horses drawn on 2 lands in Thota somewhere, obtaining those 2 resources pair lands would increase the value of Thota lands, so maybe an extra +1 for all resources pairs as well.

Resource pairs... hmm. Seems a bit gimmicky to me. I mean, if you already have a bonus for every 2 lands owned, then the resource pairs would just seem out of place. If you have 15 territories per country, that gives you a +7 bonus, so the +1 from the resource pairs won't make a huge difference. And on the other hand if you make the bonus larger, they will bring imbalance: a lot of gain with very little work to do. Easy to defend as well.

In my opinion, some kind of bonus for the portals could work. This would make them even more valuable, and make the players compete for the portals. But make it so you'd need to hold at least 3 portals for the bonus.