San Francisco [Quenched]

johloh · Post by **johloh** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:16 pm

That sounds great to me, it makes alcatraz accesible from nearly every continent, so you could have a +1/+2 bonus if you hold
Oakland & alcatraz,
Marin & alcatraz,
Contra Costra & alcatraz,
Downtown & alcatraz,
The Richmond & alcatraz

only problem is that is losing in the poll. it looks like a straight +1 bonus without holding continents is going to win. i can still add the route of course.

johloh · Post by **johloh** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:18 pm

we could redo the poll as....

-alcatraz simple +1
-alcatraz +1, if any other continent is held

If people think that is a better poll...

cheguevarra · Post by **cheguevarra** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:34 pm

Bedplay, you should read the rest of the message log because your ideas have been brought up and debated.

And OAKTOWN, first you say that you shouldn't get a +1 bonus just because of the luck of the draw and now you say you should.. you should make up your mind.

I personally hate the +1 bonus for alcatraz for nothing and only like the idea of not being able to attack out of it, if it works simultaneously with owning another continent.

here are my points

If you have alcatraz at the beginning of the game because of luck of the draw, it adds an unfair advantage.. plain and simple Think of when a team starts by already occupying a continent like New England in the USA map that gives a +2 bonus.. And think of how often that player dominates the game. If it were a decent player, they should win a vast majority of the time. We are now electing to create this advantage for just holding ONE COUNTRY.. I just ask that you really think about it. It's unfair and take the game away from being a game of skill and strategy leans it more towards the luck of the draw.

If you have alcatraz give a +1 if held with Marin or Downtown it gives Alcatraz a more realistic and more important roll strategically, mirroring a place like Hawaii in real life. Think of how Hawaii is strategically in relation to the world and how important it is to the US or another country that may hold it. When it's linked to another country it adds to the strategic advantage of the country who owns it, but on it's own, it's isolated and unable to defend itself against the powerhouses trying to control it. It's the way Islands work in the grand scheme of power.

Not being able to attack out of Alcatraz sounds like an original idea, which it is. But original or not, is it a good one? The one way I can see this work is if Alcatraz has a +1 bonus if held simultaneously with another continent (any continent), This could create a cool "king of the hill" type of gameplay where the person holding alcatraz needs to defend it and stay on top while everyone else is trying to get in.

johloh · Post by **johloh** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:45 pm

also, purple isn't worth +3, it's the same amnt of countries and borders as yellow

purple has three borders. and is surrounded by 3 continents. yellow has 2 borders, and is surrounded by 2 continents. i think that is different enough to allow +1 for purple.

This could create a cool "king of the hill" type of gameplay where the person holding alcatraz needs to defend it and stay on top while everyone else is trying to get in.

that was how i saw it. and how id like alcatraz to be.

im being won back to the side of +1 held with any other continent...

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:24 pm

johloh wrote:as far as the second point...
Im not sure why having two large continents next to eachother is a big problem? I mean I could start redrawing all those borders, but maybe you can explain better why it needs to happen?

This is because this way a great portion of the map will be a great desert, once in practice no one will try to hold those continents. I think that reducing S. San Francisco to a medium continent could make the region more attractive, only this.

About Alcatraz, it being a dead end is the very worst option, I think This way, Marin and Downtown are not connected... and I believe that just 2 connections is too few between SF and the other areas. In fact, maybe you should connect Alameda and Hunters.

By the way, is there a logical reason for Alcatraz bonus? I agree with the idea of connect it to more contis and make it a bonus in the case you hold a conti.

Another minor suggestion: add some land to Emeryville.
Oh, and Bernal and Hunters still seem connected to someone that is not paying attention.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:00 pm

OK my opinion on the bonus and only attacking inwards problem:

Firstly, a +1 bonus without having to hold any other continent is, perhaps, an unfair advantage if you start with alcatraz.

My vote would be for 'with any other continent', as this makes it a valuable territory to hold, especially if it is connected to more continents (which I think is very doable).

As for the attacking thing, it is an original idea and I believe it would add a hell of a lot to the map as a whole. If Alcatraz can be attacked from a fair few directions, and is worth +1 with another cont, then its going to be an interesting feature to hold later in the game whilst not being just a way to attack across the board. it forces players to weigh up the bonus vs the defense needed vs the fact it cannot attack.

Anything which breaks up the standard feel of the game and brings a new feature which people will have to think hard about i good in my book.

johloh · Post by **johloh** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:25 pm

changes
-made potrero hill/hunters point border so clear that nobody could possibly ever mistake the two for being connected ha. we'll see.
-added alameda/hunters point ferry connection
-connected emeryville with alcatraz (one way)
-made emeryville larger

issue with southsan next to downtown
i dont really want to start changing all the borders down there. BUT, I wouldnt be against adding the inner/outer sunset to purple...so youd have two medium sized continents and one large, instead of 2 large and a small. better maybe?

Anything which breaks up the standard feel of the game and brings a new feature which people will have to think hard about i good in my book.

thats what we're trying for...i hope we can pull it off.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:29 pm

I think downtown and marin still need a connection, and I would add outer sunset to richmond.

johloh · Post by **johloh** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:40 pm

I think downtown and marin still need a connection

I could add the sausalito ferry back in...but this time connect it to pacific heights instead of fishermans wharf.

and I would add outer sunset to richmond.

I dont really want to add one sunset without the other....they come as a packaged deal in my head. (i live in the outer sunset)

Marvaddin · Post by **Marvaddin** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:45 pm

About the Emeryville to Alcatraz route, it looks strange, because its too long. If you change to Berkeley, it will be better: shorter, and a more usefull route also to Contra Costa continent.

About moving the sunsets to Richmond, it wont work without some border changes. Just do that and the new Richmond will have 5 border territories out of 6, due to 2 tiny borders: Golden Gate Park to Haight and Outer Sunset to Ingleside. I would really prefer if GG Park disappear, but if you dont want, at least make disappear those 2 tiny borders.

luckiekevin · Post by **luckiekevin** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:55 pm

God the more changes you make, the more cooks step into the kitchen...

johloh · Post by **johloh** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:26 pm

About the Emeryville to Alcatraz route, it looks strange, because its too long. If you change to Berkeley, it will be better: shorter, and a more usefull route also to Contra Costa continent.

i chose emeryville instead of berkeley because i want the connections to not already be border countries. Berkeley would have an advantage because a person will already be loading people into a border country, and can attack alcatraz. I want going after alcatraz to be a specific choice, where you need to take people off of your borders to take it. I think that is what makes it interesting, that you cant take it while defending your continents borders.

I would really prefer if GG Park disappear, but if you dont want, at least make disappear those 2 tiny borders.

i cant get rid of golden gate park. but i do see the usefulness of taking away those two tiny borders...if i do add the sunsets to richmond...

God the more changes you make, the more cooks step into the kitchen...

yup. thats how these work. the farther along you get, the more opinions...but i like all of the opinions. this map wouldnt be even half what it is without other peoples ideas...

and i still dont see the problem with two large continents bordering eachother...i mean if you look at the classic map...asia borders northamerica (large), europe (large/medium), africa (medium) and australia (small). whats the problem?

johloh · Post by **johloh** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:27 pm

if the poll stays this close...does that mean i get to choose?

luckiekevin · Post by **luckiekevin** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:35 pm

I would say yes. Especially since I'm sure a number of voters aren't really taking the time to read the opinions and arguments for and against. Hell, a lot of the people posting aren't reading the comments/arguments of those in response to them or that came before them.

EvilOtto · Post by **EvilOtto** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:35 pm

johloh wrote:I wouldnt be against adding the inner/outer sunset to purple...so youd have two medium sized continents and one large, instead of 2 large and a small. better maybe?

What if you break S.San Francisco into two small continents, so it would be three small and one large? Then there would be 7 continents total. Maybe change the borders a little so Ingleside is protected?

EvilOtto · Post by **EvilOtto** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:30 pm

johloh wrote:
'm trying to come up with a golden gate bridge for you... maybe over the weekend.
sweet. i do like that these maps are collaborative efforts. and im totally into any help anyone wants to offer...if the layered image would help email me and ill get that to you.

I didn't have time to do it quite the way I'd like... my first try was awful, and I didn't add the cables to this one yet, but here's what I had in mind:

If you want to do this, I can put a little more work into it. This is the photo I started from (which is roughly the right angle if you flip it):
http://www.sbe.hw.ac.uk/staff/arthur/frbpc/Aug04/usa/images/San%20Francisco%20Golden%20Gate%20Bridge%202_jpg.jpg
You have to shorten the center span to make it fit the map.

mach · Post by **mach** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:31 pm

Great job with the map, I like the view a lot. It's unique, and isn't too cluttered.

I have a few suggested changes. I apologize for not reading the entire thread, so if these changes have already been discussed, just ignore the rest of this post.

1) The Richmond continent has too few territories for it's bonus. Marin has 6 territories with the same bonus as The Richmond, which only has 4 territories. It has too many borders to lower the bonus to 2, so I suggest breaking "Richmond District" into 2 countries. It might not be geographically correct, but gameplay should come first.

Another idea that just came to me would be to, instead of just having plain connection from The Presidio to Sausalito, make the Golden Gate an actual country that's part of The Richmond.

Edit: EvilOtto, that's a nice bridge. The perspective is actually pretty close.

2) Oakland has too many borders. Maybe make it so only Berkeley or Tilden touches El Cerrito.

johloh · Post by **johloh** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:49 pm

I didn't have time to do it quite the way I'd like... my first try was awful, and I didn't add the cables to this one yet, but here's what I had in mind:

much like my first and only attempt which was TERRIBLE.

I like it though, its got a great start. you should definetly finish it up and get it the way you like it. id love to put it in the map. Im not positive I want it as a territory yet, but i definetly want it in there, even if its only for aesthetics.

What if you break S.San Francisco into two small continents, so it would be three small and one large? Then there would be 7 continents total. Maybe change the borders a little so Ingleside is protected?

Interesting. I need to look at this some more and decide what I think is best for this area...Im not sure I understand the problem, but ill look at it.

so I suggest breaking "Richmond District" into 2 countries.

If i break it into 2, i need to delete another country somewhere else. Id rather not. but we are thinking about adding in the outer/inner sunset to the purple continent.

Oakland has too many borders. Maybe make it so only Berkeley or Tilden touches El Cerrito.

Ive now had people tell me oakland has not enough borders (why we added alameda-->hunterspoint) and not enough borders. I dunno. Im not sure what to do...

luckiekevin · Post by **luckiekevin** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:13 pm

I like the realism of the map and think that adding the Golden Gate bridge is kind of a distraction design wise. The only way to compensate is if other things were put in the map as well like the bay bridge and the prison on top of Alcatraz island. I say leave the map without the GG Bridge graphic

luckiekevin · Post by **luckiekevin** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:17 pm

Can I make one suggestion? I know that people have gone back and forth on the naming of the districts, but I grew up in and now live in San Francisco and have never heard anyone refer to South City, as Bay View. I would suggest changing it to S. San Francisco (it's actual name) or South City (Nickname).

johloh · Post by **johloh** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:29 pm

I like the realism of the map and think that adding the Golden Gate bridge is kind of a distraction design wise. The only way to compensate is if other things were put in the map as well like the bay bridge and the prison on top of Alcatraz island. I say leave the map without the GG Bridge graphic

i kinda agree, im not really sure. I think id have to see it finished to decide...

have never heard anyone refer to South City, as Bay View. I would suggest changing it to S. San Francisco (it's actual name) or South City (Nickname).

bayview is not south city...South San Francisco is further south than this map. this map does not show south san francisco (the city). bayview on my map is where the cow palace is. The confusion might be coming from the fact that ive named the cyan continent 's. san francisco' when it is really southern san francisco, and not the actual city south san francisco. check this map...
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=san+francisco,+ca&layer=&ie=UTF8&z=13&ll=37.690884,-122.418938&spn=0.096038,0.21698&om=1&iwloc=addr
see how south san francisco the city is south of san bruno mountain which is at the very very bottom edge of my map...you can also see mclaren park for orientation...

luckiekevin · Post by **luckiekevin** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:34 pm

bayview is not south city...South San Francisco is further south than this map. this map does not show south san francisco (the city). bayview on my map is where the cow palace is.

Oh that makes sense.. Wouldn't that make it Daly City then.. I've just never heard of Bayview.

johloh · Post by **johloh** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:41 pm

Oh that makes sense.. Wouldn't that make it Daly City then.. I've just never heard of Bayview.

nah, daly city would be south of where ingleside is on my map.

bayview is definetly a district that it is called...you could possibly get away with calling it brisbane (though thats further south) or visitaction valley (and thats west of 101, which is also wrong)...

any other natives want to weigh in? am i correctly naming it bayview?

EvilOtto · Post by **EvilOtto** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:36 pm

johloh wrote:
Oh that makes sense.. Wouldn't that make it Daly City then.. I've just never heard of Bayview.
nah, daly city would be south of where ingleside is on my map.

bayview is definetly a district that it is called...you could possibly get away with calling it brisbane (though thats further south) or visitaction valley (and thats west of 101, which is also wrong)...

any other natives want to weigh in? am i correctly naming it bayview?

There is a Bayview... and it is down in that area... but I think it "technically" stretches up into what you have labeled as "Hunters Point" which "technically" should be a little smaller maybe. But it is close enough in my book.

But what about naming it "Candlestick Park" instead of Bayview? That would be more familiar to more people playing the map, and it is there on your map (another landmark we could make bigger?).

I'm not set on the GG bridge... I suggested earlier making several enlarged landmarks (alcatraz, a couple buildings downtown, grace cathedral? cable car? windmill in GG park? conservatory of flowers? etc.) but maybe it doesn't make sense to only enlarge the bridge... I've got plenty else to work on without drawing bridges!

johloh · Post by **johloh** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:13 pm

I've got plenty else to work on without drawing bridges!

yeah keep up the work on monopoly!

yeah, i think im back to the original reason i decided to not put a bunch of landmarks in...it seems like a ton of work, and im not sure that it would even improve the map or the playability at all...I think it would fit in better with a more cartoon-esque map anyway...