World 3.0 - [Vacation until map size limits are rediscussed]

defcon000 · Post by **defcon000** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:45 pm

i think its a great idea although it strays a little far from the actual board game of risk. But still dont let it stop you. Stick it to the man

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:59 pm

im afraid that this map will never see the light of day. It would have to be larger than world 2.1!!! Now you know as well as anybody that map authors can not exceed normal guidlines let alone exceed the size of world 2.1.

On another note - As a reasonably good player of risk if i were to own alerica i would by no means also want to own Iraq!! First iwould conquer Canada then maybe slip in SA and then with these 2 huge bonus's conquer the world!!!

Also, would you count Saudi Arabia as a enemy of America. Who says what is what? I would say Saudi Arabia nd the USa are friends but religiously they are not.

Honestly you have no idea what you are getting yourself into!!!

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:52 pm

hulmey wrote:im afraid that this map will never see the light of day. It would have to be larger than world 2.1!!! Now you know as well as anybody that map authors can not exceed normal guidlines let alone exceed the size of world 2.1.

On another note - As a reasonably good player of risk if i were to own alerica i would by no means also want to own Iraq!! First iwould conquer Canada then maybe slip in SA and then with these 2 huge bonus's conquer the world!!!

Also, would you count Saudi Arabia as a enemy of America. Who says what is what? I would say Saudi Arabia nd the USa are friends but religiously they are not.

Honestly you have no idea what you are getting yourself into!!!

i do know what i'm getting myself into and it's horendous. the legend is my main concern. explaining all those relationships between countries could lead to quite a headache

pepperonibread · Post by **pepperonibread** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:12 pm

volfan wrote:World 2.1 made it through. Didn't it exceed the guidelines? I think you should keep going on with this. I am 100% for it.

Why do people keep bringing this up? If my CC history is accurate (so correct me if I'm wrong), World 2.0 slipped through the cracks when the mods were more lenient and (no offense to the mods) less concerned about quality; it should have never been quenched. If World 2.0 was proposed today, I'm pretty sure the size guidelines would kill it.

And about the World 3.0 idea. I lean towards the "classic" maps with less new features and XML tricks. However, I see I'm the minority here, so I guess it's worth going for. If you can get pass the guidelines, that is. (I guess I'm against you here, too; I say small maps should be maximum 600 px to accommodate everyone).

P.S.: The second paragraph is really more for DiM than anyone else.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:20 pm

pepperonibread wrote:
volfan wrote:World 2.1 made it through. Didn't it exceed the guidelines? I think you should keep going on with this. I am 100% for it.

Why do people keep bringing this up? If my CC history is accurate (so correct me if I'm wrong), World 2.0 slipped through the cracks when the mods were more lenient and (no offense to the mods) less concerned about quality; it should have never been quenched. If World 2.0 was proposed today, I'm pretty sure the size guidelines would kill it.

And about the World 3.0 idea. I lean towards the "classic" maps with less new features and XML tricks. However, I see I'm the minority here, so I guess it's worth going for. If you can get pass the guidelines, that is. (I guess I'm against you here, too; I say small maps should be maximum 600 px to accommodate everyone).

P.S.: The second paragraph is really more for DiM than anyone else.

world 2.0 indeed slipped when the foundry was more lenient but world 2.1 is quite recent. and no matter how it slipped if the other maps are getting revamped then why isn't world 2.1?

as for the paragraph dedicated to me all i can say is that i want to create a more realistic representation of the world. but if the people want a classic approach that can also be done with no problem. in fact it would probably be a whole lot easier to do a classic approach than to do it the way i want to.

the size issue is indeed a problem. i guess there are only 3 solutions.

1. size regulations remain the same and the map is abandoned.
2. size regulations change and i make the map
3. i make a large high quality map that exceeds the guidlines and a small poor quality map that fits the guidelines (poor graphics but same gameplay)

pepperonibread · Post by **pepperonibread** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:08 pm

DiM wrote:
pepperonibread wrote:
volfan wrote:World 2.1 made it through. Didn't it exceed the guidelines? I think you should keep going on with this. I am 100% for it.

Why do people keep bringing this up? If my CC history is accurate (so correct me if I'm wrong), World 2.0 slipped through the cracks when the mods were more lenient and (no offense to the mods) less concerned about quality; it should have never been quenched. If World 2.0 was proposed today, I'm pretty sure the size guidelines would kill it.

And about the World 3.0 idea. I lean towards the "classic" maps with less new features and XML tricks. However, I see I'm the minority here, so I guess it's worth going for. If you can get pass the guidelines, that is. (I guess I'm against you here, too; I say small maps should be maximum 600 px to accommodate everyone).

P.S.: The second paragraph is really more for DiM than anyone else.

world 2.0 indeed slipped when the foundry was more lenient but world 2.1 is quite recent. and no matter how it slipped if the other maps are getting revamped then why isn't world 2.1?

as for the paragraph dedicated to me all i can say is that i want to create a more realistic representation of the world. but if the people want a classic approach that can also be done with no problem. in fact it would probably be a whole lot easier to do a classic approach than to do it the way i want to.

the size issue is indeed a problem. i guess there are only 3 solutions.

1. size regulations remain the same and the map is abandoned.
2. size regulations change and i make the map
3. i make a large high quality map that exceeds the guidlines and a small poor quality map that fits the guidelines (poor graphics but same gameplay)

Could World 2.1 have even been revamped to fit the guidelines? It may have been just too big (what with some army circles already overlapping in the current map). However, maybe it can now be made to fit Andy and Keyogi's "maximum" dimensions. It's a possibility.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:51 pm

ok then...take it off the site NOW if it slipped through.

lt_oddball · Post by **lt_oddball** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:36 am

I think you should change a bit of the concept:

Divide the world up in more or less same sized economic important regions/provinces. (Germany = up to 3 economic zones: Bavaria, West, Former East.... USA = Oil rich south, Trade rich East coast, Entertainment rich westcoast..or so..).
Once you have conquered a nation that holds these zones, you get a bonus (having political power..you are now president/have a puppet installed).
Again further if you have conquered a block of nations (Soviet, or warschaupact, or EU, or Benelux or Scandinavian Union, or Nato, or Tiger Econmies in Asia..whatever) you get an additional bonus (for even MORE political power).

This means for gameplay of course that small but rich countries (singapore, Bahrein, Monaco = 1 spot) should actually not get a bonus as you would immediately get these bonuses with having only one spot at start.

And regions that have little resources and are thus politically weak have a relatively large size to compensate for this (Mongolia or Sahel in Africa is useless so make it big... but oil rich west coast Nigeria has lots of importance> more small provinces with bonus Nigeria as a country).

Likewise you can carve up the oceans in economical zones (lots of fishing and oil returns means smaller regions and a bonus if you hold an entire exploitation field (whole of North Sea, or Whole of North-Pole , or whole of Mexican Gulf).

defcon000 · Post by **defcon000** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:00 am

though the oceans are a good idea where would this zoom boxes go. or would dimm make a magnifier?

pepperonibread · Post by **pepperonibread** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:20 am

hulmey wrote:ok then...take it off the site NOW if it slipped through.

Why would we take it off now? So many people play it, it can only help the site.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:08 pm

pepperonibread wrote:
hulmey wrote:ok then...take it off the site NOW if it slipped through.

Why would we take it off now? So many people play it, it can only help the site.

because in the map making rules it says any map maker is obigated to do any modifications to his map evfen after it is quenched if problems are found. and in this case the size is a problem. so either force zim to revamp the map and resize it or take it off the site. :roll:

Dmunster · Post by **Dmunster** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:45 pm

DiM wrote:
pepperonibread wrote:
hulmey wrote:ok then...take it off the site NOW if it slipped through.

Why would we take it off now? So many people play it, it can only help the site.

because in the map making rules it says any map maker is obigated to do any modifications to his map evfen after it is quenched if problems are found. and in this case the size is a problem. so either force zim to revamp the map and resize it or take it off the site.

Please dont get rid of 2.1. It's the best map on the site. This idea is defenitly making me hot too.

lalaland · Post by **lalaland** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:04 pm

this sounds like a great map... wouldn't it take EONS to make tho?

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:05 pm

Dmunster wrote:
DiM wrote:
pepperonibread wrote:
hulmey wrote:ok then...take it off the site NOW if it slipped through.

Why would we take it off now? So many people play it, it can only help the site.

because in the map making rules it says any map maker is obigated to do any modifications to his map evfen after it is quenched if problems are found. and in this case the size is a problem. so either force zim to revamp the map and resize it or take it off the site.

Please dont get rid of 2.1. It's the best map on the site. This idea is defenitly making me hot too.

of course i don't want to get rid of it i'm just pointing out that if we need to stick to the rules world 2.1 should be taken off. but i don't want to stick to the rules. i usually hate rules all of them.

sam_levi_11 · Post by **sam_levi_11** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:22 pm

please make this map. this map would simply rule.... i wanna play now.....

however im not sure about that iraq and us sort thing, id say maybe make it an option

Vace Cooper · Post by **Vace Cooper** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:10 pm

have you started working on it at all? can you post a link? im exited to see somthing!

ParadiceCity9 · Post by **ParadiceCity9** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:43 pm

you know what you should do instead...make a map with every map we have so far on it...except global warming and all the other non-real maps.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:00 pm

Vace Cooper wrote:have you started working on it at all? can you post a link? im exited to see somthing!

i'm having a lot of real life things to sort out but hopefully i'll be able to do something soon.

vchef69 · Post by **vchef69** » Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:24 pm

I'm also very eager to try this one !! Get to work Dim !!!!! LOL

Balsiefen · Post by **Balsiefen** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 4:05 am

I think, likr the soviat union idia you should have a huge bonus for rebuilding the brittish empire

insomniacdude · Post by **insomniacdude** » Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:35 pm

If I didn't already have one, I'd buy a premium just to play this map.

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:39 am

Like this was ever meant to be a real map.

Just a poor excuse to stir shit because Dim didn't get his way in previous maps.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 4:52 am

At least DIM has done more for CC than you ever have or ever will....And why dont you take it to the flame wars!!

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:15 am

Spockers wrote:Like this was ever meant to be a real map.

Just a poor excuse to stir shit because Dim didn't get his way in previous maps.

omg spockers you read me like an open book. you are so right you're almighty and knowitall. i bow down to your powers.

//sarcasm off

seriously this map will be done as soon as i have some spare time (notice there are no updates in AoR either because i don't have the time.
i'm also waiting to see what happens to map sizes and see if anything can be improved.

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Mon Aug 27, 2007 5:47 am

Spockers wrote:Like this was ever meant to be a real map.

Just a poor excuse to stir shit because Dim didn't get his way in previous maps.

No this is DiM doing his best to help push the site forward and evolve. You and your level of ignorance cant appreciate this so you waltz in with your negative attitude and complain in excess. Maybe if you were a little more optimistic (heck maybe even a little more intelligent) then you could appreciate DiM's imagination and determination. Like i read in another thread DiM has a goal on CC to create the best map on the site. Although he'll likely never beat classic at least that high standard he is aiming for has push him to break boundaries and challenge himself.

Maybe one day you will produce a map and just slightly understand what hard work and imagination can do to a person

World 3.0 - [Vacation until map size limits are rediscussed]

would you play world 3.0 even if the size would exceed the guidelines?