Eight Thoughts [Quenched]

boberz · Post by **boberz** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:37 am

sorry must have read that might be ok what about increasing size of shadows

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:52 pm

WidowMakers wrote:Andy what is your take on this?

Last I heard Andy doesn't like the map very much. Granted my drawing is butt ugly so I hope that was a huge part of it. The only real game play concern I came across was that only 4 people at a time could ever hold a +4 bonus so in a 6 player game 2 people will always be left out. I've never played a classic map where everyone has gotten a bonus so I'm not sure that is a huge deal. If anything this will just help create tension and use of the center to keep anyone from getting a bonus for awhile (as well as some real attempts at the +3 bonuses).

I'm going to work on getting a 6 person group to play today or tomorrow and see if the map is playable, my 3 person group had a good time.

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:07 pm

I personally like the map. I liked it from the start. But I don't think Andy does. I think he prefers the Chinese Checkers map to this. But anyway, We'll see how it goes. I hope that Andy likes it more now.

Gozar · Post by **Gozar** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:04 pm

I would play on this one.

conquer122 · Post by **conquer122** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:08 pm

I think this map is GREAT, I like EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS MAP!! Except....the 3 army bonus sytem, I would bring it down to 1 army, the look is great, the map itself is phenominal, i was excited when I saw it, but just change the three army bonus sytem to a 1 army bonus, and this would be a great addition to the ConquerClub maps.

OR, have it be a match of 4 instead of three, and make the match of 4 be worth 2 armies, that would work good too.

I hope to see this map very soon on the site!

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:37 pm

OK here are the things I fixed.
1) I am going to lighten up the background when I reduce the contrast and texture of the territories _CHECK
2) The territory divider will be eliminated _CHECK
3) Sword is going UP!! _CHECK
4) I will reduce the rainbow on the title "8" and diamond_CHECK

conquer122 wrote:I think this map is GREAT, I like EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS MAP!! Except....the 3 army bonus sytem, I would bring it down to 1 army, the look is great, the map itself is phenominal, i was excited when I saw it, but just change the three army bonus sytem to a 1 army bonus, and this would be a great addition to the ConquerClub maps.

OR, have it be a match of 4 instead of three, and make the match of 4 be worth 2 armies, that would work good too.

I hope to see this map very soon on the site!

I agree that the +3 might need some work. Coleman is going to try this map out this weekend with 6 people to see about playability.

I was also thinking about making the allies +1 or +2 and occupying the enemies -1.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:40 pm

impassable border <- this is right

also could you add red glowing eyes to the skull??

and the text at the bottom is still a bit hard to read.

hecter · Post by **hecter** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:46 pm

I don't like the glowing red eyes idea. But I do think that the +3 should be changed to a +2, and the shine on the background should be toned down a bit.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:22 pm

Well I got two 6 player games done. (I won the first one and came in second on the next.)

The first game we played the rules that the map already has. (Standard/Sequential/Unlimited/No Cards) I started with a +3 bonus right away and was able to move early enough to get my extra units. It didn't take long to rule compassion and I used the center to keep other people from getting their bonuses. By that time my +3 was broken but it didn't matter and the early difference was enough to dominate the game.

So the +3 is apparently bad (nobody denied that my earning it decided almost the entire game) and we tried the +2 idea and the -1 for owning either enemy center. This time I started with a -1 and no bonus, Matt (one of my friends that was playing) had a +2 but he didn't win, he had really bad rolls. I managed to get Death on my side and Mike took the law center away from me so my -1 went away. I thought the +2/-1 was a very interesting dynamic. More play went through the center, people would try to get the place that would give them -1 last when taking an adjacent continent (which made holding +2s a lot easier then holding +3s was).

Regardless it was really fun, by the time I got my Death +4 Matty from across the hall (Not to be confused with Matt or my other friend Matty, 3 Matts I know, crazy) had +7 for holding inspiration and wealth and started using the center to harass me and continued to move around the board in a clockwise direction. We played another game after with 4 people using the +2/-1 rules (Mike won that one) and I think they are a lot better for the map.

Then we played Axis&Allies... :roll:

But I think 3 on paper plays was good.

Oh, one other thing. It seems if someone manages to get a +4 or two the game is instantly theirs. When they have 2 they are almost certainly getting +11 (4 for 12+ territories and +8 for the two slices and -1 for enemy center so +11). Although we were playing no cards... I don't know if a +3 for each slice is the way to go or not, it isn't easy getting them, I don't think Matty had two until after 10 turns or so because of all the fighting for the edges. Everyone just let me have Death, I have no idea why, but I wasted most of my troops trying to take the center from Matty which wasn't happening, 7 per turn can't beat 11 per turn in no cards very easily, especially when the 11 keeps taking your bonus away so you're only getting 3.

Another downfall to the play testing was that we are all very aggressive players. I don't know what someone who tries to build up would do on this map and how that would effect things.

It would be really nice if we had 6 generals play this together, but that would be hard to set up, lol.

The XML is done except for centering.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:40 pm

DiM wrote:impassable border <- this is right
and the text at the bottom is still a bit hard to read.

Fixed Impassable and made the bottom text easier to read.

Coleman wrote: I thought the +2/-1 was a very interesting dynamic. More play went through the center, people would try to get the place that would give them -1 last when taking an adjacent continent (which made holding +2s a lot easier then holding +3s was).
We played another game after with 4 people using the +2/-1 rules (Mike won that one) and I think they are a lot better for the map.

The background is toned down and the bonus is now +2 for 3 allied symbol territories and -1 for 2 enemy territories.

Here are the rough army placements. Just to let you get a feel for the look. We both know that the numbers need to be centered better. SO don't tell us please.

here is the XML
http://jmhooton.iweb.bsu.edu/joel/8thou ... hts_01.xml

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:17 pm

WidowMakers wrote:
DiM wrote:impassable border <- this is right
and the text at the bottom is still a bit hard to read.

Fixed Impassable and made the bottom text easier to read.

still not fixed. impassable BORDER you have boArder :wink:

s.xkitten · Post by **s.xkitten** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:51 pm

so i went through the pages but didn't find this question...forgive me if it has been asked already

the countries that blend...which color do they count for?

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:01 pm

both
for example invention belongs to both inspiration and wealth.

just like the space stations in space map.

s.xkitten · Post by **s.xkitten** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:08 pm

ah...so two people can't hold a bonus next to each other then?

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:16 pm

exactly

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:21 am

DiM wrote:impassable border <- this is right
and the text at the bottom is still a bit hard to read.

I really fixed it now!

here is the XML
http://jmhooton.iweb.bsu.edu/joel/8thou ... hts_02.xml

boberz · Post by **boberz** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:42 am

bootiful

Pro_Snowboarder · Post by **Pro_Snowboarder** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:33 am

are there only 3 allied symbols, and 2 ennamy symbols? and if there are more, how do we know what they are?

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:46 am

Pro_Snowboarder wrote:are there only 3 allied symbols, and 2 ennamy symbols? and if there are more, how do we know what they are?

Wow, I think no matter what we do for that key people are going to be confused... Allied symbols are symbols connected by lines on the star. Law is just the example for the key. Enemy symbols are symbols that neighbor eachother.

spiesr · Post by **spiesr** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:53 am

Kind of hard to read yellow armies in yellow continent...

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:48 am

It looks as if the Small Map's army shadows may be a touch to small. I'd suggest enhancing their size.

--Andy

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:05 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:It looks as if the Small Map's army shadows may be a touch to small. I'd suggest enhancing their size.
--Andy

I resized the armies for the small map

The large maps are the same.

Pro_Snowboarder · Post by **Pro_Snowboarder** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:21 pm

Coleman wrote:
Pro_Snowboarder wrote:are there only 3 allied symbols, and 2 ennamy symbols? and if there are more, how do we know what they are?

Wow, I think no matter what we do for that key people are going to be confused... Allied symbols are symbols connected by lines on the star. Law is just the example for the key. Enemy symbols are symbols that neighbor eachother.

yea, i kinda figured out the allied part of the symbole, but the enemy part compleatly confused me. I thought it was every other. hm..... under the key you could say enamys are neighboring. that might work

Pro_Snowboarder · Post by **Pro_Snowboarder** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:24 pm

and i dont know if this has been asked/answered, but are the contenents made up of the 4 colors that are solid? Or are the also consisting of the mixed colored territories, making 6 territorys for each?

Gozar · Post by **Gozar** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:26 pm

Yeah you have to control the mixed territories as well. Neighbouring "continents" can't be held by different players.

Gozar

Eight Thoughts [Quenched]

nicemap