Conquer Club

I vote for 7,6,4,3,2, shapes 1,1,1, and something really great for kings, although I wont put a suggestion because it needs be possible in xml, so you could point some more possibilities for knigs bonuses.

I think its pretty close to perfect now.

The continent bonus is perfect as far as I'm concerned. And i could go either way on the shape region bonuses-- either the current picture or the 1 1 1.

The king bonuses is the only nitpick I have. I think it might be better to move the two king bonus down to 2, because like marvaddin said, its a huge bonus for someone that gets the lucky start of holding two tops, which wont happen VERY often, but it will happen much more than someone starts with all of australia or s america in classic.

I tinhk the bonus for the shape groups is definately too small. Each one is liek a small continent, worth at least 2 each, not 1 army for 2 of them, thats 3 borders, 7 countries at the least (triangles + circles), which is worth a lot more than a bonus of 1. No incentive to hold onto that. Also, all 3 is a huge continent, 5 borders, 11 countries thats a pretty large continent, worth around 5 or 6. I tinhk 2 each country is the best way to handle thseo small outposts

Marvaddin wrote:I vote for 7,6,4,3,2, shapes 1,1,1, and something really great for kings, although I wont put a suggestion because it needs be possible in xml, so you could point some more possibilities for knigs bonuses.

any order of bonuses is possible for the kings, just a matter of fiddling with the numbers, please tell us your suggestion

WidowMakers wrote:No one is voting. Vote People! Vote!

i don't understand what i can vote for...

You are voting fo rthe bonus configurations of the picture on the bottom of page 8. They are also explained in the first post under update 5.

WidowMakers wrote:You are voting fo rthe bonus configurations of the picture on the bottom of page 8. They are also explained in the first post under update 5.

ok vote made

Well I guess only 23 people are interested in this map. What happens now Andy?

WidowMakers wrote:Well I guess only 23 people are interested in this map. What happens now Andy?

25
but eum much people doesn't look at the foundry

WM, lets see the latest images of the map.


--Andy

Based on the current poll numbers the current pic is the same one listed on the bottom of page 8. But here is it again.

http://jmhooton.iweb.bsu.edu/joel/KOTM/KOTM8.S.jpg
http://jmhooton.iweb.bsu.edu/joel/KOTM/ ... rkings.xml

i'm really liking this map, it is different but also does not lose the elements that make risk fun ( unlike circus maximus) I want to play it so bad...

Forge it I say! Forge the crap out of it!

I like the idea, and I think it's getting close to playability. Two things. First, the looks are marred a little bit by the texture and quite a lot by having some countries in the bigger mountain exist on two levels. It just destroys the look. If you have to increase the value of the bigger mountains to compensate for making them include more territories, do it, but the second thing is that I think the values for the helipads and for having two kings are a bit high, so you may want to actually lower the general values of everything else.

i would say a 3 bonus for having 2 shape groups and a 6 bonus for having 3 shape groups


P.S
i think thise one and mine are the greatest maps in the foundry at this time

I disagree with almost everything Nikolai wrote.

Perhaps a different texture on the hills themselves would be better.

I like having some countries on two levels, and I think breaking up the territories that are on two levels would have an adverse effect on the playability. I am not a fan of sacrificing playability for asthetics.

As for the King values, it's King of the Hill, the Kings are supposed to be the most important.

I second ericisshort. Heat the fires!

Nikolai wrote:I like the idea, and I think it's getting close to playability. Two things. First, the looks are marred a little bit by the texture and quite a lot by having some countries in the bigger mountain exist on two levels. It just destroys the look. If you have to increase the value of the bigger mountains to compensate for making them include more territories, do it, but the second thing is that I think the values for the helipads and for having two kings are a bit high, so you may want to actually lower the general values of everything else.

First of all I took out territories because people were complaining there were too many. I am NOT putting them back. This current map is much more playable and bonuses are much more even.

As for the Bonuses for the 2 Kings and 2 shape groups, how can 1 bonus for each be TOO HIGH! I can't make it 1/2 an army.

Wisse wrote:i would say a 3 bonus for having 2 shape groups and a 6 bonus for having 3 shape groups

These bonuses were lowered because earlier people were complainign that the Shape groups around the helipads were to strong and would overpower the hills in the game. That is why they are less. It makes the players need to use the mountains to gain bonus. While at the same time they (Helipds) are required to attack the Kings.

Based on the poll and the past requests, the map is where the majority of the people want it. I can mess with the texture but I already did and someone complained so I made this one. Not everyone is goign to be happy.


The multi level territories allows for better movement (Makes the hills more playable whuch was a complaint earlier) and keep sthe boarders and Hill territory numbers consistent with bonus values.

WidowMakers wrote:

Nikolai wrote:I like the idea, and I think it's getting close to playability. Two things. First, the looks are marred a little bit by the texture and quite a lot by having some countries in the bigger mountain exist on two levels. It just destroys the look. If you have to increase the value of the bigger mountains to compensate for making them include more territories, do it, but the second thing is that I think the values for the helipads and for having two kings are a bit high, so you may want to actually lower the general values of everything else.

First of all I took out territories because people were complaining there were too many. I am NOT putting them back. This current map is much more playable and bonuses are much more even.

As for the Bonuses for the 2 Kings and 2 shape groups, how can 1 bonus for each be TOO HIGH! I can't make it 1/2 an army.

Wisse wrote:i would say a 3 bonus for having 2 shape groups and a 6 bonus for having 3 shape groups

These bonuses were lowered because earlier people were complainign that the Shape groups around the helipads were to strong and would overpower the hills in the game. That is why they are less. It makes the players need to use the mountains to gain bonus. While at the same time they (Helipds) are required to attack the Kings.

Based on the poll and the past requests, the map is where the majority of the people want it. I can mess with the texture but I already did and someone complained so I made this one. Not everyone is goign to be happy.


The multi level territories allows for better movement (Makes the hills more playable whuch was a complaint earlier) and keep sthe boarders and Hill territory numbers consistent with bonus values.

ok thats a good reason and much more play fun

The map is good the way it is. No more changing it. We just want to start play it. How much long before it is playable?

its perfect the ways it is

i totally agree. if possible, can you get it out next week?

It's looking pretty good.

I've got to point out one thing, can R3 and R1 attack each other? They barely touch corners, but I'm not entirely sure you meant for them to attack each other. Look into making that clearer.


--Andy

They do not touch. I could make the boarder lines thinner but then there would be different line thicknesses. Plus if I clear that up then people might think the R4 and R2 touch. What does everyone think?

It may be too late into the graphics stage but something seems off about the purple hill. It looks like all the other ones are pointing up, and it seems like it's pointing slightly toward us or something.

It may just be how I'm seeing it, but it seems to throw off the otherwise great perspective so I figured I should mention it.

DublinDoogey wrote:It may be too late into the graphics stage but something seems off about the purple hill. It looks like all the other ones are pointing up, and it seems like it's pointing slightly toward us or something.

It may just be how I'm seeing it, but it seems to throw off the otherwise great perspective so I figured I should mention it.

The entire map was built in MAYA, a 3D modeling program. Each mountain is built with the peak directly over the center of the bottom of the mountain. The camera was positioned to give the perspective we all see here. Because the purple mountain is closer to the camera the perspective is skewed. The green and blue hills are also not perfectly vertical because of the true 3d perspective of MAYA.