Conquer Club

DiM wrote:what i want to know is if you guys see the top left corner as invisible, where the curl is. because with firefox i see it invisible. with IE i see it white. and i have no idea why

I think only Firefox and IE 7 support transparency. Anyway, I think if you're going to do the curl thing, you should take off the shadow, because it sort of gets cut off by the edge of the map.
Two other things:
-Comic Sans MS or something similar might work better as a "kid" font. It would probably fit better with the drawings and stuff.
-Lessen the shadow on the cookie crumbs The actual cookie looks good, but the crumbs look like they're floating slightly.

pepperonibread wrote:

DiM wrote:what i want to know is if you guys see the top left corner as invisible, where the curl is. because with firefox i see it invisible. with IE i see it white. and i have no idea why

I think only Firefox and IE 7 support transparency. Anyway, I think if you're going to do the curl thing, you should take off the shadow, because it sort of gets cut off by the edge of the map.
Two other things:
-Comic Sans MS or something similar might work better as a "kid" font. It would probably fit better with the drawings and stuff.
-Lessen the shadow on the cookie crumbs The actual cookie looks good, but the crumbs look like they're floating slightly.

1. if i take out the shadow then on ie it will be just a white corner and it will look bad, plus the shadow helps enhance the curl effect.
2. comic sans is not a handwriting font. and i need a handwriting font. if you know any good kid like fonts that are handwritten as well as very legible please tell me and i'll give them a try.
3. cookie crumbs shadow fixed. will post in the next update.

At first Glance...The Blue Background is a little dark... But so far it looks Great

Keredrex wrote:At first Glance...The Blue Background is a little dark... But so far it looks Great

actually it used to be even darker but i reduced it to make the army numbers visible.

in terms of transparency, it looks fine to me.

whitestazn88 wrote:in terms of transparency, it looks fine to me.

glad it does, let's hope it's ok for everybody

The shadow makes the fold look less invisible.
The font is kinda hard to read
The yellow house+shop hurt my eyes
Pass the cookies

Kaplowitz wrote:The shadow makes the fold look less invisible.
The font is kinda hard to read
The yellow house+shop hurt my eyes
Pass the cookies

1. the shadow is there to add realism to the curl. the rest should be invisible. if i take the shadow out that entire corner will be invisible but it won't be realistic. do this, take a piece of paper and curl a corner. put it on your screen. you will see a small shadow there but the rest of the corner will be invisible and you'll see the screen. that's what i want.
2. what do you mean kinda hard to read? it's a handwriting font that obviously is harder than a times new roman font but it seems very legible to me. heck i write far worse than that
3. it's the same yellow as the one CC uses for army numbers. in fact all the colour codes are the exact ones used by CC. sorry but if they are good for CC they're good for this map too.
4. *passes cookie. would pass some hot chocolate but it got spilled all over the blueprint*

pepperonibread wrote:

DiM wrote:what i want to know is if you guys see the top left corner as invisible, where the curl is. because with firefox i see it invisible. with IE i see it white. and i have no idea why

I think only Firefox and IE 7 support transparency. Anyway, I think if you're going to do the curl thing, you should take off the shadow, because it sort of gets cut off by the edge of the map.
Two other things:
-Comic Sans MS or something similar might work better as a "kid" font. It would probably fit better with the drawings and stuff.
-Lessen the shadow on the cookie crumbs The actual cookie looks good, but the crumbs look like they're floating slightly.

jpeg doesn't support transparency anyways so if you think its transparent, your off your meds. better png it if you really want the alpha.

I think you should just make it a table, instead of worrying about trasparency.



Also, a good kids font is Andy.

mibi wrote:jpeg doesn't support transparency anyways so if you think its transparent, your off your meds. better png it if you really want the alpha.

I have no response. That might be sig-worthy if anyone could understand it.

DiM wrote:

oaktown wrote:On that note, bjectives are hard to judge... will this be too easy? Will it be impossible? In this map the objective may be easier to capture and hold than in Magic (in which if you are strong enough to hold that objective the game is close to over anyway), but I am concerned that by having only the two access points to both objective territories (AND the valuable arsonist) you are creating a bottleneck to them. This might be alright since N1 and N2 can be hit by subway stations across the board, but it's worthy of a few lines of discussion.

there's no such thing as a too easy objective. even if it has just 1 neutral it is still the same for all people. and to be honest i'd prefer a lower number of neutrals to tempt people going for it. however a lower number of neutrals doesn't mean it will be easy to win by holding the objective since all other people will try and stop you.

It's true that no objective is too easy if it's the same for everyone, but that's the catch: you have to make sure it is the same for everyone. Also, the objective may be fair, but if it's too easy, it may still severely shorten some games to just a few rounds. Which may or may not be what you want.

fireedud wrote:I think you should just make it a table, instead of worrying about trasparency.



Also, a good kids font is Andy.

andy what? link pls

InkL0sed wrote:

DiM wrote:

oaktown wrote:On that note, bjectives are hard to judge... will this be too easy? Will it be impossible? In this map the objective may be easier to capture and hold than in Magic (in which if you are strong enough to hold that objective the game is close to over anyway), but I am concerned that by having only the two access points to both objective territories (AND the valuable arsonist) you are creating a bottleneck to them. This might be alright since N1 and N2 can be hit by subway stations across the board, but it's worthy of a few lines of discussion.

there's no such thing as a too easy objective. even if it has just 1 neutral it is still the same for all people. and to be honest i'd prefer a lower number of neutrals to tempt people going for it. however a lower number of neutrals doesn't mean it will be easy to win by holding the objective since all other people will try and stop you.

It's true that no objective is too easy if it's the same for everyone, but that's the catch: you have to make sure it is the same for everyone. Also, the objective may be fair, but if it's too easy, it may still severely shorten some games to just a few rounds. Which may or may not be what you want.

as it currently lies on the map the objective is equal for everybody.
as for it making the game too short i kinda doubt it. you have to kill at least 36 neutrals to take the objective and you also need some spare troops to hold it. and considering the bonuses won't be huge that's not something easy to do, at least not in the first rounds.

NEW GAMEPLAY

usually the dice decide the winner of a game. i have seen it many times. unlucky guy starts game deploys 3 attacks 6v3 and it ends 2v3. lucky guy attacks 6v3 and takes it with few or no losses. in some cases 2 rolls in the first round of the game already decide the winner. that's bad. but what can we do as map makers to balance the game and try to remove the random aspect? well a first step was the conquest gameplay where initial deployment doesn't matter and nobody can complain the opponent started with australia from round 1. but even on those maps a few bad rolls still matter a lot.
well what does anybody tell you when you start complaining about dice? "it's just a streak it will even out in the long run"
based on that assumption i have decided it's not worth losing 3-4 games because of bad dice until you reach the good streak of dice. so i have decided to cut the long run short and bring it to the present. how? by increasing the number of armies on the map.

imagine a 5v3 attack. roll once and if you lose 2 you stop the attack. that's crap. what if instead of rolling 5v3 you roll 50v30. will it matter if the first roll you lose 2 armies? heck no because you'll still have 48 left.
so i have decided to multiply all the armies on the map by 20 as well as changing the gameplay a bit by returning to the original idea of owning just a home and a shop in round1.

so here are the details:

each player starts with a home and a shop of his home color.

starting troops:

each home starts with 50 troops
each shop starts with 30 troops
each neutral shop will have 30 neutral armies.
each subway will have 30 neutral armies
manor and mall will have 300 neutral armies each
each arsonist will have 40 neutral armies
each non important terit will have 20 neutral armies


bonuses:
home +10 troops (autodeploy)
shop +10
house + all shops of the same colour +20
a whole coloured block +30


here is V9
updated gameplay
fixed crumbs shadow.

Well, I trust you know what you're talking about with the objective part, DiM, because I know it works well on Magic.

As for the new gameplay, I really like that idea! You are incredibly creative

InkL0sed wrote:Well, I trust you know what you're talking about with the objective part, DiM, because I know it works well on Magic.

As for the new gameplay, I really like that idea! You are incredibly creative

i'm glad you like it. hopefully it will reduce the dice influence on the outcome of a game. in theory it should.

DiM have you been smoking the good smoke this week?

Although this seems like a decent idea, im concerned about the possibility of build games?

I think a much better solution may be to rather than increase everything like you have, you take each starting terr as starting with 50 rather than 3, (with im sure is available with the new XML) and still have everything with small neutrals and bonuses.

Does that make sence? or am i rambling on?

gimil wrote:DiM have you been smoking the good smoke this week?

Although this seems like a decent idea, im concerned about the possibility of build games?

I think a much better solution may be to rather than increase everything like you have, you take each starting terr as starting with 50 rather than 3, (with im sure is available with the new XML) and still have everything with small neutrals and bonuses.

Does that make sence? or am i rambling on?

making a starting terit with 50 and everything else with 3 is bad because in theory one could simply rush another player and kill him in round 1.
so it won't work. increasing everything makes it impossible for early takeouts and basically keeps the gameplay the same. it's just that now you won't have to suffer because you lost that initial 6v3 roll.
i have talked this idea over with yeti_c. and he agrees that the dice influence will be greatly reduced. ofcourse chances are you'll still lose 50vs30 but it will be far less probable than losing 5v3. as for building it won't happen.
why do people build? because they reach a moment where the attacking chances are small. but here with so many armies the attacker is always favoured. it's common knowledge that the attacker gets favoured when big numbers are in the equation simply because the streaks will not matter that much. so, we have all the premises for a very aggressive game and aggressive games don't turn into buildups.

however i'm sure this map will become a favourite for the buildup fans because of the big bonuses. but this has nothing to do with normal games.

DiM wrote:

gimil wrote:DiM have you been smoking the good smoke this week?

Although this seems like a decent idea, im concerned about the possibility of build games?

I think a much better solution may be to rather than increase everything like you have, you take each starting terr as starting with 50 rather than 3, (with im sure is available with the new XML) and still have everything with small neutrals and bonuses.

Does that make sence? or am i rambling on?

making a starting terit with 50 and everything else with 3 is bad because in theory one could simply rush another player and kill him in round 1.
so it won't work. increasing everything makes it impossible for early takeouts and basically keeps the gameplay the same. it's just that now you won't have to suffer because you lost that initial 6v3 roll.
i have talked this idea over with yeti_c. and he agrees that the dice influence will be greatly reduced. ofcourse chances are you'll still lose 50vs30 but it will be far less probable than losing 5v3. as for building it won't happen.
why do people build? because they reach a moment where the attacking chances are small. but here with so many armies the attacker is always favoured. it's common knowledge that the attacker gets favoured when big numbers are in the equation simply because the streaks will not matter that much. so, we have all the premises for a very aggressive game and aggressive games don't turn into buildups.

however i'm sure this map will become a favourite for the buildup fans because of the big bonuses. but this has nothing to do with normal games.

No i mean that with the new xml you can pick where a player starts and how many that terr starts with before your take your 1st turn. So if everyone has 50 before they take their 1st turn.

gimil wrote:

DiM wrote:

gimil wrote:DiM have you been smoking the good smoke this week?

Although this seems like a decent idea, im concerned about the possibility of build games?

I think a much better solution may be to rather than increase everything like you have, you take each starting terr as starting with 50 rather than 3, (with im sure is available with the new XML) and still have everything with small neutrals and bonuses.

Does that make sence? or am i rambling on?

making a starting terit with 50 and everything else with 3 is bad because in theory one could simply rush another player and kill him in round 1.
so it won't work. increasing everything makes it impossible for early takeouts and basically keeps the gameplay the same. it's just that now you won't have to suffer because you lost that initial 6v3 roll.
i have talked this idea over with yeti_c. and he agrees that the dice influence will be greatly reduced. ofcourse chances are you'll still lose 50vs30 but it will be far less probable than losing 5v3. as for building it won't happen.
why do people build? because they reach a moment where the attacking chances are small. but here with so many armies the attacker is always favoured. it's common knowledge that the attacker gets favoured when big numbers are in the equation simply because the streaks will not matter that much. so, we have all the premises for a very aggressive game and aggressive games don't turn into buildups.

however i'm sure this map will become a favourite for the buildup fans because of the big bonuses. but this has nothing to do with normal games.

No i mean that with the new xml you can pick where a player starts and how many that terr starts with before your take your 1st turn. So if everyone has 50 before they take their 1st turn.

yes i know and that's what i'll do. read again what i said in the new gameplay post. each player starts with a home and a shop. the home will have 50 troops and the shop 30.
but if i leave all the other terits to normal values. it will be horrible.
imagine this. player 1 has a home with 50 and a shop with 30. he gets 10 autodeployed to his home and another 10 for the shop to deploy wherever he wants.

let's say it's assassin. he deploys on his home and has 70 there. now all he has to do is kill a few terits that start with 3 (let's say 4 terits) and then he will reach the home of his target where he meets 50 troops. in theory with 70 troops he should be able to kill his target's home. now his target has just the shop with 30 troops and a bonus of 10 while his killer has 2 homes and a shop. total bonus 30. this totally unbalanced the gameplay.

you guys are not understanding each other


gimil: the territories ARE starting with those counts not with 3

DiM: he never said that they should start with 3.

edbeard wrote:you guys are not understanding each other


gimil: the territories ARE starting with those counts not with 3

DiM: he never said that they should start with 3.

so basically it means we agree

now thats thinking outside the proverbial box, well done.

mibi wrote:now thats thinking outside the proverbial box, well done.

Word.

C.