Conquer Club

Ditocoaf wrote:

gimil wrote:I have a major concern with how youve have presented the cube color wise. THe yellow center circles is easily recognisable but the rest ir looks like a cocktail of colored lines.

Would you consider making the outer square oa single color as well. And make all other connections white?

Well, the entire rest of the map is the outer cube, so I think the system he has actually is easier to read. Each layer is a different color (exept for the center cube), helping you to visualize the map once you've figured it out. I would be opposed to making the entire map in only two colors.

I tend to agree. I like the way that vertical cross sections are easily identifiable colours, and all the connections in that plane are the same colour. It makes things easier to see for me (once you have seen the pattern).

If it looks like a cocktail, it's a layered cocktail, and really, I think when done right, they look fantastic!... now, I wonder what this map tastes like, and will it get me drunk?

gimil wrote:I have a major concern with how youve have presented the cube color wise. THe yellow center circles is easily recognisable but the rest ir looks like a cocktail of colored lines.

Would you consider making the outer square oa single color as well. And make all other connections white?

Like the very first (very hard to see) version?

Tieryn wrote:If it looks like a cocktail, it's a layered cocktail, and really, I think when done right, they look fantastic!... now, I wonder what this map tastes like, and will it get me drunk?

Lets drink and play it sometime! A toast to the map!

Tieryn wrote:
You've missed the 4 around the middle band sorry to contradict your nitpick, but go look at a rubix cube 4 on top, 4 on bottom, and 4 around the middle 1 between each pair of corners... where each corner has 3 possible pairs 3d remember!

D'oh!!! You are correct sir. (As you well knew.)

paulk wrote:

Tieryn wrote:If it looks like a cocktail, it's a layered cocktail, and really, I think when done right, they look fantastic!... now, I wonder what this map tastes like, and will it get me drunk?

Lets drink and play it sometime! A toast to the map!

To the map! *knocks back a tequila slammer*

To the map! *knocks back a tequila slammer*

Just checking out this map, it looks like a good play!

Question: a square=+1 and a minicube=+3, so does that mean that each minicube is worth +9 (1 for each side and 3 for the minicube)?

DaGip wrote:Just checking out this map, it looks like a good play!

Question: a square=+1 and a minicube=+3, so does that mean that each minicube is worth +9 (1 for each side and 3 for the minicube)?

Thank you for your positive comment.

To answer your question: Yes, each minicube is worth +9 and in addition to that you will get bonuses for the yellow vertices, so each minicube will be worth between +10 and +17.

BUT - it will be extremly hard to hold a minicube since there are so many bordering territories that can "puncture" a minicube.
If you hold a minicube and loose only one (1) vertex from it, your bonus will drop to only +3 for the three remaining squares (plus bonuses for included yellow vertices of course).

This is also why I don't want to start with neutrals in the middle, since if one player for example starts by getting a corner minicube (worth +10) he will have a natural barrier of neutrals between his minicube and other players, which I believe will lead to more unbalanced play, than:
what I believe is a more fair start up position where each player get 2 (in 2, 3 and 4 player games) or 1 (in 5, 6, 7 and 8 player games) yellow vertex (and left over yellow verices are neutral), and the rest of the (white) verices are randomly divided.

One idea I have been playing with is to start with 5 instead of the usual 3 on each vertex, exept on the neutrals that would start as 3.
Less chance of someone getting wiped out at the first turn if the starting player got a lucky drop.

This map is not for the faint hearted. It is in 3D, and I want it to be more about SKILL than LUCK to play this map.
The colors on the map are there to help guide the eye through the "labyrinth" of connections and I wish that this map could be seen as for what it is, something totally new on the map front, and not a "coctail of colours". But as with everything new, it takes time to be fully accepted.

So all you people that like this map, keep posting comments, and tell your friends too.

I think we'd really like to know specifically what is needed to make this map forgeworthy? I think it's really close to ready, and I'm really anticipating playing it. I'll have the new XML done up very soon, and I think that should give us a chance at the forge?

I hope so at least, this map has been doing a lot of perfectionist tweaking for a while and has a lot of support already. I really think it should be pushed forward.

oaktown wrote:Suggestion: start with the yellow spheres neutral, and start them with like five armies on each. It takes away the possibility of somebody starting with a cube - which could happen in 2-4 player games - and it makes a player really earn that cube bonus.

Have we convinced you on this point with the starting positions?

How about having each yellow vertex and it's opposite corner in the cube as starting positions for each player. Giving each person a balanced start, in terms of attack and defence capability, while still having some randomness.

I think we've outlined the problems with starting neutrals. Starting positions works better, whether it's just one yellow start, or a yellow and opposite corner, making it neigh on impossible to start with a cube.

XML has been completed and is available here:

http://123fresno.com/hypercube/Hypercube.xml

If you're still having trouble seeing the connections, perhaps check

http://www.multiblah.com/cc_tester/

and put in http://123fresno.com/hypercube/Hypercube.xml and http://123fresno.com/hypercube/hypercub ... ment17.jpg for XML and Large Map.

All connections are complete

About the XML. I took a look at it and I was wondering if you could change the name structure so that:

SquareA1wA2wA1xA2x
becomes
SquareAA12wx
and
miniCubeA1wA2wA1xA2xB1wB2wB1xB2x
becomes
miniCubeAB12wx

since it will be much less space requiring in the log, and also more easy read.

Ditocoaf wrote:

gimil wrote:I have a major concern with how youve have presented the cube color wise. THe yellow center circles is easily recognisable but the rest ir looks like a cocktail of colored lines.

Would you consider making the outer square oa single color as well. And make all other connections white?

Well, the entire rest of the map is the outer cube, so I think the system he has actually is easier to read. Each layer is a different color (exept for the center cube), helping you to visualize the map once you've figured it out. I would be opposed to making the entire map in only two colors.

Has there been a version with my request already made? If not Id liek to at least see one before we rule it out. It may only be two colors but you would be surprised what you can do to add more colors.

gimil wrote:

Ditocoaf wrote:

gimil wrote:I have a major concern with how youve have presented the cube color wise. THe yellow center circles is easily recognisable but the rest ir looks like a cocktail of colored lines.

Would you consider making the outer square oa single color as well. And make all other connections white?

Well, the entire rest of the map is the outer cube, so I think the system he has actually is easier to read. Each layer is a different color (exept for the center cube), helping you to visualize the map once you've figured it out. I would be opposed to making the entire map in only two colors.

Has there been a version with my request already made? If not Id liek to at least see one before we rule it out. It may only be two colors but you would be surprised what you can do to add more colors.

If you check the first post, the option 1 out of the list of 10 thumbnails has what you are asking for. To me it is harder to understand than the current map, which has easily coloured planes in the 3rd-d, which is the difficult part.

gimil wrote:Has there been a version with my request already made? If not Id liek to at least see one before we rule it out. It may only be two colors but you would be surprised what you can do to add more colors.

I answered you on pg 15 but I noticed that the bb-codes got messed up so the image wouldn't show anymore. Fixed it now.
All major map versions (1 to 10) of the HyperCUBE are linked from the first post in this thread. (pg1, post1)
For anyone interested there was also a long discussion going on about different versions of the CUBE in in a previous (now locked) post, also linked from the first post in this thread.
This is version1 of the HyperCUBE:

NEW XML:

http://123fresno.com/hypercube/Hypercube2.xml

THe suggestion I had wasnt to have the inner circles and the rest of it white. I ment take the OUTER and it another colors to stand out, red, blue, whatever. and have the connections bwtween the inner and outer circles white.

gimil wrote:THe suggestion I had wasnt to have the inner circles and the rest of it white. I ment take the OUTER and it another colors to stand out, red, blue, whatever. and have the connections bwtween the inner and outer circles white.

I understand what you mean.
I have thought about that solution previously and this is how I saw it:

If I would make the OUTER FACES on the CUBE in different colors, that would mean that the EDGES of the CUBE would have to be in a neutral color, because they could not be in two colors.

Therefore the COLORING of the EDGE VERTICES would have to be in a neutral color as well and basicly only the inner grid and the 4 inner vertices of the CUBE FACES would be in a distinctive color.

I believe that such a version would be harder to understand. Thats why I never spent time on doing it.

Well give me a visual example and prove to me that it will be harder to understand. Right now im not convinced.

gimil wrote:Well give me a visual example and prove to me that it will be harder to understand. Right now im not convinced.

This is version18:



Compare with version17:

might i say that 18 is alot better

Might I add that that is still not what im asking for

Ill show you with an image when i get time to make one

Unit_2 wrote:might i say that 18 is alot better

You know you've got a point.. i like the inwards four towers effect towards the middle that is created from each face...

And having the edges of the whole cube white, and only those edges, really helps define the cube. I think v18 is perfect, though I don't really understand what gmil is asking. Gmil, you understand that every vertex is either part of the innermost cube or the outermost cube, right?

A quick thought on the colour placement... Id have the blue and purple opposite each other, as well as the two greens, because together they might cause some trouble for colourblind people.