Conquer Club

- I redid the territory borders for North Side and think you should be satisfied with it Georgio. Down to 3 defending territories-- more like 2.5 considering one is terr rail station via rail station. Also moved Roger's Park rail station to Uptown for a more centralized exit/entrance. At 5 territories, I think the bonus is a good 3.

- Blue and Red line bonus values changed to correspond with number of territories. Orange I kept at 2. Midway is already a defending territory to gain access to the north. Loop is another important territory for access in all directions. If a player held both of those territories, they would only need 1 more for a 3 bonus-- the territories in itself are rewarding enough imo without gaining an extra army.

- I've gone back to the drawing board each time I update trying to gain clarity on those blessed borders but this time I just separated the bonus territories individually... still some minor hot spots but nothing where it's an issue.

Thx fellas.
-----
* Added army circles-- figure someone would have me do it anyway. After the change to clarify the borders-- bonus colors were too close to the numbers anyhow.
* Removed the stroke on the rail lines... was too distracting once the circles were added.
* Reversed some of the border colors so they're not conflicting with rail colors.
* Added a territory to O'hare-- the one I removed from the rail.

V11

Would you quit getting bored and moving things around...lol. I liked the helicopter where it was with the shadow showing, up north.

and quit messing with the army circles I liked too.. if nobody complained about them then don't change them. If they do complain about them, send them my way.. maybe just make them not as BAM.. a little clear, but not as clear as before? something in between..

I'm glad you took the white border off of the rail lines.. better

only think I don't don't like is the land texture, which I'm sure will change with your next post..
I think I'd drop Midway down to 6.

Don't we have a lot to say....

I added a territory up north-- Sag. I had to move the helicopter. Land textures I changed because of Incand-- to clarify the borders. What else ? Ohh the circles, meh..... just circles and if it helps to see the armies better than I'll give way to how they look. Playing speed freestyle where the numbers aren't clear is a pain-- well you know what happens... territories get missed and players get hung and steals occur and points get lost.

Anything else ? Yeah... you threw a compliment in there somewhere. Uhmm thx!

And I happen to like the new textures.

Scott-Land wrote:Orange I kept at 2. Midway is already a defending territory to gain access to the north. Loop is another important territory for access in all directions. If a player held both of those territories, they would only need 1 more for a 3 bonus-- the territories in itself are rewarding enough imo without gaining an extra army.

u've convinced me here!

Tisha wrote:I think I'd drop Midway down to 6.

agreed. there are 4 large bonus zones: south side is the most difficult to hold, with 8 border regions for +8, and next is the loop, with 6 borders for +7; both o'hare, with 5 border regions and a corner location, and midway, with 4 borders, are visibly easier to hold than the loop.

assuming that u're happy to reduce the o'hare and midway bonuses to +6 (the map does play if they stay at +7, but the loop and south side become relatively unattractive), i think we're ready to polish the graphics in earnest.



ian.

I have no problem making bonus values smaller!

Thx for all your ( everyone else's too, including guys that didn't post but helped via pms ) input to get the stamp through Ian. Cheers--

iancanton wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:Orange I kept at 2. Midway is already a defending territory to gain access to the north. Loop is another important territory for access in all directions. If a player held both of those territories, they would only need 1 more for a 3 bonus-- the territories in itself are rewarding enough imo without gaining an extra army.

u've convinced me here!

Tisha wrote:I think I'd drop Midway down to 6.

agreed. there are 4 large bonus zones: south side is the most difficult to hold, with 8 border regions for +8, and next is the loop, with 6 borders for +7; both o'hare, with 5 border regions and a corner location, and midway, with 4 borders, are visibly easier to hold than the loop.

assuming that u're happy to reduce the o'hare and midway bonuses to +6 (the map does play if they stay at +7, but the loop and south side become relatively unattractive), i think we're ready to polish the graphics in earnest.



ian.

Sweet, now on to that graphics thingy : )

Congrats on the stamp, scott...

The new border do look better, they pop a bit more than the old ones did, tho they kinda blend in with the o'hare and loop bonuses... maybe the borders in those bonuses could be a bit darker, but then again I'm not much of a graphics guy, so take that with a grain of salt.

I've said before that the graphics on this map are pretty darn good, and that you're in the realm of minor adjustments now.

Here are my observations:

1. On the legend, you have the Loop bonus box followed by the El Train / Rail Line Bonus Boxes. Part of me thinks it might make more sense to switch the two smaller boxes to the left, so that it makes a bit more logical sense reading from left-to-right.

2. On a similar vein, the order of bonuses on the legend doesn't seem to be in the best order.. I can see it's vaguely North-to-South, but I think it would be better if you had this order from top-to-bottom: O'Hare, North Side, Near West, River West, The Loop, Midway, Far South, South Side, SouthEast Side.

3. The white square train stations could do with an outer edge that is the same colour as the rail line, to help tie those elements of the map together

4. Are there blue bridges in Chicago? If not, any chance you could make them slightly darker / more grey?

5. Speaking of blue, a trick of the eye makes the blue train line look like it could be a river in places - can you make it a shade darker at all?

6. The texture to the map (the rounded bevel) looks very slightly out of place. Have you tried using some sort of grunge overlay instead (you could try a google image search for "grunge textures", or have a look for something on http://www.deviantart.com)

The first three points I've mentioned are the only things that I can see that are likely to have any real impact - the final thre points I've raised are a lot more subjective.

The image I'm looking at is 629x600 pixels - For your next update, can we also have a look at the large map too?

Keep up the good work - the light at the end of the tunnel is not that far away now

nice post MrBenn

I don't know what you have against the blue bridges though...

I also don't think that any grunge like effects would look good on this map..

Very nice looking map, Scott, very clean and crisp graphics. Just a few lingering concerns (that Benn didn't get to, to an extent):

1. The whole map is very … chaotic, but not insofar that it is that bad. I can, however, identify that the very dark and big trees are playing a big role in that, and that either lowering the opacity of them or adding a color overlay of light greenish (try #A0D578) at an opacity level of probably below 20, maybe under 15 would be a little nicer. Another thing could be experimenting with the layer style (Lighten, Screen—the lightening ones would be better).
2. I have to disagree and say that grunge would have a negative affect on the map, and that the bevel looks very nice on the crisp, boxy map. However, if you took some Pattern Overlay at, again, less than 20% opacity, it could look somewhat nice. Think Vancouver—a crisp map, but one with a bit of texture on the playable areas.
3. Do you have copyright permission on that subway image? Or is it in public domain?
4. The light blue on Lake Michigan along the coast seems to have some discrepancy as it dies by "Loop."
5. Just a small note: the font for "IMPASSABLE" is rather inconsistent and buggy…the sans serif look is nicer.
6. It took me a while to spot the bridges to which Benn and Tisha were referring—swapping the prominence of them and the trees is what I'm talking about…
7. You could scoot the large "Chicago" down a bit, then enlarge everything connected to the streetlight (including the streetlight itself), doing some good to the readability of that
8. Quick note: though it's technically grammatically correct to say "El Train is elevated above all borders and passable," if you added an "is" before the "passable" too it would be just a bit easier to understand

Stamp very soon

the.killing.44 wrote:Very nice looking map, Scott, very clean and crisp graphics. Just a few lingering concerns (that Benn didn't get to, to an extent):

1. The whole map is very … chaotic, but not insofar that it is that bad. I can, however, identify that the very dark and big trees are playing a big role in that, and that either lowering the opacity of them or adding a color overlay of light greenish (try #A0D578) at an opacity level of probably below 20, maybe under 15 would be a little nicer. Another thing could be experimenting with the layer style (Lighten, Screen—the lightening ones would be better).
2. I have to disagree and say that grunge would have a negative affect on the map, and that the bevel looks very nice on the crisp, boxy map. However, if you took some Pattern Overlay at, again, less than 20% opacity, it could look somewhat nice. Think Vancouver—a crisp map, but one with a bit of texture on the playable areas.
3. Do you have copyright permission on that subway image? Or is it in public domain?
4. The light blue on Lake Michigan along the coast seems to have some discrepancy as it dies by "Loop."
5. Just a small note: the font for "IMPASSABLE" is rather inconsistent and buggy…the sans serif look is nicer.
6. It took me a while to spot the bridges to which Benn and Tisha were referring—swapping the prominence of them and the trees is what I'm talking about…
7. You could scoot the large "Chicago" down a bit, then enlarge everything connected to the streetlight (including the streetlight itself), doing some good to the readability of that
8. Quick note: though it's technically grammatically correct to say "El Train is elevated above all borders and passable," if you added an "is" before the "passable" too it would be just a bit easier to understand

Stamp very soon

I think you get the same ease of understanding without changing the length of the text by saying "El Train is passable and elevated above all borders". It fits so nicely now, and I would hate to see a smaller font used to fit it in.

Scott-Land wrote:

cairnswk wrote:6. The text "Rail Station attacks adjacent stations & territory in which they occupy"....do you mean "territories which they occupy?

The problem may lie in [ territory in which they occupy ]. I believe your reason would be valid if it were plural [ Rail Stations attack adjacent stations.... & territories in which they occupy ] but it's singular. I was speaking about each one separately. If I were to change they to it... it would satisfy it grammatically ? Rail Station attacks adjacent stations and territory in which it occupies.
Any English Lit majors out there ? I certainly wasn't one.

i'm not one! however, perhaps region that surrounds it sounds a bit less awkward than territory in which it occupies. also, to be consistent with the terminology used in the instructions, replace bonus regions in the legend with bonus zones.

http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?m ... tructions1

ian.

iancanton wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:

cairnswk wrote:6. The text "Rail Station attacks adjacent stations & territory in which they occupy"....do you mean "territories which they occupy?

The problem may lie in [ territory in which they occupy ]. I believe your reason would be valid if it were plural [ Rail Stations attack adjacent stations.... & territories in which they occupy ] but it's singular. I was speaking about each one separately. If I were to change they to it... it would satisfy it grammatically ? Rail Station attacks adjacent stations and territory in which it occupies.
Any English Lit majors out there ? I certainly wasn't one.

i'm not one! however, perhaps region that surrounds it sounds a bit less awkward than territory in which it occupies. also, to be consistent with the terminology used in the instructions, replace bonus regions in the legend with bonus zones.

http://www.conquerclub.com/public.php?m ... tructions1

ian.

I like region that surrounds it, but one could say region in which it lies. The verb occupy doesn't need the preposition in, it's implicit. One does not occupy in a location, one merely occupies a location. Of course, in a war-oriented context such as Conquer Club, occupation has another meaning, which might be confusing, so I would avoid that word here.

Wow-- so many posts on a one line description of a bonus.......quite amusing actually. Anyhow I've been cramped on time of late, hopefully I'll be able to address the many concerns everyone has in the next couple of weeks. Thanks.

congratz on the stamp of approval scotty

MrBenn wrote:I've said before that the graphics on this map are pretty darn good, and that you're in the realm of minor adjustments now.

Here are my observations:

1. On the legend, you have the Loop bonus box followed by the El Train / Rail Line Bonus Boxes. Part of me thinks it might make more sense to switch the two smaller boxes to the left, so that it makes a bit more logical sense reading from left-to-right.

2. On a similar vein, the order of bonuses on the legend doesn't seem to be in the best order.. I can see it's vaguely North-to-South, but I think it would be better if you had this order from top-to-bottom: O'Hare, North Side, Near West, River West, The Loop, Midway, Far South, South Side, SouthEast Side.

3. The white square train stations could do with an outer edge that is the same colour as the rail line, to help tie those elements of the map together

4. Are there blue bridges in Chicago? If not, any chance you could make them slightly darker / more grey?

5. Speaking of blue, a trick of the eye makes the blue train line look like it could be a river in places - can you make it a shade darker at all?

6. The texture to the map (the rounded bevel) looks very slightly out of place. Have you tried using some sort of grunge overlay instead (you could try a google image search for "grunge textures", or have a look for something on http://www.deviantart.com)

The first three points I've mentioned are the only things that I can see that are likely to have any real impact - the final thre points I've raised are a lot more subjective.

The image I'm looking at is 629x600 pixels - For your next update, can we also have a look at the large map too?

Keep up the good work - the light at the end of the tunnel is not that far away now

I think I've hit all your points and mostly the others as well. I haven't updated the large one and don't plan on it until I can get affirmation on the small one. I've done it several times in the past only to have it scratched along with my time that I put into updating it. I did however fix the small dimensions to 630x600.

The jury's still out on the one liner describing the terr rail bonus-- once I hear back I'll update it as well.

thank you for moving that helicopter back, not leave it alone.. it looks great right there

Can't wait to play this one. Great work so far.

Scott-Land wrote:I think I've hit all your points and mostly the others as well. I haven't updated the large one and don't plan on it until I can get affirmation on the small one. I've done it several times in the past only to have it scratched along with my time that I put into updating it. I did however fix the small dimensions to 630x600.

The jury's still out on the one liner describing the terr rail bonus-- once I hear back I'll update it as well.

Now I am getting a little confused about the legend. I'm okay with the Loop station, which I grant is a special case worthy of explanation with regards to its shared position in the bonus. But you seem to have two other kinds of stations: rail stations, with plain white squares, and territory rail stations, with coloured squares with a white edge and a white inscribed circle. Looking again, I think I see the distinction now. A rail station should be considered elevated and has troops separate from the ground level territory beneath it, which it can attack as well as the stations adjacent to it, while a territory rail station is at ground level, is in a sense combined with the ground level troops that the territory might have had, and can attack the station(s) adjacent to it and the territories adjacent to it as well.
So maybe the solution to the legend conundrum is this: call them elevated rail stations (whose plain white square I will show here with ☐) and ground-level rail stations (whose square-circle I will show here with ⚪), and write the legend as follows:

☐⚪ Any rail station can attack any adjacent rail station.
☐ An elevated rail station can attack the territory beneath it.
⚪ A ground-level rail station can attack any adjacent territory.

Now the only problem I see is that, of all the elevated rail stations, not one happens to have its troop number north of ("above") the troop number of the territory beneath it. So instead of searching south ("below"), we find that for two stations, we have to go west, for one we go north and another we go northwest. I don't see a graphical solution to this, so I suggest that an alternative wording in the legend might be:

☐ An elevated rail station can attack the territory on which it sits.

or if you need to shorten it,

☐ An elevated rail station can attack the territory it sits on.

It is hard to say whether an elevated station sits on a territory or stands on it, so there is still some room for debate, but sits is shorter, and legends are often pressed for space. Further shortening could be achieved by using the word region for territory, like the Instructions do, or even ward, which I think is the term used for the areas with the city. (Yes, these regions may not be a match to the wards, but it is a compact term. I tried to check the ward map at cityofchicago.org, but the site is a little flaky right now.)

EDIT: Finally got to the Aldermanic map of Chicago. Many more wards than regions on this map, so Chicagoans would likely object to using the term here. Take a look at the map for a laugh, though: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/2008%20Ward_w%20Alderman%20List.pdf and check out ward 1 -- can you say jerrymander?

I've already said in my post I will deal with the one liner later-- so unless you have something to add to the map GRAPHICALLY, thanks for your input Ender.

Scott-Land wrote:I've already said in my post I will deal with the one liner later-- so unless you have something to add to the map GRAPHICALLY, thanks for your input Ender.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood who you were waiting to hear from. Graphically, this map is great: the glowing territories over the dark background give it a feeling of being under streetlights at night. Very distinctive.

ender516 wrote:

Scott-Land wrote:I've already said in my post I will deal with the one liner later-- so unless you have something to add to the map GRAPHICALLY, thanks for your input Ender.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood who you were waiting to hear from. Graphically, this map is great: the glowing territories over the dark background give it a feeling of being under streetlights at night. Very distinctive.

i agree pretty cool also night time is the best time to view chicago and most memmories of mine are night time chicago hehe

when you gonna start workin again on this map scott?

I can't see any problems with the latest version of the small map - once the large map is done it should be full steam ahead to the final forge...

I'll get right on it Benn-- cheers.