Conquer Club

RedBaron0 wrote:Well spoken Flapcake. There is always a happy medium, just gotta find it.

Thumbs up.


--Andy

I have been playing around with how to code the atack rutes, I tryed a outerglow in diffrendt colours for each rute, but it turned in to look like a disco dancefloor, that died there.

Now I migth try to go with nattys suggestion by using some kind of mark/icon for each rute, ec. an bomb for the german cannon, a explotion for the aly cannon, a parasuit holding a granade for the german fligth, and machingun for the aly fligth ect. ect.

got some input for this ?

Try some simple cross-hairs for the artillery. If you make them small enough, it will show players what can be hit, they can then look at the legend for clarification on what hits there.

The same can be done for the aircraft.

Again, the players can look in the legend for what can hit the targets. I see no reason to have the icons for both hitter and hit. It just clutters the map up.

Looks cool, il try some thing

Changes: bomb icon for airplanes, cross-hair icon for cannon.

I tryed to set a icon on what can be hitted, but the map got so plastered with icons, that the hole idea seemed stupid, insted the icons now only tells where to find the aricraft and cannons, not that you cant tell, but it looks alrigth. Im goin to stand firm on that no more merchandise are thrown on the pie less is more (who sayd that )

[bigimg]http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7168/trenchmap2402840x840.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7946/trenchmap2402630x630.png[/bigimg]

Flapcake wrote:Changes: bomb icon for airplanes, cross-hair icon for cannon.

I tryed to set a icon on what can be hitted, but the map got so plastered with icons, that the hole idea seemed stupid, insted the icons now only tells where to find the aricraft and cannons,

Ok, so they're basically useless. You addressed a nonexistent problem, instead of the problem that was actually asked to be addressed...

No one has any problem finding the airplanes or the artilleries on the map. They have huge, colourful graphics right there, showing you where to find them. The problem you were meant to address was that it's inconvenient for the players to have to check back and forth with the map and the legend what bombards where. The practice of denoting assault/bombardment routes by writing them on the legend is not a good one, it's not good nor ergonomic map design (apart from certain special cases).

You say the map looked "stupid" and "plastered" with icons, but that is still a far better option than no one playing your map because it's too cumbersome to figure out what bombards what. What you need to do is make the icons so that they don't disturb the map too much. Make them small and elegant, yet noticeable.

From what I see, none of the territories are even bombarded by more than one territory, so each territory will only have one icon. If you make the icons small & neat enough, there won't be any problems with clutter.

I do not share your opinion, and it did look stupid and i dident like it, so its not goin to happend, i rater bin this than doin a "stupid looking" map

Well, if that's what you want to do, go ahead and ask it to be moved to the bin.

The bottom line is, the way your map is currently, it does NOT fulfill the gameplay guidelines, which are clearly written and stickied on this forum. You can't just make ultimatums like that and expect to be given a break from the rules - the foundry doesn't work that way.

Look: it'd be different story if you had just 1 or 2 bombarding territories, and they would bombard a certain set of territories that was easy to identify. Kind of like on my Antarctica map, where South Pole bombards all Bases. The Bases are clearly denoted on the map as such, as is South Pole, so there it is acceptable to simply write in the legend that "South Pole bombards all Bases".

However, your map has 8 bombarding territories, each of which bombards 4-5 different territories - none of which are clearly denoted as bombardment targets, none of them forms a unique set of territories that would be easy to identify. So no one is going to remember what bombards what, and this is poor gameplay design. I can't explain it any clearer. If you're unable to represent the bombardments graphically on this map in a way that makes it easy for the players to see what bombards what by simply looking at the map, then you'll just have to redesign the map or bin it, because this current implementation is simply unacceptable.

Can we see what a mock-up would look like with the icons in more use? It would be helpful for comparison.


--Andy

natty dread wrote:

Gillipig wrote:Don't come here with the rulebook, I know where to find it if I need it and I'm sure flapcake does too!
I'm trying to be creative and throw some ideas around with him. And the rulebook is the ultimate creativity killer!

Sorry but that's not how it works. The rules are not optional. You can't choose to ignore them no matter how much of a buzzkill you think they are. The rules are in place for a reason, and any mapmaker who wants to make maps in the foundry needs to follow them.

Talk about taking something out of context. If you cared to read the sentences directly below you'd see this:

Gillipig wrote:Obviously the map would still have to be clear enough to be playable but there's no extra points for making a map ridiculously clear and sterile.
This map is not even close to being unclear at the moment so it's not something he needs to worry about.

Now apparently this is Flapcake's view as well, so your concern that this discussion is leading us into a map that doesn't follow the rules is as irrelevant as when you first thought of it!

Let's not go crazy here kids... The point of us asking for icons was for the artillery and aircraft targets be more visible on the map itself, rather than continuing to look back and forth between the legend and the board. BOB points this out, but not every one uses BOB, so for all players something should be added to make those target territories easier to see without constantly looking back and forth.

The rule of thumb, however you phrase it is, "function over form" The main overwhelming standard is, and always has been make the map easy enough for everyone to play the game without undue hardship. The icons, or some other identifier, really needs to be placed in/on the targets territories.

RedBaron0 wrote:Let's not go crazy here kids... The point of us asking for icons was for the artillery and aircraft targets be more visible on the map itself, rather than continuing to look back and forth between the legend and the board. BOB points this out, but not every one uses BOB, so for all players something should be added to make those target territories easier to see without constantly looking back and forth.

The rule of thumb, however you phrase it is, "function over form" The main overwhelming standard is, and always has been make the map easy enough for everyone to play the game without undue hardship. The icons, or some other identifier, really needs to be placed in/on the targets territories.

I have already an idea in the spoon, comming up soon (oh look I can do Rhymes )

Flapcake wrote:I have already an idea in the spoon, comming up soon (oh look I can do Rhymes )

Okeydokeylokey

but if there is any more arguing in here... it has to be a rap battle now.

Map rap, bring it on!!!!

[bigimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img29/8021/trenchmap2502840x840.png[/bigimg]

Now that is a lot of bombardments. Flapcake, go and have a look at Stalingrad map. That should give you a good idea on how to do it.

So are you going to colour-code those or what?

koontz1973 wrote:Now that is a lot of bombardments. Flapcake, go and have a look at Stalingrad map. That should give you a good idea on how to do it.

Stalingrad map: on this map the frontline are not present, its a figth house to house, and the targets are spread all over town.
Trensh warfare: the frontline are drawn down the middle and the figth goin from each side.

Im goin to adress diffrent icons for each side and show in the legen who is who.

How about you just do icons like these



Then give them slight drop shadows or dark outer glows to make them pop up a bit from the background, and you have 8 different icons that are neat, clean and easy to distinguish.

natty dread wrote:How about you just do icons like these



Then give them slight drop shadows or dark outer glows to make them pop up a bit from the background, and you have 8 different icons that are neat, clean and easy to distinguish.

Those icon looks nice, I could use them for one side, for eliminate all doubth of who is who I do diffrent icons for each side.

Its suppose to be a machingun or rifle, dont say it looks like cat. (the map are only a test, I know ther need to be 8 diffrent icons/colors. )

[bigimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img515/9819/trenchmaptest.png[/bigimg]

You know, after you receive the gameplay stamp, you can't make further gameplay changes without consultation from the gameplay mods...

natty dread wrote:You know, after you receive the gameplay stamp, you can't make further gameplay changes without consultation from the gameplay mods...

I know and im not, why i sayd its a test only

Yeah I just figured since you wrote in the legend "A1 + A2 can hit any *" but in the previous version each plane has it's own targets...

natty dread wrote:Yeah I just figured since you wrote in the legend "A1 + A2 can hit any *" but in the previous version each plane has it's own targets...

yes, and it are goin to stay that way, no worries ther own target that is

Update.

[bigimg]http://a.imageshack.us/img190/3797/trenchmap2602840x840.png[/bigimg]