Conquer Club

Sparqs...after examing your proposal in more depth, I can say that I like the first suggestion of Kings with scarabs border each other...i hope that conveys the correct message that they can attack each other. i will implement this and see the reaction.
The other suggestions i'm afraid i don't think would be in keeping with what i have discovered about this map and gameplay, and that is, because of the nature of the gameplay and the use of tokens and underworld concepts etc. people are experiencing difficulty in grabbing the concept. I think that your last ideas would possibly create even more havoc in their minds. I don't mean to be offensive but after the feedback just recently, the symbolism conveyed by the use of the + sign, sums up what this bonus system is about. I realise it may look a llittle untidy and yes there maybe room for improvement there (what i don't know) but I am certain that the centre cartouche is probably about as good it would get without re-organising the entire gameplay.
Also, your suggestions have made me think that perhaps the side bonuses could be organised better into what is required first at the top, and then down to underworld and then finally Ankh.
I'm happy.
(Yes i am standing for election next year - what i dont' know - but i hope that wasn't fluffed too much LOL)

why do you call it kings, why not faraos?

Wisse wrote:why do you call it kings, why not faraos?

Hi Wisse....firstly this is probably what this valley is best known as all over the world....it's not the valley of the pharaohs...its the valley of the kings or valley of the tombs.
Secondly, from my research, the word pharaoh is actually a greek word meaning king.
So in keeping with the world wide trend, i'd like to call it the Valley of the Kings.

cairnswk,

Thanks for considering my suggestions. I think the King language and bonus cartouche order are improvements.

One thing that I would find confusing coming in new, is that Amente is listed on the right, under "Underworld Tokens", but in the center it says:

Underworld = Tombs + Robber(s) + Amente + Underworld Token

I would look at that and think "Amente + Underworld token? But Amente is an Underworld token" - at which point I would be confused.

How about if you show the token next to the Region text in the center, and leave it off the right side - or move it into the Region Bonus section on the right side?

Also, I think "Underworld Bonus" would be clearer than "Underworld Tokens" - when I was first looking at it I wondered if I needed to hold 2 of them.

Also also, I know you have the letters and colors matching, but nowhere does it actually say that each token goes with a specific region.

Are you sure that the center needs to say:

Region = Tombs + Robber(s) + Amente
Underworld = Tombs + Robber(s) + Amente + Underworld Token

as opposed to:

Region = Tombs + Robber(s) + Amente
Underworld = Region + Underworld Token

?

Because if that text is reduced somewhat, you easily have space to explain that tokens must match regions.

Great looking map, BTW!
edit
I'm taking a close look at the arrows, and it might be tough to take the wrong Underworld token, but it's still somewhat confusing.

Sparqs...i';m happy to go with those suggestions...let me examine them on the map in place and i'll C if I can post something shortly.

Sparqs wrote:cairnswk,
Thanks for considering my suggestions.

Pleasure sparqs.

I think the King language and bonus cartouche order are improvements.

Good.

One thing that I would find confusing coming in new, is that Amente is listed on the right, under "Underworld Tokens", but in the center it says:

Underworld = Tombs + Robber(s) + Amente + Underworld Token

I would look at that and think "Amente + Underworld token? But Amente is an Underworld token" - at which point I would be confused.

OK...i have included in the centre cartouche the description that "Amente is Egyptian for Underworld and a region requirement" and thus i have not moved it out of the Underworld Tokens but left it there as that is where it actually belongs.

How about if you show the token next to the Region text in the center, and leave it off the right side - or move it into the Region Bonus section on the right side?
Also, I think "Underworld Bonus" would be clearer than "Underworld Tokens" - when I was first looking at it I wondered if I needed to hold 2 of them.

I think the word token better conveys what is required, and it is clear that each token is worth 2 bonuses as in most legends this is the equivelant of the bonus legend.

Also also, I know you have the letters and colors matching, but nowhere does it actually say that each token goes with a specific region.

I'm sorry but each token for each region is lablelled A: Maat, B: Pshent...etc.

Are you sure that the center needs to say:

Region = Tombs + Robber(s) + Amente
Underworld = Tombs + Robber(s) + Amente + Underworld Token

as opposed to:

Region = Tombs + Robber(s) + Amente
Underworld = Region + Underworld Token

?

Because if that text is reduced somewhat, you easily have space to explain that tokens must match regions.

I think the colours and labels convey that they belong to each region, as each region robber is labelled Robber A, Robber B etc.
I still am not convinced that changing the addtions of each requirement using the + sign or reducing that any would enhance the instructions.

Great looking map, BTW!

I am so pleased to you appreciate this map....good the hear!

edit
I'm taking a close look at the arrows, and it might be tough to take the wrong Underworld token, but it's still somewhat confusing.

I think that if the xml is done correctly, then if try to attack the wrong token in moving through that arrowed region ie the Underworld, then it should default as an "Illegal move".
Having said all that, here is the V34 map.

Hm, I think I'm understanding, or at least, starting to get a grip, of the legend instructions.

Regarding the Scarabs, are you saying that 'Kings with Scarabs may attack one another/each other', when you say they border?

The center area still confuses me slightly. Can say the Tomb D Amente attack the adjacent or other Amentes? Or is the one way route of Ankh like an impassable border? Can the Amentes attack Ankh directly, or do they have to go through the Tokens? Can the Tokens just attack the Ankh, and not each other?

Sorry for the questions


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Hm, I think I'm understanding, or at least, starting to get a grip, of the legend instructions.

Regarding the Scarabs, are you saying that 'Kings with Scarabs may attack one another/each other', when you say they border?

The center area still confuses me slightly. Can say the Tomb D Amente attack the adjacent or other Amentes? Or is the one way route of Ankh like an impassable border? Can the Amentes attack Ankh directly, or do they have to go through the Tokens? Can the Tokens just attack the Ankh, and not each other?

Sorry for the questions
--Andy

Andy don't be sorry for the questions, that's why you're asking....

yes Kings with scarabs may attack each other, i did have that in the legend until just recently. Perhaps it is better than saying they border each other, as some borders may not alllow an attack. I think i'll return to the previous version.

Re the centre, the idea is having come into the underworld area ( the grey section ) you move from each Amente to the Underworld Token and then onto the Ankh where you get all those bonuses if you hold all the territories for each region.

Whil e in that underworld region, one can attack back into any other regions Underworld token and then Amente, but there is no bonus for doing that, it merely stops opponents from obtinaing their bonuses.

But in order to return to the regions one has to attack via the one way arrow that goes back to a robber for each region.

The thick lines on the arrows i thought would indicate a barriered border, and the rest of the border lines were normal thinness. Does this need to be improved?

And Andy, appreciate you dropping in to look at this one. I hope it is something just s little different.

the thick lines should be enough to stand out as impassable but you could try making the afterworld like a pizza with each slice being pulled a little to the outside. that should leave some space between each slice and the stars would be visible, making clear they don't connect. the remove the thick lines and keep the arrows flowing.


also one quick question. the different amente don't have different names on the map. will the be called in the xml something like amente A, amente B....?

DiM wrote:the thick lines should be enough to stand out as impassable but you could try making the afterworld like a pizza with each slice being pulled a little to the outside. that should leave some space between each slice and the stars would be visible, making clear they don't connect. the remove the thick lines and keep the arrows flowing.


also one quick question. the different amente don't have different names on the map. will the be called in the xml something like amente A, amente B....?

1. OK i'll try that.

2. Yes. A: Amente, B: Amente etc.

Dim's idea sounds like a winner. I believe the break up look will clear up my doubt, and anyone elses. I think that was the main source of my confusion, and now it all makes a little more sense.

And yes, it is an interesting idea, I give you that. I've waiting for someone to try to tackle Egypt in some way, and I'm pleased with how the map is going. It'll be unique, as your maps seem to be.

The only thing that currently catches my eye when I look at the visuals, is the image near the title. I mostly dislike blending realism with more graphicy images. I'd be a fan of more of a stylized image for the title area, rather than a real picture.

Also...jeez, you know how people complain about Galway and Galloway, and all the other close names? Look at all the Ramesses #.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Dim's idea sounds like a winner. I believe the break up look will clear up my doubt, and anyone elses. I think that was the main source of my confusion, and now it all makes a little more sense.

And yes, it is an interesting idea, I give you that. I've waiting for someone to try to tackle Egypt in some way, and I'm pleased with how the map is going. It'll be unique, as your maps seem to be.

The only thing that currently catches my eye when I look at the visuals, is the image near the title. I mostly dislike blending realism with more graphicy images. I'd be a fan of more of a stylized image for the title area, rather than a real picture.

Also...jeez, you know how people complain about Galway and Galloway, and all the other close names? Look at all the Ramesses #.


--Andy

Well Andy....after careful consideration to everything that has been posted above......the new version 35 is below.

There are two things however that I must address in issues concerning you...
1. I understand you stylized image preference.
I believe I have tried several images in versions past and I don't really think they were successful. Indeed, with my preference to retain the image of the pyramid and sphinx (which btw is also associated with the afterlife and death) i even tried to produce something similar in the style of the rest of the map, but If i don't have the art ability skills then I'm afraid it failed dismally, it looked even worse than anything presented thus far. My reasons for wanting to retain the current title are:
1. I believe there is no better represenation of Egyptian life than the Pyramid and the Sphinx. They are instantly recognised and have broad appeal.
2. Both of these items are associated with death and the afterlife, and in some fashion everyone knows that the pyramid was used a tomb.
3. Whilst I have used a photo image, i have applied motion trail and transparency and blur to these images to give the impression that we are not really dealing with REAL LIFE here but the Spirit World.

I think this concept work very well sitting with RA the Sun behind it and motion trailing it into the darkness of the Afterlilfe or Heavens.

2. There are indeed a lot of Ramesses numbers. I believe if they were all clumped together then we would definitely have a problem. But they are scatted througbout the map, and players will have to take the responsibility of watching what they do when they attack if they play this map.

I don't think I would like to compromise the names of the tombs in this Valley for the sake of people who may be inattentive.

I have myself been in that position with World 2.1 with Central Amercia where i was not watching what i was doing and i paid the price. No body else's fault but mine.

Call me hard, but at some stage players have to accept responsibility for their own actions, and not blame the names that History provides us with for the enrichment of our cultures.

I very much appreciate your feedback, and hope this version satisfies to a great extent.

i can't see anybody being confused now

just one thing. the arrows from Ankh to the robbers have variable tips. while this is not a problem, the amount of variation is. look at the arrow tip going to A and the one going to C. there's a huge difference. try to make them roughly the same size. not the same but close.

DiM wrote:i can't see anybody being confused now

just one thing. the arrows from Ankh to the robbers have variable tips. while this is not a problem, the amount of variation is. look at the arrow tip going to A and the one going to C. there's a huge difference. try to make them roughly the same size. not the same but close.

DiM means the size of the arrows... I, at first, thought he meant the line where the gradient come in.

C.

cairnswk wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:Dim's idea sounds like a winner. I believe the break up look will clear up my doubt, and anyone elses. I think that was the main source of my confusion, and now it all makes a little more sense.

And yes, it is an interesting idea, I give you that. I've waiting for someone to try to tackle Egypt in some way, and I'm pleased with how the map is going. It'll be unique, as your maps seem to be.

The only thing that currently catches my eye when I look at the visuals, is the image near the title. I mostly dislike blending realism with more graphicy images. I'd be a fan of more of a stylized image for the title area, rather than a real picture.

Also...jeez, you know how people complain about Galway and Galloway, and all the other close names? Look at all the Ramesses #.


--Andy

Well Andy....after careful consideration to everything that has been posted above......the new version 35 is below.

There are two things however that I must address in issues concerning you...
1. I understand you stylized image preference.
I believe I have tried several images in versions past and I don't really think they were successful. Indeed, with my preference to retain the image of the pyramid and sphinx (which btw is also associated with the afterlife and death) i even tried to produce something similar in the style of the rest of the map, but If i don't have the art ability skills then I'm afraid it failed dismally, it looked even worse than anything presented thus far. My reasons for wanting to retain the current title are:
1. I believe there is no better represenation of Egyptian life than the Pyramid and the Sphinx. They are instantly recognised and have broad appeal.
2. Both of these items are associated with death and the afterlife, and in some fashion everyone knows that the pyramid was used a tomb.
3. Whilst I have used a photo image, i have applied motion trail and transparency and blur to these images to give the impression that we are not really dealing with REAL LIFE here but the Spirit World.

I think this concept work very well sitting with RA the Sun behind it and motion trailing it into the darkness of the Afterlilfe or Heavens.

2. There are indeed a lot of Ramesses numbers. I believe if they were all clumped together then we would definitely have a problem. But they are scatted througbout the map, and players will have to take the responsibility of watching what they do when they attack if they play this map.

I don't think I would like to compromise the names of the tombs in this Valley for the sake of people who may be inattentive.

I have myself been in that position with World 2.1 with Central Amercia where i was not watching what i was doing and i paid the price. No body else's fault but mine.

Call me hard, but at some stage players have to accept responsibility for their own actions, and not blame the names that History provides us with for the enrichment of our cultures.

I very much appreciate your feedback, and hope this version satisfies to a great extent.

I like the way you've coloured each section of the "pie"... I think I would prefer it to be a little less wavy... but then again I guess it's the afterlife... thus it's like a ghost...

The arrows are 1 way... so from Amente you cannot go back to the Robbers? and from Robbers to Afterlife? if so - perfect.

C.

C.

DiM wrote:i can't see anybody being confused now

just one thing. the arrows from Ankh to the robbers have variable tips. while this is not a problem, the amount of variation is. look at the arrow tip going to A and the one going to C. there's a huge difference. try to make them roughly the same size. not the same but close.

DiM...fixed those arrows....I hope.

looks good. different sizes and yet close enough not to distract the eye. perfect.

DiM wrote:looks good. different sizes and yet close enough not to distract the eye. perfect.

great...Dim!
Hope Andy is happy with this also?

i can't say about andy, but i'm happy with the current state of the map. looks good.

The coloration in the center is a bit weird. The amente regions are needed to get a bonus for a tomb, so they should be colored the same as the tomb. On the other hand, the underworld tokens aren't required, they just give a bonus, so they don't need to be colored the same. I think it would make more sense if the gradient was reversed, with color on the outside and grey in the center (which also gives the sense of transitioning from the living world to the dead as you move to the center...)

Under "region bonuses", putting the tombs + <amente> is a bit confusing, since you have to look elsewhere to see that the robbers are included. Using just the region names would make it obvious that the regions are defined somewhere else, and fixing the colors as above would let you see the regions without looking at the legend.

For the underworld tokens, you don't really have to put a seperate number for each one, since they're all worth the same. Just "Underworld Tokens +2 with associated region" and the association list would work. It's also fine the way it is.

The afterlife bonus has the same problem as the regions: the bonus section is misleading as to what you need to get it. Changing it to "3 per underworld token bonus" fixes that nicely.

Xyl wrote:The coloration in the center is a bit weird. The amente ...... it to "3 per underworld token bonus" fixes that nicely.

I agree with everythin Xyl wrote.... overall its great,,,,good work

You will get my full and uncensored review one of these days

onbekende wrote:You will get my full and uncensored review one of these days

onbekende...please give it now....i don't want to get to the end of this map making process and say no to your suggestion if they are worthwhile!

Keredrex wrote:

Xyl wrote:The coloration in the center is a bit weird. The amente ...... it to "3 per underworld token bonus" fixes that nicely.

I agree with everythin Xyl wrote.... overall its great,,,,good work

Thanks Keredrex

Xyl wrote:The coloration in the center is a bit weird. The amente regions are needed to get a bonus for a tomb, so they should be colored the same as the tomb. On the other hand, the underworld tokens aren't required, they just give a bonus, so they don't need to be colored the same. I think it would make more sense if the gradient was reversed, with color on the outside and grey in the center (which also gives the sense of transitioning from the living world to the dead as you move to the center...)

Xyl....thanks for the suggestions....
These guys are already DEAD, they are not transitioning from the living world to the dead. What is occuring, is spirit world movement, where in Egyptian minds, it was though that once the king was dead they moved from their tombs through the DARK underworld onto the Afterlife.
Thus i have coloured the underworld as the dark area and given the underworld token the some solour as the region to remind players that they are still in that region before they move to a totally different coloured afterlife.

Under "region bonuses", putting the tombs + <amente> is a bit confusing, since you have to look elsewhere to see that the robbers are included. Using just the region names would make it obvious that the regions are defined somewhere else, and fixing the colors as above would let you see the regions without looking at the legend.

OK...i can change that. thanks.

For the underworld tokens, you don't really have to put a seperate number for each one, since they're all worth the same. Just "Underworld Tokens +2 with associated region" and the association list would work. It's also fine the way it is.

no need for change then if you're happy with them, and i don't really see any enhancement if useing your first suggestion of this section, in fact it could cause confusion.

The afterlife bonus has the same problem as the regions: the bonus section is misleading as to what you need to get it. Changing it to "3 per underworld token bonus" fixes that nicely.

I think from the map there is only one afterlife territory that can be obtained, so i see no reason to change to your suggestion as 3 per underworld bonus would cause more confusion in people's minds.

From your suggestions however, i have modified the font in the bonus section...i don't know if this work but it certainly it more consistent with the font used in the map.