Page 11 of 21
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:01 am
by Night Strike
In fact, I think cutting the Orcus/NHO connection wouldn't be a bad idea. It would give the Kuiper Belt a safe territory (1 army control) that it currently doesn't have (unless you hold the jumpgate). All the other continents have 1 or more "secured" territories. As far as the bonus goes, you would have to control 5 points in the Kuiper Belt, with or without the jumpgate, so the bonus wouldn't have to change.
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:26 am
by yeti_c
I prefered the old indentation underneath the - for the sub bonuses.
C.
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:10 am
by maxdetjens
KEYOGI wrote:The refined legend is a nice improvement. One little suggestion would be to align the indented sub-continent bonus further right so it starts in line with the first character of the main continent bonus.
Map Edited to fit suggestion.
Then the following comments received.
yeti_c wrote:I prefered the old indentation underneath the - for the sub bonuses.
Night Strike wrote:I don't know if I like the sub-bonuses aligned how they are. I can't think of a good reason to change it back, so I'll just listen to what you and others think.
Can I get a roll call vote?
I'll tally the votes in this post.
For Current:
-Keyogi
~myself
For Prior: (less indented)
-yeti_c
-Bad Speler
Abstains:
-night strike
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:15 am
by maxdetjens
Night Strike wrote:Because of the way you've realigned everything since we originally discussed the UHO choke point, I think you can get away with removing Charon/UHO connection. The Kuiper Belt can still be attacked from SHO and Neptune isn't cornered off.
...
In fact, I think cutting the Orcus/NHO connection wouldn't be a bad idea. It would give the Kuiper Belt a safe territory (1 army control) that it currently doesn't have (unless you hold the jumpgate). All the other continents have 1 or more "secured" territories. As far as the bonus goes, you would have to control 5 points in the Kuiper Belt, with or without the jumpgate, so the bonus wouldn't have to change.
I can see making these changes though loosing the Charon/UHO route bothers me a little because its the only trans-neptunian connection i have and I kinda like the openness of space I'm getting with the current setup.
I'm on the fence. I really want more input on this issue.
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:15 pm
by Coleman
I'm not really comfortable with removing that route as it would make that continent easier to hold and it is one of the higher bonuses.
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:47 pm
by Bad Speler
Just going on the record saying I prefered the old indent on the sub bonuses. I'm undecided on the route removal.
Also, the jump gates look a bit pixelated on the small map.
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:50 pm
by maxdetjens
Coleman wrote:I'm not really comfortable with removing that route as it would make that continent easier to hold and it is one of the higher bonuses.
What if the bonus were changed?
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:51 pm
by maxdetjens
Bad Speler wrote:the jump gates look a bit pixelated on the small map.
Added to list
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:29 pm
by Night Strike
As it stands, one has to hold 6 points with or without the jumpgate. That's every territory. Knocking that route decreases it to 5, which is still the hardest one to hold. I think the bonus would still be justified and it doesn't kill the attack routes between Neptune and Kuiper Belt. There's still the Trojans.
By the way, I never officially said that I like the previous legend. I think I could live either way.
Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:22 pm
by maxdetjens
Night Strike wrote:As it stands, one has to hold 6 points with or without the jumpgate. That's every territory. Knocking that route decreases it to 5, which is still the hardest one to hold. I think the bonus would still be justified and it doesn't kill the attack routes between Neptune and Kuiper Belt. There's still the Trojans.
By the way, I never officially said that I like the previous legend. I think I could live either way.
I'm still on the fence. Any one else?
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:30 pm
by Night Strike
Bump
Hey, more opinions are needed!!!!
How's the map coming along this week??
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:19 pm
by maxdetjens
Night Strike wrote:How's the map coming along this week??
Slow. I'm thinking early next week for the next iteration. But yes.... more input desired.
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 7:54 am
by Pain Killer
theres not really that much to say about it, it look great and this is why you dont have any more comments about it
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:58 pm
by Night Strike
Pain Killer wrote:theres not really that much to say about it, it look great and this is why you dont have any more comments about it
Well, he's needing more opinions on the Kuiper Belt Bonus that we discussed a few posts previous. That's where he needs input.
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:32 am
by Pain Killer
the Kuiper belt bonus is fine at 6, even if you hold neptune it's still hard to protect them both.
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:10 am
by Coleman
Pain Killer wrote:the Kuiper belt bonus is fine at 6, even if you hold neptune it's still hard to protect them both.
QFT. I'm ready to play this map myself.
Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:58 pm
by Night Strike
So what's going on with this map???
By the way, when can it move to Final Forge??
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:56 am
by Coleman
Night Strike wrote:when can it move to Final Forge??
The map creator needs to drop by and make a post with the Large Map, the Small Map, the Large Map with Army Numbers, the Small Map with army numbers, and links to the large map without numbers, the small map without numbers, and the xml. If he can't get the xml online he needs to copy paste all his code into the topic.
So basically, the same requirements as a quench.
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:18 am
by Night Strike
Oh, I know the XML is in one of the previous posts (b/c I looked at it).
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:31 pm
by Night Strike
So, you're probably going to kill me for even suggesting this. I was just thinking how I always play on the small maps. I've been judging this map by the large map, but I won't usually look at it. Why that matters is b/c I like the affect of having the fatter attack lines in the large map. The lines in the small map look pretty wimpy. Would it be possible to fatten them up some?? It looks like there would be room for a little bit.
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:47 am
by Incandenza
I have to agree with Night Strike. I always use the small map (laptop screen is rather small), and the lines tend to betray the fact that they're one pixel wide. It would at least be worth seeing how the small map looks with thicker lines.
For the record, I think this map will be exceedingly fun to play. Excellent job thus far, max.
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:19 pm
by AndyDufresne
---
The Solar System Map has reached the
‘Final Forge’ Stage. I've revived this thread from the pits of the Foundry furnace and have examined the contents. Nearly every major concern has been addressed. If there are any other current concerns, please make your voice heard. If after a reasonable amount of time there has not been any objection or protest, the map will be deemed finished with the 'Foundry Brand' of approval and will be submitted for live play. As long as there is still discussion or posts that have yet to be commented on, the map will remain in
Final Forge until said discussion has reached the conclusion that the map has reached its final and polished version.
Post questions and concerns if any.
--Andy
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:45 pm
by Night Strike
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:53 am
by cairnswk
Congrats on Final Forge...Maxdetjens
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:46 am
by unriggable
For the record, Saturn and Jupiter don't have surfaces.
