Conquer Club

you could set an objective win to unite low and tofu

Is there a subliminal message here Waseem

every map needs balance waseemalim..

i kind of agree with wase here. i am not a fan of feudal and most people are not. i probably wont play this too many times, but that aside i think that it may be better off making this something other than a conquest map (if that is the correct wording). The ideah is original, why not the game play?

Well, I disagree about most people not liking the feudal Type map, as there are many maps like polynesian, Poland, feudal epic ect that a LOT of people enjoy and play. All of those have differences enough to be unique yet have the same style that people like.

As far as a balance goes, trying to balance unique realms/bonuses is a BITCH. You can do it if you have three, like paper rock scissors or starcraft, but with so many here, the masses will start picking this apart and it will be deamed an "unfair" map (for some reason) and be back in the forge in no time.

This is not to say that some unique ideas can't be put into the map, but the fact that we started the idea with clans sort of begets a realms type of map, and these need to be somewhat equal (even the realms in feudal arn't perfectly equal). Whether it is an objective based map or whatever can be up for discussion, but we need to start somewhere, and balanced realms goes with the theme.


BTW, the graphics are looking awesome IMHO. I like the use of forests, water and mountains. Maybe put whitecaps on the mountains to make them stand out, and dont be afraid to combine one or two in a ridge to make it look continuous.

i am not a fan of feudal and most people are not.

Whaaat? Feudal is one of the most popular maps on CC...

natty_dread wrote:

i am not a fan of feudal and most people are not.

Whaaat? Feudal is one of the most popular maps on CC...

yea, what other map has an effin SEQUEL? maybe we'll get a Prequel feudal as well...

maybe i was wrong about most people.... lol

Snowgun wrote:yea, what other map has an effin SEQUEL?

Well, World 2.1 is kind of a sequel to classic...

Tisha wrote:every map needs balance waseemalim..

well yes, let me clarify... conquest maps demand symmetry whereas non-conquest maps do not. That was what I was trying to mean.

Well Blitz and I have done too much work on this map to say we are "Just trying to get a clan map out there" I dont think it is possible to "just get a map out there" the way the foundry is now, ever since starting this project it has been lots and lots of work and lots of lots of changes which we are ok with but We have a lot of people backing the game play on this map as we have it now and we will stick with that, minor changes are ok as we go along but changing the whole gameplay and map will not be happening.

New map update
800x800
[bigimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2761/4288613085_5b8e98cd6f_o.jpg[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2761/4288613085_dbd7078386.jpg[/bigimg]

We do appreciate all comments weather bad or good but we are sticking with this idea for now as we feel we have a good backing with the game play as it is now. Please keep comments coming.

EDIT: and we have already went over what other maps this map looks like, can we focus on game play please.

EDIT EDIT: Tisha has agreed to help me with mountains btw (after gameplay is set of course...)

-griff

speaking of game play here is the neutrals according to Blitz last post on this topic...

[bigimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4288786059_5cbf4174b6_o.jpg[/bigimg]

all input is welcome on neutrals. I put the 888's in there just to clarify to drop points.

-griff

grifftron wrote:Well Blitz and I have done too much work on this map to say we are "Just trying to get a clan map out there" I dont think it is possible to "just get a map out there" the way the foundry is now, ever since starting this project it has been lots and lots of work and lots of lots of changes which we are ok with but We have a lot of people backing the game play on this map as we have it now and we will stick with that, minor changes are ok as we go along but changing the whole gameplay and map will not be happening.

New map update
800x800
[bigimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2761/4288613085_5b8e98cd6f_o.jpg[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2761/4288613085_dbd7078386.jpg[/bigimg]

We do appreciate all comments weather bad or good but we are sticking with this idea for now as we feel we have a good backing with the game play as it is now. Please keep comments coming.

EDIT: and we have already went over what other maps this map looks like, can we focus on game play please.

EDIT EDIT: Tisha has agreed to help me with mountains btw (after gameplay is set of course...)

-griff

wow, great work griff


this looks a lot better

I like the land area texture.

Still, you could try some beveling or shading on the outer edges of the land. Currently it looks a bit flat.

natty_dread wrote:I like the land area texture.

Still, you could try some beveling or shading on the outer edges of the land. Currently it looks a bit flat.

Thanks Blitz and thanks natty. I got the idea for the land texture from a forum by [player]Rjbeals[/player] on using grunge for layers. I like it a lot, i do know that the outside edges are bad right now, i was thinking of putting a few things in the area surrounding the land it self, maybe something to do with clan names or pics, or possibly just more landscape. I will mess around with it more and see what i can come up with. What did you guys think about the neutrals for the game play on the first post on page 20?

-griff

grifftron wrote:speaking of game play here is the neutrals according to Blitz last post on this topic...

[bigimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4288786059_5cbf4174b6_o.jpg[/bigimg]

all input is welcome on neutrals. I put the 888's in there just to clarify to drop points.

-griff

On no mans land, maybe cut those lands of 4 neutrals in half, adding more lands there and make them all 2's instead of 4's, and add 10 to pinnacle, instead of 12.

not dogging on the map, I see a lot of clan wars starting on the release date, but why do we always see these maps with just enough for 8? wouldn't it be at least slightly advantageous to have, say, 10 starting positions? that way there isn't a guarantee in an 8 man game that the castles are all full. as is, in an 8 man on, say, feudal Epic, you run for a castle, you KNOW somebody is there. so, why are we putting out another map with the same predicament? would be a nice distinguishing factor from feudal. as is, I would equate the center piece to a feudal village... just some food for thought. Don't actually expect change on this.

Mr_Adams wrote:not dogging on the map, I see a lot of clan wars starting on the release date, but why do we always see these maps with just enough for 8? wouldn't it be at least slightly advantageous to have, say, 10 starting positions? that way there isn't a guarantee in an 8 man game that the castles are all full. as is, in an 8 man on, say, feudal Epic, you run for a castle, you KNOW somebody is there. so, why are we putting out another map with the same predicament? would be a nice distinguishing factor from feudal. as is, I would equate the center piece to a feudal village... just some food for thought. Don't actually expect change on this.

Great idea Mr_Adams, but for this map we will stick with the 8 starting points we have now, mostly because lots of people like this set up of the 8, but i do understand what you mean by not knowing if someone was next to you or not with 8 players if you had 10 starting points, that would be lots of fun and excitement. Maybe for a future map. But we will stick to what we have now. Thanks again for the comment. Great idea.

Now for an update of all neutrals and boundaries placed on the map with Blitz new idea of splitting the 6 NM lands in the middle to be 12. Check it out

[bigimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4069/4292998598_e6b6ef8b3a_o.jpg[/bigimg]

grifftron wrote:
Now for an update of all neutrals and boundaries placed on the map with Blitz new idea of splitting the 6 NM lands in the middle to be 12. Check it out

[bigimg]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4069/4292998598_e6b6ef8b3a_o.jpg[/bigimg]

looking much better griff

hiddendragon wrote:=D>

you liking it more now dragon?



it's coming along

The way no mans land is drawn it would pretty well exclude one of the portals from use. Wouldn't it be better to have the same balance from all portals to Pinnacle?

jefjef wrote:The way no mans land is drawn it would pretty well exclude one of the portals from use. Wouldn't it be better to have the same balance from all portals to Pinnacle?

yes, they should, griff will have to tweak that.

jefjef wrote:O&H and Land of Low and Dragoons also have a bit more distance to a portal than the others. Especially O&H.

O&H is a castle, like a village in feudal, it is not a starting point.


Yes, LOW should have a portal on LOW 7, not 8, and dragoons portal should be on 7, not 6 and that should bring more balance.





good points jefjef, you see anything else? or have questions?

Blitzaholic wrote:

jefjef wrote:The way no mans land is drawn it would pretty well exclude one of the portals from use. Wouldn't it be better to have the same balance from all portals to Pinnacle?

yes, they should, griff will have to tweak that.

jefjef wrote:O&H and Land of Low and Dragoons also have a bit more distance to a portal than the others. Especially O&H.

O&H is a castle, like a village in feudal, it is not a starting point.


Yes, LOW should have a portal on LOW 7, not 8, and dragoons portal should be on 6, not 7 and that should bring more balance.





good points jefjef, you see anything else? or have questions?

Well Sheeps and Dragoons have same issue.

jefjef wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

jefjef wrote:The way no mans land is drawn it would pretty well exclude one of the portals from use. Wouldn't it be better to have the same balance from all portals to Pinnacle?

yes, they should, griff will have to tweak that.

jefjef wrote:O&H and Land of Low and Dragoons also have a bit more distance to a portal than the others. Especially O&H.

O&H is a castle, like a village in feudal, it is not a starting point.


Yes, LOW should have a portal on LOW 7, not 8, and dragoons portal should be on 7, not 6 and that should bring more balance.





good points jefjef, you see anything else? or have questions?

Well Sheeps and Dragoons have same issue.

sheeps portal should be on 2, not 9, dragoons portal 7, not 6, and Low's portal 7, not 8.



sound about right?

Blitzaholic wrote:

jefjef wrote:

Blitzaholic wrote:

jefjef wrote:The way no mans land is drawn it would pretty well exclude one of the portals from use. Wouldn't it be better to have the same balance from all portals to Pinnacle?

yes, they should, griff will have to tweak that.

jefjef wrote:O&H and Land of Low and Dragoons also have a bit more distance to a portal than the others. Especially O&H.

O&H is a castle, like a village in feudal, it is not a starting point.


Yes, LOW should have a portal on LOW 7, not 8, and dragoons portal should be on 7, not 6 and that should bring more balance.





good points jefjef, you see anything else? or have questions?

Well Sheeps and Dragoons have same issue.

sheeps portal should be on 2, not 9, dragoons portal 7, not 6, and Low's portal 7, not 8.



sound about right?

Just let me input that i purposely put those how they are just because of what people were complaining about on how things do not have to be all even, they were saying it would make the game play boring if all drops had the same game play. If we want to make it fair that is fine with me, that was the main idea in the first place, just hope it has the majority vote behind that kind of game play. Blitz can you please PM me with all changes to portals and all that? Thx


Edit: as for NM land i see what your talking about jefjef, i will change that. Do we want it to take 2 terts to get to Pinnacle from the portals or 1 from each portal? let me know what you guys think.


-griff

-




sending u a pm now griff