Conquer Club

Kaplowitz wrote:I havent read the whole thread, so dont bash me for commenting on one thing...

but may I suggest:


Futura BK for the capital letters, Futura Lt for the lower case letters...

Ahh, snazzy. But will it translate to white?

Kudos on the graphics stamp, Mr. Sully. That's the worst part out of the way, I hope.

Evil DIMwit wrote:

Kaplowitz wrote:I havent read the whole thread, so dont bash me for commenting on one thing...

but may I suggest:


Futura BK for the capital letters, Futura Lt for the lower case letters...

Ahh, snazzy. But will it translate to white?

Kudos on the graphics stamp, Mr. Sully. That's the worst part out of the way, I hope.

You could be quite wrong about the worst part being out of the way BUT it's a good step forward!

I'll try that font combo, as well as changing the color from plain white. Stay tuned...

Is this one of the fonts you are using?





Hey... you wanna see something crazy....
Look at this night shot, and tell me you're glad you don't live in that black hole...



Also, this shows just how close Seoul is from the border...




You know... these maps are kinda fun...
Find your World Cities on these maps:

[bigimg]http://www.europemapofeurope.net/europe-map-of-europe-nightlights-satellite-woodleywonderworks.jpg[/bigimg]



oh oh oh... compare the north america picture above, to the one from August 14, 2003 below...



hehehhee... okay, i now return you to the mundane process of fine tuning the syntax details of getting this map ready to play...


Seriously though,
it's already looking like the BEST map EVER the way it is right now...
And I can't wait to play it!

Holy hell, those are huge amounts of lights . Funny to see nothing in central Africa though .

As for the map, great stuff! Nothing more that I can suggest, except that I think the title needs a good font. I don't really know about fonts and things, so yeh, I'm no help there .

I like Trebuchet the best, but it is quite boring having the same font all over the map.

sully800 wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

Kaplowitz wrote:I havent read the whole thread, so dont bash me for commenting on one thing...

but may I suggest:


Futura BK for the capital letters, Futura Lt for the lower case letters...

Ahh, snazzy. But will it translate to white?

Kudos on the graphics stamp, Mr. Sully. That's the worst part out of the way, I hope.

You could be quite wrong about the worst part being out of the way BUT it's a good step forward!

I'll try that font combo, as well as changing the color from plain white. Stay tuned...

I'm not sure that Futura is an improvement, but I like the idea of making the initial letters boldface.

thedon5 wrote:Holy hell, those are huge amounts of lights . Funny to see nothing in central Africa though .

yeah that staggering poverty sure is hilarious

anyway, I also support the bold-face initial letters idea. In theory at least, but I think it'll work on the map.

For the record, when World Cities is quenched it is going to be installed as a regular map and not a Classic REVAMP.

Also, I think this map is so distinct from other popular global-domination game maps that it is legal to split it over the Atlantic and people will enjoy that better (I realize I should have posted that 3 months ago, very sorry!).

So, lack and I discussed this version 3 months ago and there was some confusion about which one should continue with development. So I will attempt to switch the current map to a more typical alignment (with the Americas on the left). This means that the bonus regions will switch locations and therefore some of the cities will be switching.

Here is the 3 month old mock up. Yes, I realize that Greece should actually be Athens. Please review the cities in this draft in comparison with the cities in the V18 draft. Once we have a finalized cities list I will create an up to date version of this shifted map.

[bigimg]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/7458/worldcities13b.jpg[/bigimg]

So please post any concerns about the current cities. If you have suggestions for switches please let me know within the next two weeks because it will make things MUCH easier. Sorry for the sudden change of plans, but development will forge ahead!

[bigimg]http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/4223/worldcitieslarge18.jpg[/bigimg][/quote]
imo this one is way better
its different and i like it heaps more

I prefer it split on the pacific, too. Even if you switch to the split on the atlantic version, why not just keep the same bonus structure? I think we had a pretty good list of cities, with only Paris being the major loss (and it's not on the old version, either). the list of cities on the old version is pretty... well... magadan? that's a godzilla monster, isn't it?

The problem with keeping the current layout and splitting on the Pacific is that we would have 6 connections which wrap around the map. This would make gameplay far too confusing to be practical.

I appreciate your support of the current version. I originally chose the largest areas to be Europe and America because that is where the majority of CC players come from. There are tons of large and great cities in Asia, but I don't think they are more "wordly" than the established European hubs for example. But I also see the appeal of a map split on the Pacific since that is how we most commonly view the world.

Keep the opinions coming, and thanks for the input so far.

You have no good reason to split in the Pacific. The shifted version becomes a cheap imitation of the classic map. You have a much better thing going with the Atlantic split.

sully800 wrote:The problem with keeping the current layout and splitting on the Pacific is that we would have 6 connections which wrap around the map. This would make gameplay far too confusing to be practical.

I should clarify... I meant that I preferred it split on the atlantic, as the current official version is, not the pacific. I got the oceans mixed up (I'm a dunce)

But like you said, there are more cities in North America and Europe that are known to the users here, and are important to the global economy/culture in one way or another. Asia has lots to choose from, don't get me wrong, but a great deal of their World Cities are, like Europe's, concentrated in a small area, while vast portions of it (central and north) are empty, world city-wise. You did a great job with Asia in the current version, using a "Classic Europe" template.

You don't have to ape the classic map 100%. The core gameplay is the same either way. The "NA as Asia, Europe as NA" version is much better, aesthetically and thematically.

There is currently some behind-the-scenes discussion about this map. There have been no firm decisions about which projection will be adopted, but there may be some desire to revert to a more "classic" view of the world - which is why we are Sully is exploring alternative city options.

The immediate task is to get a good second configuration, in order to assist the process (albeit a frustrating one).

One idea might be to create both versions and see what people prefer (people who have never seen either draft before). I'm definitely attached to the version that has been developed within this thread, but I can also see the pros of a more traditional world arrangement. It might be more recognizable as a classic world map if it was split on the Pacific, and that could be a great feature to users who are completely new to the site. So anyway, there are always pros and cons to different versions and ideas. Right now the con is re-routing all those straight lines to make them look good

Sully's 1st reaction to Lack's message...





2 versions is definitely the way to go here...
it's the only way the Atlantic split will be recognized as superior IMO...

The Atlantic split has an incredibly fresh and unique feel,
while at the same time maintaining the classic game play...
it actually messes with your head just a bit... but in a good way...

At the end of the day though,
it's all good as we will once again have classic gameplay with a REAL MAP!

lackattack wrote:For the record, when World Cities is quenched it is going to be installed as a regular map and not a Classic REVAMP.

Also, I think this map is so distinct from other popular global-domination game maps that it is legal to split it over the Atlantic and people will enjoy that better (I realize I should have posted that 3 months ago, very sorry!).

Not to be glib, but if you only "think" this is distinct enough from other global-domination game maps to avoid legal issues, is that really enough to alter the development? I would think that to justify a switch to a Pacific-split, we would have to know it wouldn't be challenged by the same entities that challenged the old Classic map. Otherwise, we could be going through an alteration process again several months from now. Hopefully I'm not out of line in raising that point.

That being said...

sully800 wrote:[bigimg]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/7458/worldcities13b.jpg[/bigimg]

So please post any concerns about the current cities. If you have suggestions for switches please let me know within the next two weeks because it will make things MUCH easier. Sorry for the sudden change of plans, but development will forge ahead!

IF this is the direction the map goes in, I would suggest swapping Casablanca for Dakar, Istanbul for Athens, and Mecca for Dubai. Those are just personal opinions, though, and worth debating. I'd also say Magadan, with only a population of 100k or so, sticks out like a sore thumb. If there were a way to move Beijing a little to the left and then make Seoul an Asian city instead of Magadan, that might work. Alternatively, maybe Sapporo, with it's Olympic history, could make a suitable substitute in Northern Japan.

EDIT: no strong personal opinion on this, but the west coast of North America could be: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Vancouver rather than Los Angeles, Seattle, Anchorage.

Peter Gibbons wrote:I'd also say Magadan, with only a population of 100k or so, sticks out like a sore thumb.

Yakutsk isn't much better. If you do go the classic way (which, to reiterate, I'm against), you'll want to shuffle the cities a bit. Perhaps the changes Mr. Gibbons proposed for North America, along with something like:
[bigimg]http://www.freewebs.com/dimagic/ConquerClub/CitiesShiftDown.png[/bigimg]

More crowded than it was, but not much more than North America in the other (and, to reiterate, better) version.

I am not keen on the return to a split-Pacific. It seems more obviously derivative of the original Hasbro map (even if not every city is taken from the original area on that map) and therefore more susceptible to litigation. Plus, it is nice to see a world map from a different angle.

I like Evil DIMwit's suggestions for the Asian cities. I had thought of Vladivostok myself, but this set of adjustments is more thorough and coherent.

Perhaps someone would like to review this map in terms of the list of largest cities by population, as was done back here? It would be nice to know which map does a better job of living up to its name, but, frankly, I need to hit the hay. Otherwise, I might take a crack at it. [player]Robinette[/player], are you game to run the numbers again?

Just thought of another potential alteration (and take it as a suggestion--not a personal preference as I haven't thought which options I like the best): make Perth the entry point to Oceania. That way, you could include Singapore or Jakarta in the Asia bonus and bring the Asian cities, as a whole, further south, thereby including the more populated areas like Evil DIMwit started to demonstrate.

Peter Gibbons wrote:Just thought of another potential alteration (and take it as a suggestion--not a personal preference as I haven't thought which options I like the best): make Perth the entry point to Oceania. That way, you could include Singapore or Jakarta in the Asia bonus and bring the Asian cities, as a whole, further south, thereby including the more populated areas like Evil DIMwit started to demonstrate.

[bigimg]http://www.freewebs.com/dimagic/ConquerClub/CitiesShiftDown2.png[/bigimg]

More people crammed in even closer. How Asia.

I like the older version. If this map isn't going to be classed as a Classic Revamp, then why not make it unique.

Sry, I agree with atlantic split. A connection between London and New York seems far more realistic than some cities no-one's ever heard of. It was also an nice twist to the classic map.

Perhaps a poll will solve the issue?

Okay... let me 1st say that I strongly prefer the Atlantic split map, just like virtually all the other responses before me...

But if it has to move around, why not make it a map with NO crossboard connections...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Risk_Game_Graph.svg

Crazy, huh? Never noticed that it could work this way until i stumbled onto this...

Think outside the box and rotate this image in all directions, and i'll bet you can make it work.

Robinette wrote:Okay... let me 1st say that I strongly prefer the Atlantic split map, just like virtually all the other responses before me...

But if it has to move around, why not make it a map with NO crossboard connections...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Risk_Game_Graph.svg

Crazy, huh? Never noticed that it could work this way until i stumbled onto this...

Think outside the box and rotate this image in all directions, and i'll bet you can make it work.

This is an interesting view, but would mean a whole lot of work for Sully, especially after having his Graphics stamp.
But I have seen this layout on Wikipedia and I agree that its lack of off-board links could be useful. Using it as is would get Conquer Club involved with the Creative Commons license, which might be a problem. But as a guideline, it might work well with Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion map, Dymaxion_map_unfolded-no-ocean.png. Ultimately, though, I wouldn't want to see the current map and Sully's work to this point derailed for the sake of this new layout.