Conquer Club

Hmmm

Benn,

Istanbul on our map is no different from Istanbul on Europe 1914 and no one gets confused there. Your Europe map is utter garbage.

Get a life.

Rask

ha

Raskholnikov wrote:Benn,

Istanbul on our map is no different from Istanbul on Europe 1914 and no one gets confused there. Your Europe map is utter garbage.

Get a life.

Rask

First of all I want to compliment with you for your kindness in responding to everyone...your username reflects exactly the way you treat people, but this is the foundry and not a book, so you're not over the rules or the parts, so please try to be at least genteel with people that is here to help, thanks.

Anyway...., I'm complitely agree with MrBenn, this map is still too complicated and hard to play (not complex, but complicated). It is difficult to understand and to play without clickable or bob; but clickable and bob are only tools and the foundry process doesn't consider them as a good reason to have a "e-ticket generator" map on the list (re-read the previous pages, lot of people posted here complaining about the playability of this map).
I greatly appreciate your efforts and i see how far you have gone from the sketch you posted, however the fact you have come a long way does not mean that you are arrived.
Kabanellas well knows that i'm not a man that bother someone without a reason, so please rask try to consider that this map isn't exactly the more friendly map i've ever seen going through the process...as i said months ago on MSN to Kab, there're too many infos in too little space, if only you had listened the foundry people words months ago!!!

About Istanbul it's not like europe 1914. On europe 1914 we have a red zone, but on your map there are two borders, a thin line to limit the region and a thick brown to highlight bonus. Someone could think that there're 2 territs instead of a single one. This is what MrBenn was trying to say to you.

well Rask response was not the best educated one
but it doesn't seems to me it is so hard to figure out you can attack Rumelia from Istanbul
and that Ottoman empire include all brown territories
like Kingdom of Denmark red territories is made of Denmark and Norway

I really think that after all this cutting and trimming the small map looks quite readable.. and I'm trying to distance myself from the mapmaker position taking a good look at it from the user point of view.

I do agree that it's not the more 'user-friendly' (small) map around, but then again, people will only play it if they want to. But I'm quite sure that this map will have its niche among CC followers.

Incandenza wrote:It's certainly an ambitious map, and looks to be well on its way. But I'm a veteran player, I've played all kinds of funky maps, and I spent quite some time this afternoon sussing out the gameplay on this map and it was pretty headache-inducing. I fear that you guys are still on the wrong side of the line separating complex from confusing.

It's worth pointing out that I've focused entirely on the small map. And I keep referring back to it as I write this, and I again have a headache from squinting and trying to read tiny type and differentiate between strikingly similar bonus colors.

The simplest thing is that the map sacrifices so much for the sake of historical authenticity that it no longer functions well as a game map. You also need to recall that games will not play out in any way like the Napoleonic wars did. Waterloo games, for instance, never turn into a true British-vs.-French battle.

[...]

You'll find fewer people on this site that are more interested in geography and history than I. But form must follow function, and the look and theme of the map must be utterly subservient to gameplay and legibility. Thus far that has not been the case with this map, which is why, despite the fact that it's one of the more impressive drafts I've seen recently, I fear that you gents will have to go back to the drawing board for a substantial reworking.

Since November 2009, it doesn't look like a great deal has actually changed. Sure, there is slightly less clutter, but I remain unconvinced that the concerns about over-complexity have ever been addressed. Graphically, this is a very good image (and as I've previously stated, the artist is one of the better ones around the foundry right now), but I fear that the game board still requires some reworking, for concerns that have been raised and not comprehensively addressed.

I've set up a PayPal account if anyone wants psychic readings from me...

I do think that Kab has made some good changes to the small, but it's simply still not there yet. It's worth bearing in mind that there can be reasonably significant graphic differences between small and large map, so as to accommodate the specific issues that a small map can create.

Guys, I just to end this odyssey. I'm open to suggestions.

I've been changing everything I've been told to for the last months - and I'll continue doing so. I just want to do it in all-in-a-row, and not be doing it piece by piece.

Kabanellas wrote:I really think that after all this cutting and trimming the small map looks quite readable.. and I'm trying to distance myself from the mapmaker position taking a good look at it from the user point of view.

I do agree that it's not the more 'user-friendly' (small) map around, but then again, people will only play it if they want to. But I'm quite sure that this map will have its niche among CC followers.

I see Mr Benn and others are concerned with complexity of this map. SO WHAT if it's complex. I'll sure play it. I'll be playing it in fog without bob or spoils.

It will be a hugely strategic map that can easily accommodate 8 players. It's full of bonus potentials and no set in stone "take Aussie" strategy. Many diff strategies would apply.

PUT THIS MAP IN PLAY. Get past the complexity issue. Some people will play it and some will avoid it. There are maps I will not play and yet they are offered.

OFFER THIS ONE.

kab and Rask and Ender has done an amazing job on this. It is ready for BETA.

jefjef wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:I really think that after all this cutting and trimming the small map looks quite readable.. and I'm trying to distance myself from the mapmaker position taking a good look at it from the user point of view.

I do agree that it's not the more 'user-friendly' (small) map around, but then again, people will only play it if they want to. But I'm quite sure that this map will have its niche among CC followers.

I see Mr Benn and others are concerned with complexity of this map. SO WHAT if it's complex. I'll sure play it. I'll be playing it in fog without bob or spoils.

It will be a hugely strategic map that can easily accommodate 8 players. It's full of bonus potentials and no set in stone "take Aussie" strategy. Many diff strategies would apply.

PUT THIS MAP IN PLAY. Get past the complexity issue. Some people will play it and some will avoid it. There are maps I will not play and yet they are offered.

OFFER THIS ONE.

kab and Rask and Ender has done an amazing job on this. It is ready for BETA.

It's not complexity that's the issue, it's legibility.

Incandenza wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:I really think that after all this cutting and trimming the small map looks quite readable.. and I'm trying to distance myself from the mapmaker position taking a good look at it from the user point of view.

I do agree that it's not the more 'user-friendly' (small) map around, but then again, people will only play it if they want to. But I'm quite sure that this map will have its niche among CC followers.

It's not complexity that's the issue, it's legibility.

MrBenn wrote:Since November 2009, it doesn't look like a great deal has actually changed. Sure, there is slightly less clutter, but I remain unconvinced that the concerns about over-complexity have ever been addressed. Graphically, this is a very good image (and as I've previously stated, the artist is one of the better ones around the foundry right now), but I fear that the game board still requires some reworking, for concerns that have been raised and not comprehensively addressed.

From 4 or 5 posts up...

I'm in full agreement with Jefjef -- that is to say, I want to play! I will deal with the map's complexity and mull over multiplicity of potential strategies and bonus options as I do with any other map on the site: during the game when I can account for the dual contingencies of the drop and the dice. And right now, it looks like it will be a fun and engaging map to do just that. Look, it beautifully expresses tremendous depth in terms of both gameplay and the cartographer's own artistic vision, and at this point a request for an overhaul feels like it is depriving the community a superior map while simultaneously punishing the mapmaker for his hours hard work. My 2 cents.

And honestly, if you're having a tough time deciphering the map because every territory is occupied by more than 100 armies, use the large map!

I'm a huge fan of big, complex and in other ways difficult maps to play.

This one is big, complex and difficult to play. I would most definatly play it!

There are maps which are more difficult to play then this one. Dass Schloss, Waterloo, Supermax and those are just from the top of my head after thinking 2 seconds about it. So saying this map can't move on because of it's gameplay is... well... very strange.

The problem with gameplay is that not everyone will like it. (the reason i hate some maps isn't because of the gameplay though, it's because of how they look. But thats just a personal taste of mine) Just because some players won't like the map shouldn't mean you can't go forward with it.

I also think demanding a gameplay rehaul at this point would be unfair to the mapmakers. If there still are any issues wrt. legibility they should be able to be fixed with some graphical tweaks. Although personally I can read even the small map just fine... some areas require a little squinting though. And yes, it is complex, it is somewhat cluttered, but this map was never intended for the new recruits (I hope.)

Wow - I'm in Sussex on this map - would take me four hours to drive there!

Actually I have a serious point here, since naval attacks directed at the battles of Boulogne (weaponry assembled in Portsmouth) and St Vincent (HMS Victory) are involved, the connection is with Portsmouth, so a more accurate description for what is really Southern England would be Hamps, as Portsmouth is in Hampshire, not Sussex.

Apologies if this has been debated earlier in the thread.

Sonic

Kab, Maybe you can draw a line inside the Marmara sea across the Bosphorus the same as between the two parts of Malmo to join the European and Asian parts of Istanbul and deal with that issue (still not think it's necessary, but if you're willing to keep jumping though hoops. I will too).

Or, as a now erased post said, you could move the Istanbul shield right over the Bosphorus gap to make it even more obvious it's one territory.

sonicsteve wrote:Wow - I'm in Sussex on this map - would take me four hours to drive there!

Actually I have a serious point here, since naval attacks directed at the battles of Boulogne (weaponry assembled in Portsmouth) and St Vincent (HMS Victory) are involved, the connection is with Portsmouth, so a more accurate description for what is really Southern England would be Hamps, as Portsmouth is in Hampshire, not Sussex.

Apologies if this has been debated earlier in the thread.

Sonic

I don't recall see any comment like this earlier, and it seems to make sense. For my part, it would easy enough to change in the XML.

Well we could replace Sussex with Cornwall, since that is the name of the Peninsula. I prefer that to Hamps.

Raskholnikov wrote:Well we could replace Sussex with Cornwall, since that is the name of the Peninsula. I prefer that to Hamps.

Cornwall is just as bad a name for it as Sussex. There is no particularly good name for the whole of the South - there have always been massive differneces between the Home Counties (around London) and the West Country. 'Wessex' could work though?

jefjef wrote:

Incandenza wrote:

Kabanellas wrote:I really think that after all this cutting and trimming the small map looks quite readable.. and I'm trying to distance myself from the mapmaker position taking a good look at it from the user point of view.

I do agree that it's not the more 'user-friendly' (small) map around, but then again, people will only play it if they want to. But I'm quite sure that this map will have its niche among CC followers.

It's not complexity that's the issue, it's legibility.

MrBenn wrote:Since November 2009, it doesn't look like a great deal has actually changed. Sure, there is slightly less clutter, but I remain unconvinced that the concerns about over-complexity have ever been addressed. Graphically, this is a very good image (and as I've previously stated, the artist is one of the better ones around the foundry right now), but I fear that the game board still requires some reworking, for concerns that have been raised and not comprehensively addressed.

From 4 or 5 posts up...

You're missing the point. And probably intentionally so. Since this is the graphics department, it's visual complexity, as in legibility, that is the issue. No one is talking about a gameplay overhaul.

I first came out and said I was sick of european maps and I wish ppl would do something else.

That being said - this map really has paid its dues.

In complexity, waterloo takes the cake and we all understand waterloo.

Its a large beautiful map. My old ass battle worn eyes are not as good as yours and I can read this. Am I super excited about this map? Well I like Napoleonic history, and when anyone puts this much work in a map, Im willing to say lets give it a go.

I understand the process and that Beta is not a "testing" ground per say here... But maybe it could be more of a "lets play it and see how she feels".

We can all look at and listen to Ferrari's and Chevys, but till we get in and drive... do we really know?

The complexity under discussion is that of the graphical image, not the gameplay.

"We all understand Waterloo."

That's not a generalization.

the.killing.44 wrote:The complexity under discussion is that of the graphical image, not the gameplay.

"We all understand Waterloo."

That's not a generalization.

well my well liked friend, like I said, my eyes are old and I HATE European maps and Im not so smart... and to be honest, I have no problems seeing or understanding this map.

thanx for the input.

army of nobunaga wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:The complexity under discussion is that of the graphical image, not the gameplay.

"We all understand Waterloo."

That's not a generalization.

well my well liked friend, like I said, my eyes are old and I HATE European maps and Im not so smart... and to be honest, I have no problems seeing or understanding this map.

thanx for the input.

I'm not saying you have trouble, I'm saying you shouldn't generalize that there aren't people who have problems understanding complex maps. There's a standard for legibility the map has to meet, no matter if some people can read other complex maps.

you're welcome.