Conquer Club

stahrgazer wrote:As to your concern about new players, new players get to join the Society of Cooks; those people who are members of SoC get to see the "Shapes" layout overlayed on the new map to help them with terr names.

SoC members get to see the names from the Shapes map overlaid on top of the map that everyone else is seeing. So they still see all of the city names and the gamelog still uses city names, but in addition there are number/letter combos from the shapes map. It's a lot more crowded, and unless you are using strategy guides based on those numbers/letters I don't see any reason why you would prefer that version. The reason it was created is because the SoC did all of their training on Shapes, and had lots of strategies written with those existing names.

Pretty much on nester's side, at least regarding the maps faults.

Lines connecting territories are fine when you've only to think about one territory away, but when you're instituting complicated blocks or attack routes lines become a pain. Territories with adjacent borders make for far more natural strategy. Just quickly looking at maps with adjacent boarders you can usually figure out what's what. There are exceptions, maps where lines and circles work (I'm thinking Chinese Checkers) but not in this case.

It's not a question of not being able to understand it. Of course I understand it, the point is I shouldn't have to work to do it. Maybe on Age Of Merchants or something, but not with classic.

Also the lack of obvious continent colours or indicators is a serious drawback for new people or for "natural strategy". S.A., N.A., and Africa are obvious enough but the boundaries for Oceania, Asia and Europe are less clear. I know Moscow is part of Europe because I remember it being Ukraine and remember Ukraine being blue coloured, but obviously new people won't know that. Things like a person owning a continent should be obvious to see, not a mistake you made because the map wasn't clear.

The map does look pretty, but these flaws are pretty obvious. I'm guessing in both cases it was decided that the necessary changes would adversely affect the maps aesthetics. Personally I'd rather see a crudely drawn map with easy to understand gameplay (classic art) than a well drawn one where the gameplay elements are more difficult to understand. There's probably a balance to be found, because nobody would want to play on my mspaint maps, but the balance has equally been missed by this map.

I realise I should have raised all this in the foundry when the revamp was going on but I don't come here that often and hey, better late than never. Maybe all of this was raised, but if raised I can't see why they the changes wouldn't be made, unless there's a tendency for foundry members to favour aesthetics over gameplay in general.

Anyway drawn out discussions about mostly inconsequential things online are kinda embarrassing so I'll probably duck out of this discussion now, but I'm still too invested in this stuff not to make this post.

Actually if you just made the circle colours a lot more obvious it would go a long way to improving the map, both in terms of making the continents clear and in aiding the minds parsing of the map's visual information.

Anyway apologies for the presumptious posts. I don't really expect action to be taken, I'm just voicing my opinion.

qeee1 wrote:Lines connecting territories are fine when you've only to think about one territory away, but when you're instituting complicated blocks or attack routes lines become a pain. Territories with adjacent borders make for far more natural strategy. Just quickly looking at maps with adjacent boarders you can usually figure out what's what.

Shapes was lines.

qeee1 wrote:Also the lack of obvious continent colours or indicators is a serious drawback for new people or for "natural strategy". S.A., N.A., and Africa are obvious enough but the boundaries for Oceania, Asia and Europe are less clear. I know Moscow is part of Europe because I remember it being Ukraine and remember Ukraine being blue coloured, but obviously new people won't know that. Things like a person owning a continent should be obvious to see, not a mistake you made because the map wasn't clear.

The names and circles are different colours.

qeee1 wrote:I realise I should have raised all this in the foundry when the revamp was going on but I don't come here that often and hey, better late than never.

If you look at the news when you log in, you will see all of the current revamps.

qeee1 wrote:Maybe all of this was raised, but if raised I can't see why they the changes wouldn't be made, unless there's a tendency for foundry members to favour aesthetics over gameplay in general.

It was, and if you read the thread you will see why action wasnt taken

drunkmonkey wrote:I'm fairly new to CC...have you ever released an update without a bunch of little kids crying that you've ruined the game forever?

You catch on quick. It'll never happen, as there will always be a minority who don't like the changes.

See what happens when you have a generation of individuals who were awarded trophies for 26th place out of 26?

skeletonboy wrote:

qeee1 wrote:Lines connecting territories are fine when you've only to think about one territory away, but when you're instituting complicated blocks or attack routes lines become a pain. Territories with adjacent borders make for far more natural strategy. Just quickly looking at maps with adjacent boarders you can usually figure out what's what.

Shapes was lines.

qeee1 wrote:Also the lack of obvious continent colours or indicators is a serious drawback for new people or for "natural strategy". S.A., N.A., and Africa are obvious enough but the boundaries for Oceania, Asia and Europe are less clear. I know Moscow is part of Europe because I remember it being Ukraine and remember Ukraine being blue coloured, but obviously new people won't know that. Things like a person owning a continent should be obvious to see, not a mistake you made because the map wasn't clear.

The names and circles are different colours.

qeee1 wrote:I realise I should have raised all this in the foundry when the revamp was going on but I don't come here that often and hey, better late than never.

If you look at the news when you log in, you will see all of the current revamps.

qeee1 wrote:Maybe all of this was raised, but if raised I can't see why they the changes wouldn't be made, unless there's a tendency for foundry members to favour aesthetics over gameplay in general.

It was, and if you read the thread you will see why action wasnt taken

Quee makes excellent points and much more eloquently than I did when I was seriously pissed off about this.

But your responses are obviously just trying to defend something by saying that "well it's done already, live with it"

NO

Each point quee made ought to be reconsidered.

I don't understand how you people can't see that by using lines you're making this map unnatural.

As I put I the final forge thread:

When I play a Classic map, I'd like to see a natural map with territories and boarders, not something out of a United Airlines Sky Mall brochure.

Anyone else also think it's better than the Hasbro original?



Rocket.

alex951 wrote:

b00060 wrote:I think it is horrible. Very confusing for a map that was eerfect for beginers. Bring the old one back. Keep them both up!!!!!!!!

its easy to read. think it will do fine

Old map was many times easier to read, which means quicker moves and less mistakes, better for beginner. (You could tell A3 was part of Asia by clearer color and by name which simplified looking at log files).

Result: A beginner may take an extra few minutes to take each turn, and more likely to make a silly mistake when rushed/tired, eg attack wrong country.

There is a reason that most people who play chess use a simple/no distracting map rather than ultra pretty 3d animated one.

Rocketry wrote:Anyone else also think it's better than the Hasbro original?



Rocket.

me. this is much better than on any edit: (other) site.

nesterdude wrote:

skeletonboy wrote:

qeee1 wrote:Lines connecting territories are fine when you've only to think about one territory away, but when you're instituting complicated blocks or attack routes lines become a pain. Territories with adjacent borders make for far more natural strategy. Just quickly looking at maps with adjacent boarders you can usually figure out what's what.

Shapes was lines.

qeee1 wrote:Also the lack of obvious continent colours or indicators is a serious drawback for new people or for "natural strategy". S.A., N.A., and Africa are obvious enough but the boundaries for Oceania, Asia and Europe are less clear. I know Moscow is part of Europe because I remember it being Ukraine and remember Ukraine being blue coloured, but obviously new people won't know that. Things like a person owning a continent should be obvious to see, not a mistake you made because the map wasn't clear.

The names and circles are different colours.

qeee1 wrote:I realise I should have raised all this in the foundry when the revamp was going on but I don't come here that often and hey, better late than never.

If you look at the news when you log in, you will see all of the current revamps.

qeee1 wrote:Maybe all of this was raised, but if raised I can't see why they the changes wouldn't be made, unless there's a tendency for foundry members to favour aesthetics over gameplay in general.

It was, and if you read the thread you will see why action wasnt taken

Quee makes excellent points and much more eloquently than I did when I was seriously pissed off about this.

But your responses are obviously just trying to defend something by saying that "well it's done already, live with it"

NO

Each point quee made ought to be reconsidered.

I don't understand how you people can't see that by using lines you're making this map unnatural.

As I put I the final forge thread:

When I play a Classic map, I'd like to see a natural map with territories and boarders, not something out of a United Airlines Sky Mall brochure.

We cant have borders because of copyright. No amount of arguing will be able to change that.

And similarly, the map started with distinctly color continents but was steered in this direction for the same reason.

Regardless, colorblind players will always have a problem distinguishing the bonus regions. I know that large swatches of color make it easier (ie colored continents) but that is certainly not fool proof. If anything, Shapes had the best system of any map since it was color and shape coordinated.

This map won't be changing to distinctly colored continents, but changing all of the circles to match the old shapes is a change I had already considered. There wasn't a lot of concern about this in the development thread, but it does seem like players are having trouble distinguishing Europe/Asia/Oceania

Coloured rings around the army circles is also something you could consider.

natty_dread wrote:Coloured rings around the army circles is also something you could consider.

They already are colored? Regardless, I don't think colors fix the problem since it's an issue for the colorblind only.

sully800 wrote:

natty_dread wrote:Coloured rings around the army circles is also something you could consider.

They already are colored? Regardless, I don't think colors fix the problem since it's an issue for the colorblind only.

Oh, they actually are! I never noticed... whoa.

Hmm, well classic art had boundaries, which was may basis for comparison. I don't think I've ever played classic shapes mostly for the same reason I don't like the new map. That said (and if I'm remembering it right) shapes probably worked because it was abstract in the same way checkers is. The map and the provinces are not separate/conflicting. In both those maps the provinces form the map as opposed to being overlaid onto the map. I guess I feel the new map is lacking a unity between graphics and gameplay.

...Unfortunately from reading the thread that perfect union seems to have already been copyrighted in the case of a forty two province map of the world, which is a shame. And realistically you need a 42 province map of the world as the flagship "classic" map on this site. I agree that Sully's is probably the best map given those restrictions, even though it's not in my opinion a "good" map.


Anyway if borders are off the table in any map resembling the world, it'd be nice to keep classic art, though obviously it's not up to standard graphically at the moment.

The continent colours isn't as big a deal to me. For whatever reason I didn't notice the names were different colours, I only noticed the circles. It's probably easy enough for new people to make similar mistakes. The colours at the moment aren't that obvious.

What went wrong?

The long anticipated Classic revamp has arrived...
but where was the expected harmonious joy in the the land of ConquerClub?


To change all classic games, both art and shapes, to this new map without warning was poor form...
And it has taken something to celebrate, and changed it into another black day for many...

While playing Classic Art, I found that i always had to hunt the board to identify territory locations,
not so with shapes, but the shapes map itself was very agitating to me...
so i must say that i am quite pleased with this new map...

But what i have learned in reading these threads,
is that there were many who loved the Shapes map for ease of identification,
and others who loved the Art map for the beauty of the connections (myself included),
and some who really missed a classic map with real world locations (include me in this list)


It seems to me that with well over 100 maps, there would have been little harm in keeping one or 2 more maps around...
And perhaps even the shapes and Art maps could have been combined... Using the shapes concept for locations, with the Art graphics...

Well... in conclusion...
I feel great sorrow for the people that had Classic games in progress and must play them out in frustration...
I also feel bad for those players that must now look for another map, to replace the classic that they once knew...


just my thoughts on the matter...

Well said Robin
Well said qeee

As for me, yes I've been a bit abrasive about this, apologies, but I hope you understand.

I'm really digging the new Classic. Great job, Sully.

I do wonder if it would be possible to have Classic Art and/or Shapes back as well ? Nothing wrong with the maps (not my cup of tea, personally, but they seem to still be liked).

I'll miss Classic Art. Knowing all those sculptors' names (most of whom I'd never heard of) was handy for blagging one's way into many cocktail functions.

Thank you Lichtenstein

BRING BACK CLASSIC SHAPES AND CLASSIC ART AS AN OPTION!!!!!! I would be shocked if the new classic map was played more tan them if you could pick from all 3.

b00060 wrote:BRING BACK CLASSIC SHAPES AND CLASSIC ART AS AN OPTION!!!!!! I would be shocked if the new classic map was played more tan them if you could pick from all 3.

I wouldn't. At all.

the.killing.44 wrote:

b00060 wrote:BRING BACK CLASSIC SHAPES AND CLASSIC ART AS AN OPTION!!!!!! I would be shocked if the new classic map was played more tan them if you could pick from all 3.

I wouldn't. At all.

Me agreeing with the.killing, now that's something you don't see every day...