Conquer Club

oaktown wrote:

Kid_A wrote:i would love to see a san francisco map.
you could zoom in on san fran and divide it into all the different districts within the city.
The bonus for holding the tenderloin of course would be 1

It would take some work to make an SF-only map interesting... the city is a seven mile by seven mile square, with only a few impassable borders (some hills and golden gate park). I think that including some surrounding cities and islands is the way to go, but the current attempt at creating the entire bay area misses the mark. I think the map would be improved if it was more San Francisco-centric, with bridge or ferry connections to Treasure Island, Alcatraz, Marin County, and of course Oaktown!

I argee to this, and I'll probably add those islands in.
How does it miss the mark. THe only thing, is that I should make SF more of a center. The big centers should be Oakland and SF.
AS, to the post about a BAy ARea map being lame. Why? THat way the whole area is included.

Question, should I cut San Jose out of the map?
ALso, should I cut some of Contra Costa out, maybe the more upper eastren part?

I made the new map: Tell me what you think:

Also the non-white parts maybe be cut out of it. Tell me if I should or shouldn't.
The white is so it's ready for photoshop and that you can judge the parts with are graphical

Fircoal wrote:[
How does it miss the mark. THe only thing, is that I should make SF more of a center. The big centers should be Oakland and SF.
AS, to the post about a BAy ARea map being lame. Why? THat way the whole area is included.

I like the concept of a map showing the entire bay area, but it doesn't look very playable... "lame" was a bit harsh. Here's where I think the map misses the mark:

1. The vertical shape of the map doesn't lend itself to easy play.

2. While it's a big map, you have a lot of small territories, which are going to be hard to label and confusing to play with.

3. Right now there are too many continent bonuses, and whoever starts the game with Alameda automatically gets a bonus. And while this makes perfect sense to this native Alamedan, it not good for game play.

4. Showing the entire bay area is going to mean a lot of dead space, like the odd voids in the Oakland/Berkeley hills. Again, it's a really big map with relatively little playing area - the problem with showing a region that is not very compact.

5. The map doesn't consider the relative economic/political/cultural value of the bay area's different regions, eg. Fremont/Union City nets you a bigger bonus than holding all of San Francisco. While this makes sense in terms of land mass, Fremont doesn't mean jack to 99.9% of the world's population - a point which has been lost on the Oakland A's ownership.

6. If your intent is to map the entire bay area, where do you stop? You've gone as far as Antioch, so why not Benicia? Where's Vallejo? Los Gatos? Pacifica? The rest of Marin County? Santa Rosa? Half Moon Bay fits on your current map, so why not make it a territory? And you're almost to Santa Cruz, which has become a silicon valley bedroom community.

The satelite map that johloh raises its own questions, but it is compact and has a clear San Francisco focus. I think there's room for both maps, but you need to figure out how to make your map relevant to potential players.

oaktown wrote:

Fircoal wrote:[
How does it miss the mark. THe only thing, is that I should make SF more of a center. The big centers should be Oakland and SF.
AS, to the post about a BAy ARea map being lame. Why? THat way the whole area is included.

I like the concept of a map showing the entire bay area, but it doesn't look very playable... "lame" was a bit harsh. Here's where I think the map misses the mark:

1. The vertical shape of the map doesn't lend itself to easy play.

2. While it's a big map, you have a lot of small territories, which are going to be hard to label and confusing to play with.

3. Right now there are too many continent bonuses, and whoever starts the game with Alameda automatically gets a bonus. And while this makes perfect sense to this native Alamedan, it not good for game play.

4. Showing the entire bay area is going to mean a lot of dead space, like the odd voids in the Oakland/Berkeley hills. Again, it's a really big map with relatively little playing area - the problem with showing a region that is not very compact.

5. The map doesn't consider the relative economic/political/cultural value of the bay area's different regions, eg. Fremont/Union City nets you a bigger bonus than holding all of San Francisco. While this makes sense in terms of land mass, Fremont doesn't mean jack to 99.9% of the world's population - a point which has been lost on the Oakland A's ownership.

6. If your intent is to map the entire bay area, where do you stop? You've gone as far as Antioch, so why not Benicia? Where's Vallejo? Los Gatos? Pacifica? The rest of Marin County? Santa Rosa? Half Moon Bay fits on your current map, so why not make it a territory? And you're almost to Santa Cruz, which has become a silicon valley bedroom community.

The satelite map that johloh raises its own questions, but it is compact and has a clear San Francisco focus. I think there's room for both maps, but you need to figure out how to make your map relevant to potential players.

Thanks for the Contructive Crit.
Anyway here are my anwsers.

1) I don't get your mean by vertical only having the map north to south.

2) I argee, I may have to do something about the small size of the countries

3) IT's like the MOntreal map, where Downtown gets an instant bonus, I like the idea, but if other people don't, I'll remove it.

4) That is a good point. I have no solutions to it, but making it an area.

5) While that also is a good point. The bonus could be changed, but I have no idea what to change them to.

6) I stopped it there because I believe that is where most people consider the BAy Area to stop. That's where most maps show it. If I cut some parts out, and they really are in the bay area, it would be unfair to them.

About the last part, SF, and Oakland are both supposed to be the focus.
Please most more CC, it was good CC to hear.

the image quality of this map is pretty poor and it's true that san fran is not featured enough. overall, you have a very long way to go with this before it could rival some of the maps that are currently in use.

why not team up with johloh? his map is really interesting and a totally new approach. also the milder colors on his map help a lot and the satellite view is cool.

i don't even care about san fran, but i would play the johloh map. i definitely don't think CC needs two san fran maps

supercram wrote:the image quality of this map is pretty poor and it's true that san fran is not featured enough. overall, you have a very long way to go with this before it could rival some of the maps that are currently in use.

why not team up with johloh? his map is really interesting and a totally new approach. also the milder colors on his map help a lot and the satellite view is cool.

i don't even care about san fran, but i would play the johloh map. i definitely don't think CC needs two san fran maps

I know that I have a long way to go.

YEs, it is a new apporch to it, but I don't know about that happening.
I used white for now because I am changing the colors since the old ones were bad.

Satellite view is cool but I don't think it's that good for playablitiy.

His is SF, focused, mine is more SF bay, focused. In his SF is the main point. In mine it seems, Oakland is the main point.

Also, I might add Bart contectors. for some places.

So do you believe we should have a SF map and a SF Bay map?
>> My opinion.

Marvaddin wrote:So do you believe we should have a SF map and a SF Bay map?
>> My opinion.

QFE

i agree. i dont think we need both.

im still in the process of working on my east asian map anyway. Fircoal can keep working on his and we'll see how the process is going in awhile...

johloh wrote:i agree. i dont think we need both.

im still in the process of working on my east asian map anyway. Fircoal can keep working on his and we'll see how the process is going in awhile...

Thank you, but if you want you could do satilite images of other place see how those are reviced.

I love this idea. I llive in the bay area (antioch- near concord, pittsburg, pleasant hill area) and was wondering if you could throw the east bay in there.

I love this idea. I llive in the bay area (antioch- near concord, pittsburg, pleasant hill area) and was wondering if you could throw the east bay in there.

he has antioch and concord.

what,me worry? wrote:I love this idea. I llive in the bay area (antioch- near concord, pittsburg, pleasant hill area) and was wondering if you could throw the east bay in there.

I already do, as johloh said.

id prefer a more san francisco centered map divided into the different districts. theres more than enough there to make it work. You could have golden gate park as a barrier between the sunset and richmond. trolly-car tracks can provide a barrier in other parts of the city. you could also use some of the main roads as dividers.Market/Divisadero/Haight/Mission/Geary/Park Presidio/19th.
Perhaps even the highways that run through the city: 80/280/101.
and of course youd still put the golden gate bridge in the NW corner attactched to Marin and bay bridge NE leading to Oak/Berkeley/Richmond.
and also treasure island and alcatraz.

but thats what id like to see. a whole bay area map would work well too.

heck, while youre at it why not do an entire State of California map. Ive lived in San Francisco for the last 3 years. I just moved down to Los Angeles, and it seems that people in northern California and southern California have quite the disliking for each other.
they can settle their dispute right here on CC

I just moved down to Los Angeles

im sorry.

johloh wrote:

I just moved down to Los Angeles

im sorry.

my point exactly

i actually prefer san fran by far a superior city for living! but i really enjoy LA as well. perfect weather. wonder restaurants and the people arent so bad

The thing about making it San Francisco centric is that it's not that good for playibity. I'd like it better with the whole bay.

Update:



Sorry, no names yet, for right now I would like to focus on the graphics and playabitily.

Fircoal wrote:

You know what this map makes me think of?

"Well you know my name is Simon, and the things I draw come true."

The bay area, of all places, deserves a more high-tech approach to its map.

oaktown wrote:

Fircoal wrote:

You know what this map makes me think of?

"Well you know my name is Simon, and the things I draw come true."

The bay area, of all places, deserves a more high-tech approach to its map.

What do you mean by that?

Fircoal wrote:

oaktown wrote:The bay area, of all places, deserves a more high-tech approach to its map.

What do you mean by that?

bay area, high tech central... I think the idea behind this map is very workable, but you need to get yourself a solid graphics program to do the region justice. I've been re-teaching myself photoshop and it's kicking my ass, but it's very powerful and ultimately will make your work look more professional. Until then it will be hard for people to look past the simple graphics and seriously consider the playability of the map.

As a bay area native I'd like to see this work. Best of luck.

Really is awuful at the moment to be honest. My advice would be either to get to know photoshop or GIMP or work with the guy that was doing the overhead photo version, as that looked realy appealing and original...

Needs a lot of work at the moment I'm afraid.

okay, thanks for the comments, I know that I'm going to need to get photoshop or GIMP(or really anything that's not paint.) so when I do, there will be a revised map up.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... ht=#194688

I really like Jolah's map more to be honest. Also, it's San Mateo not San Meteo. Graphically, it needs a lot of work, the silicon valley needs to be worth more, as it is where the money is here. San Francisco needs to go further south to South San Francisco. I was born and raised in the bay and I can't make out what your line divisions are in relation to the cities.

Also, just a thought. The bonuses should coincide with the actual economic impact of the region to the bay area. Contra Costa county should be the lowest along with Solano County. San Francisco and San Jose should be highest with San Mateo and Marin being second most important. The map should just strategically represent the region better in terms of value.

Even though I didn't really like the satellite pic at first, It has really grown on me and I like the idea of a 3 dimensional map.

luckiekevin wrote:http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=194688&highlight=#194688

I really like Jolah's map more to be honest. Also, it's San Mateo not San Meteo. Graphically, it needs a lot of work, the silicon valley needs to be worth more, as it is where the money is here. San Francisco needs to go further south to South San Francisco. I was born and raised in the bay and I can't make out what your line divisions are in relation to the cities.

Also, just a thought. The bonuses should coincide with the actual economic impact of the region to the bay area. Contra Costa county should be the lowest along with Solano County. San Francisco and San Jose should be highest with San Mateo and Marin being second most important. The map should just strategically represent the region better in terms of value.

Even though I didn't really like the satellite pic at first, It has really grown on me and I like the idea of a 3 dimensional map.

The economic impact isn't everything about the map, it should more be about the playability. And how can't you figure them out, some of them aren't to scale to an actuall, town, or city.

whats going on with this map?