Conquer Club

Victor Sullivan wrote:

DiM wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:[*]Round 2: General Gameplay Suggestions

• The objective is far too difficult to be a feasible route of winning. I'd lower it to at highest 8, but it could go down to 6, even.
• To clarify, is it +1 per critter, or +1 for holding at least 1 critter?
• Casper, as Andy mentioned, would best be moved to Bob or Jim. Eustace is rather large, so you could probably take some space from 'him'.
• I think that you should consider combining the cars and planes, so that any corner can attack any other corner. Movement around the map will be important, since the objective pieces are all over.

the main reason i said one should hold all of them is that i wanted those terits to be distributed at the start. but i guess i could lower the number to holding just 6 and make the terits start as neutral 3.

I think you could easily combine them both. Set each as a starting position, set your position max at 3 and you're golden.

DiM wrote:it's +1 per critter.

Ah, okay. You'll have to clarify that in your legend at the top, then. Though I must say, I think I was more fond of the other assumption I made, as it wouldn't inflate every bonus area, and it would balance 1v1s better, giving the first player less of an advantage (since he wouldn't be able to deprive his opponent of a +1 in a few lucky rolls). Either way, the starting positions would likely have to be set with a starting troop count of, say, 5, to ensure that everyone gets to cash in on their starting +1 (unless, of course, you're playing with a bunch of bungholes that hate you, in which case just FAMO).

DiM wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:[*]Round 3: The Other Stuff

• The army boxes really don't fit IMO. I really think it would look loads better with the army numbers directly on the 'fabric'.
• The buttons look very cut-and-paste (for obvious reasons - they're the same image!), though it is rather well-disguised with so many of them. I think what would help further would be to rotate the repeats to help them look more dissimilar.
• Many of the critters don't appear to have a texture, making them look very flat in comparison to the well-textured fabric beneath.

[/list]
Well, that's all for today, kids! It's all right, though, I'll be back

-Sully

i'm afraid the army numbers would be very hard to see on most "fabrics", that's why i made the army boxes.

Oh, really? That's a shame. Have you tested the numbers with them straight on the 'fabric'?

DiM wrote:well i could easily rotate them or perhaps even try to find a unique button for each position but the thing is that it's more realistic like it is now. if you take a box of buttons you're probably going to find many duplicates/triplicates. in fact you'll probably even find whole sets of 6-8 buttons.

Oh, I totally agree. I don't mean to say make each individual button different, I just mean that if a box of buttons spilled out on a quilt, they wouldn't all align the same, if that makes sense.

DiM wrote:the critters are supposed to be made of paper. like a kid took some pieces of coloured paper and cut them out. now some papers have a certain texture but most of them are plain and smooth and just the colour differs.

Ahhh, okay. Hm, I wonder if there's a way to make that more apparent? *shrugs*

-Sully

DiM wrote:you mean the army numbers straight on the fabric?
yes i've tested them and they're hard to see on almost all continents

Victor Sullivan wrote:

DiM wrote:it's +1 per critter.

Ah, okay. You'll have to clarify that in your legend at the top, then. Though I must say, I think I was more fond of the other assumption I made, as it wouldn't inflate every bonus area, and it would balance 1v1s better, giving the first player less of an advantage (since he wouldn't be able to deprive his opponent of a +1 in a few lucky rolls). Either way, the starting positions would likely have to be set with a starting troop count of, say, 5, to ensure that everyone gets to cash in on their starting +1 (unless, of course, you're playing with a bunch of bungholes that hate you, in which case just FAMO).

Victor Sullivan wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

DiM wrote:it's +1 per critter.

Ah, okay. You'll have to clarify that in your legend at the top, then. Though I must say, I think I was more fond of the other assumption I made, as it wouldn't inflate every bonus area, and it would balance 1v1s better, giving the first player less of an advantage (since he wouldn't be able to deprive his opponent of a +1 in a few lucky rolls). Either way, the starting positions would likely have to be set with a starting troop count of, say, 5, to ensure that everyone gets to cash in on their starting +1 (unless, of course, you're playing with a bunch of bungholes that hate you, in which case just FAMO).

-Sully

DiM wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

DiM wrote:it's +1 per critter.

Ah, okay. You'll have to clarify that in your legend at the top, then. Though I must say, I think I was more fond of the other assumption I made, as it wouldn't inflate every bonus area, and it would balance 1v1s better, giving the first player less of an advantage (since he wouldn't be able to deprive his opponent of a +1 in a few lucky rolls). Either way, the starting positions would likely have to be set with a starting troop count of, say, 5, to ensure that everyone gets to cash in on their starting +1 (unless, of course, you're playing with a bunch of bungholes that hate you, in which case just FAMO).

-Sully

i've clarified that in the legend and the toys start as neutral (3) so there's no advantage for going first.

Victor Sullivan wrote:

DiM wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

DiM wrote:it's +1 per critter.

Ah, okay. You'll have to clarify that in your legend at the top, then. Though I must say, I think I was more fond of the other assumption I made, as it wouldn't inflate every bonus area, and it would balance 1v1s better, giving the first player less of an advantage (since he wouldn't be able to deprive his opponent of a +1 in a few lucky rolls). Either way, the starting positions would likely have to be set with a starting troop count of, say, 5, to ensure that everyone gets to cash in on their starting +1 (unless, of course, you're playing with a bunch of bungholes that hate you, in which case just FAMO).

-Sully

i've clarified that in the legend and the toys start as neutral (3) so there's no advantage for going first.

True... But I think it would do much better as a +1 for holding at least one toy, then set them up as starting positions with a starting value of 5 or 6.

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:No no, the other territories would be dropped as per the norm.

-Sully

DiM wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:No no, the other territories would be dropped as per the norm.

-Sully

but i don't want them to be dropped. i want them to start neutral with a value of 3.

every terit except the toys will be dropped randomly to all players except the toys.

Victor Sullivan wrote:

DiM wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:No no, the other territories would be dropped as per the norm.

-Sully

but i don't want them to be dropped. i want them to start neutral with a value of 3.

every terit except the toys will be dropped randomly to all players except the toys.

Why not?

-Sully

DiM wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:

DiM wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:No no, the other territories would be dropped as per the norm.

-Sully

but i don't want them to be dropped. i want them to start neutral with a value of 3.

every terit except the toys will be dropped randomly to all players except the toys.

Why not?

-Sully

i don't want them distributed from the start because some guy might get lucky and get 4-5 of them while others will get none and that's not fair.
by making them start as neutral 3 i make sure that nobody gets any kind of bonuses right from the start.

What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: it's uber cool

gimil wrote:

What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: it's uber cool

Honestly mate? I struggle to agree.

gimil wrote:

What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: it's uber cool

Honestly mate? I struggle to agree. I have come back to look at this a few times and I just don't get it. I kinda like what you did the the quilted material...looks rather cool. But past the quilt itself the rest of it just looks like clutter to me. Honestly...I am trying to be more constructive. But nothing is coming to me.

ManBungalow wrote:How will bonuses be referred to in the log or game chat?

Also, the text on the big central bonus is hard on the eye.

And just for the record - if it were up to me, I'd call this map 'Patchwork'...or maybe even 'Patchwar' at a push. Just saying.

ManBungalow wrote:How will bonuses be referred to in the log or game chat?

Also, the text on the big central bonus is hard on the eye.

And just for the record - if it were up to me, I'd call this map 'Patchwork'...or maybe even 'Patchwar' at a push. Just saying.

lostatlimbo wrote:

ManBungalow wrote:How will bonuses be referred to in the log or game chat?

Also, the text on the big central bonus is hard on the eye.

And just for the record - if it were up to me, I'd call this map 'Patchwork'...or maybe even 'Patchwar' at a push. Just saying.

I like Patchwar (or Patch War).

However, I do not like your flashy sig.