Conquer Club

WAIT! I have a question...
I know I don't frequent the Foundry as much as I should, but was intrigued by a classic 2.0 map. But it would it totally replace the old classic?
Cuz I think its great, just not if it were to replace the "Friendly" classic map we all know and love.

No maps are ever removed from CC. I just wanted to make a second Classic map that would work better for eight player games.

Nothing is happening to the current Classic map, other than some graphics adjustments which can be seen in Final Forge (i have nothing to do with that).

CLASSIC 2.0 by [player]Kaplowitz[/player]

(click image for full size)


Territories: 56
Continents: 6
Updates: 11
___________________________________________________________
-Changed Scandinavia into one territory
-Changed Ukraine into 3 territories
-Reduced the font size by 5%
-Changed the bonuses of Africa and South America to 4
-smoothed borders of the US

Were those divisions of Ukraine good or should they be changed?
Western Russia a good name?

Kaplowitz wrote:
Were those divisions of Ukraine good or should they be changed?
Western Russia a good name?

Um... I'm pretty sure Bolivia is in South America
Were you thinking "Baltics"?

Belarus kill me now.

mibi wrote:It took nine versions to get to this point? You have a map that is thoroughly lacking in any sense of direction or purpose and should more likely see use on the place mats of your local greasy spoon with a box of broken crayons, then any gaming site.

The continents are myopic, the territories are lackadaisical, and the colors suffer from an iron deficiency. This whole exercise is a slithering feat of malnourishment. And to top it all off, you have post humorously christen it "2.0" as if there were actually some resemblance to the living work of which you take inspiration from and nothing more.

If I were you, I would take this project and put it in a lock box, put the lock box on a shelf, close the closet door, and proceed to torch the entire neighborhood lest no future civilization should exhume this cartographic carcass and pass judgment upon mankind.

i have to agree with mibi on this one, well, not with his choice of words but rather with the idea behind his thoughts.

in my opinion the map has no past no present and definitely no future. the graphics are bland as dirt and the gameplay blows. adding a few terits to an existing map is not a reason to create something new. if this goes through i call dibs on classic 3.0 ..... 100.0 plus i also call dibs on all the existing maps and i'll just add a suffix.

who wants AoM 69.0?? or why not KOTM 13.0

there are hundreds of much better ideas in the map ideas thread. why not pick one and use your skills to make something new something refreshing and original??

I actually agree with you DiM. I started the map because i had already made it and decided to b/c i was bored. The only real reason as to why it continued was because of the great response it got. Honestly, i would much rather have my CC Archery map be quenched, but no one cares about it! The poll has less than 10 votes, as compared to over 100 votes in this map- 60 of which want it to continue.

This map is just better liked than anything else that i have tried. Yes, it is also disliked- but for once, there are more people who like than dislike it.

I have to say I took the time to read this full thread and it seems even though the support in the poll is about 50% the general atmosphere in the thread is negative. This tied with no clear path of production and the NEVER changing graphics is maknig it difficult for me to move to [adv. idea] at the moment.

54% support in the poll is a clear indication the idea is bad. yes it sounds strange but that's how it works considering the fact many people come and vote yes just for the sake of voting. heck i've seen maps with 80% support that got abandoned.
plus as gimil said the map has had a lot of updates and yet nothing changed. please take on something interesting. you have the skill to do it.

DiM wrote:54% support in the poll is a clear indication the idea is bad. yes it sounds strange but that's how it works considering the fact many people come and vote yes just for the sake of voting. heck i've seen maps with 80% support that got abandoned.
plus as gimil said the map has had a lot of updates and yet nothing changed. please take on something interesting. you have the skill to do it.

i agree that this map is in no way needed due to it being so similar to classic an world 2.1. However, maybe you could add some kind of theme to it! After all there are 3 AoM's out there. Why cant there be 3 classics?

hulmey wrote:

DiM wrote:54% support in the poll is a clear indication the idea is bad. yes it sounds strange but that's how it works considering the fact many people come and vote yes just for the sake of voting. heck i've seen maps with 80% support that got abandoned.
plus as gimil said the map has had a lot of updates and yet nothing changed. please take on something interesting. you have the skill to do it.

i agree that this map is in no way needed due to it being so similar to classic an world 2.1. However, maybe you could add some kind of theme to it! After all there are 3 AoM's out there. Why cant there be 3 classics?

Hm, there only 1 AoM

gimil wrote:

hulmey wrote:

DiM wrote:54% support in the poll is a clear indication the idea is bad. yes it sounds strange but that's how it works considering the fact many people come and vote yes just for the sake of voting. heck i've seen maps with 80% support that got abandoned.
plus as gimil said the map has had a lot of updates and yet nothing changed. please take on something interesting. you have the skill to do it.

i agree that this map is in no way needed due to it being so similar to classic an world 2.1. However, maybe you could add some kind of theme to it! After all there are 3 AoM's out there. Why cant there be 3 classics?

Hm, there only 1 AoM

i agree with gimil there's just 1 AoM, there are 3 AoR maps.

and you see, the AoR maps are sufficiently different to justify their existence. you have a totally different gameplay in each of them, whereas this map has just minor modifications.

I made it similar because i wanted it to be an 8 player version of Classic.

DiM: 54% means nothing. It all has to do with the number of people who voted "yes". The "no"s dont count other than the fact that they are not "yes"s.

And waht do you mean by the never changing gfx? I made a huge gfx change and then there were no more comments. Is there something i missed?

and there is only 1 AoM.

Kaplowitz wrote:I made it similar because i wanted it to be an 8 player version of Classic.

DiM: 54% means nothing. It all has to do with the number of people who voted "yes". The "no"s dont count other than the fact that they are not "yes"s.

And waht do you mean by the never changing gfx? I made a huge gfx change and then there were no more comments. Is there something i missed?

and there is only 1 AoM.

The graphic APPEAR to have stayed the same all the time. It doesnt seem like there has been any change to the bland colours, the blurred appearence.

I want you to look at this and reaslise the standard that will be expected of you for such a project:


regardless this cant be held back any longer. . .

[adv. idea]

Well, i wanted to keep the style but redo the gfx. I fixed all of the sloppy border problems and smoothened everything. If you want me to change the style completely, then i can- i just didnt know you wanted me to.

Just to say, the idea of another classic could be good, although not necessary... but this your version is REALLY bad. Hmmmm, thinking better... I think I wouldnt like any change in the classic map, lol.

If classic is not designed to be played by 8, well, dont play it with 8 people, lol. Anyway, there are other maps with similar gameplay that are bigger.

Just ' yes' votes count???

I don't know what you guys are talking about. I would rather play on a challenging well thought out map that was full of bland colors and lines than a boring map with great graphics. I think the map is looking good. If it was quenched right now, I'd still play on it. I always thought that we needed an expanded classic map, but World 2.1 was just too large for me, the games took forever. I really hope this map continues.

Mr. Squirrel wrote:I don't know what you guys are talking about. I would rather play on a challenging well thought out map that was full of bland colors and lines than a boring map with great graphics. I think the map is looking good. If it was quenched right now, I'd still play on it. I always thought that we needed an expanded classic map, but World 2.1 was just too large for me, the games took forever. I really hope this map continues.

I agree. I believe it would easily be the most popular map on this site.

I've posted before supporting this because;

I love 8 player
I look for maps with a little more territories but not like World
I like the classic map but wish for a few more terr.
I believe this would be used alot and would start many of my Terminator games on it.


However, there could be much improvement on the look. Background textured or sea creatures or mountains or flags of nations or whatever, it is plain. I could care less buuuuut, for adding it to a website with thousands of people on it I understand there needs to be a certain "look" to things and respect the negative comments in this thread. I am far from a graphics guy so I cannot help, sorry. Maybe someone will help out in that area as it seems the people who post in this thread hold that as an important factor.

Hope it goes

thanks for the support guys! still working, but updates are slow b/c of school ending in a couple of months

As far as graphics I would go with medieval. The marching infantries, cannons etc. Forget about airplanes and tanks. It seems to me there are really two classes of players on this site. Those who are familiar with the original Risk game and those who don't mind playing on weird maps that have nothing to do with world conquest. Though there are some nice looking maps on this site many are totally foreign to my state of thinking. An expanded Classic map would have great appeal to the former group.

I like the graphic ides.
OK it seems like most the arguments against this is it is Copying the classic, no theme, no new idea, bad graphics.
From what I can tell the real reason for this map is for a terrific 8 player map similar to classic which is the most used map and great.
So what if it came away from the classic a bit more but was still a world map, which there are very few of.
Here is a few suggestions that will totally change things but maintain the goal for a improved 8 player escalating map. Just some out of the box ideas.

-Since it has 14 more territories than classic provide one more bonus area by;
decreasing number of terr. in US, Asia and europe. Add a Middle east area. The middle east has always been a huge part of the world. Maybe it would look like the area showed here but split up into countries. Isreal, Iran, Iraq, ect.
This map is used just to show an xtra bonus area and for no other reasons. Pay no attention to the words or anything but the middle east area.

-Change the name of the map to get away from the direct link to the classic map and all the complaints that come with that. Make it it's own.

-The graphics. It is clear this is important to the map makers and artists on this site therefore should be taken seriously. I like the above posts ideas and would be down for whatever.

Last, I think mibi has some great points except to abandon the idea. It is good he takes the time to criticize because it will only result in a much better product. 50 percent against is alot. But almost no one is against it for it's first intention of being an better 8 player world map. Maybe it just needs to become it's own map more and provide everything a superior 8 player map would have. I believe this is worth having and it is the only map I am really paying attention to because I love 8 player.

i think africa should be a 5 bonus. nearly every country in it has a front that would need support/troops to hold it.

pepperonibread wrote:

Kaplowitz wrote:
Were those divisions of Ukraine good or should they be changed?
Western Russia a good name?

Um... I'm pretty sure Bolivia is in South America
Were you thinking "Baltics"?

Ah, somebody else noticed.
Belarus is fine as a name of that ter.
As for Western Russia: a less ambiguous name is European Russia.

You going to continue this! might be the right time to introduce it