Conquer Club

whitestazn88 wrote:so there are no bonuses now?

There are, i just wanted your opinion on the font before i added them

ok hb this

At the request of shadowsteel9, I have taken over the map design for this map. Here's my first version, Small size:


Map Design Questions:
- Any objections to the background?
- Do the bonuses show up well against the background?
- Are unique elements (cation/anion, attack directions) explained well?
- Does the font work?

TaCktiX wrote:At the request of shadowsteel9, I have taken over the map design for this map. Here's my first version, Small size:


Map Design Questions:
- Any objections to the background?
- Do the bonuses show up well against the background?
- Are unique elements (cation/anion, attack directions) explained well?
- Does the font work?

not a fan of the font. nor do i like the background. consider the multitude of people who already have to wear glasses, this might be too much.

and the bonus for the transition metals is really weird. especially since you put lanthanides and actinides in the same bonus structure, but with different colors. it just looks strange

the reason for the lanthides and actinides (i kno i horribly owned the spelling) is cause they are different but as the way the bonuses state they are the same, i mean they are different elemental properties so they are held in a different section on the table for a reason, plus theres a Sheet load of them so its imo the best way to bonus them in this map..umm how does colors and font have to do with glasses, just wondering cause is that not the small version im sure if u made it a bit bigger its fine, i will agree that the size of it is a bit to small on some parts but i love the background and the font, word

While we're waiting for the next draft, ne other things you would like to discuss?
For example
How neutrals will work- Would you all rather have things like noble gases and halogens have more because their bonuses are more, or have them all have a set # like 3 or 4.

Have you considered a decay on radioactive elements?

InkL0sed wrote:Have you considered a decay on radioactive elements?

explain how this would work

The font is impossible to read, imho. But still loving the gameplay. And the map definitely looks more professional; good job TaCktiX. Only one thing looks a little forced: the borders between Scandium and Titanium, and Yttrium and Zirconium. The really thick black line looks like an impassable border, even though the key says it's not. I don't have any alternative ideas atm, but I'm sure you can think of something.

shadowsteel9 wrote:How neutrals will work- Would you all rather have things like noble gases and halogens have more because their bonuses are more, or have them all have a set # like 3 or 4.

I don't think this should be a conquest map like Age of Realms or Feudal War; I think the territories should just be divided among players, like in a normal map.

shadowsteel9 wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Have you considered a decay on radioactive elements?

explain how this would work

This actually sounds like a great idea. You can set any radioactive elements to loose 1 army per turn.

Ditocoaf wrote:The font is impossible to read, imho. But still loving the gameplay. And the map definitely looks more professional; good job TaCktiX. Only one thing looks a little forced: the borders between Scandium and Titanium, and Yttrium and Zirconium. The really thick black line looks like an impassable border, even though the key says it's not. I don't have any alternative ideas atm, but I'm sure you can think of something.

Already found a replacement font, and I'll figure a way of making the Ac/La border still a border, while keeping the higher transition elements unperturbed.

shadowsteel9 wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:Have you considered a decay on radioactive elements?

explain how this would work

For well-known radioactive elements (Uranium, Plutonium, Radium, etc.), there would be a radioactive symbol, and a -1 decay per turn. Maps like Dust Bowl have territories featuring this, and I also agree it'd be appropriate.

Actually, I think the decay should depend on the actual radioactivity, rather than having them all be -1.

True, but that'd make 90% of the 7th Transition Period uber-hard to hold, and most of the Actinides in the same boat. Actually, writing that makes it more of a possibility than I gave it credence, though I'd say a heavier bonus for holding radioactive elements.

Second Beta:



Updates:
- Ditched the Background for simple black.
- Narrowed the border between 4th and 5th Period Transition elements
- Added white impassable border
- Added the (forgotten) 3+ and 3- pairs
- New, much more readable font (ironically called Niobium)
- Re-wrote the Transition/Lanthanide/Actinide bonus

Very good second Draft TaCkitX, as of right now it's hard to tell the difference in color between the organics, and semiconductors. Other than that a great job, as expected.

Also i like the idea of radioactive elements having decay.

Also with the cation and anion key,
i would like to suggest since you have the + on the left that you put cations first in the key sentence before Anions, since that is their actual charge.

Ditocoaf wrote:

shadowsteel9 wrote:How neutrals will work- Would you all rather have things like noble gases and halogens have more because their bonuses are more, or have them all have a set # like 3 or 4.

I don't think this should be a conquest map like Age of Realms or Feudal War; I think the territories should just be divided among players, like in a normal map.

Yes, i understand that, but there are 118 territories, so there are gonna be some neutrals, if you aren't playing with a lot of people. and with so many territories, people are gonna have more armies on their starting turns, so i guess my question is, how strong should the neutrals be if there are any.

The legend could be clearer. Some of it is cleverly done, but it needs work.

For example, a clear problem is where it says "Anions and Cations border each other." Does this mean all elements with 1+ border all elements with 1-? Or just the one at the same column (I've forgotten all my Chemistry terminology, I hope you know what I'm trying to say)?

InkL0sed wrote:The legend could be clearer. Some of it is cleverly done, but it needs work.

For example, a clear problem is where it says "Anions and Cations border each other." Does this mean all elements with 1+ border all elements with 1-

Yes,that is exactly what it meant when i created it, but if the members of CC would rather have it be just the one across the period then that might be possible 2

shadowsteel9 wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:The legend could be clearer. Some of it is cleverly done, but it needs work.

For example, a clear problem is where it says "Anions and Cations border each other." Does this mean all elements with 1+ border all elements with 1-

Yes,that is exactly what it meant when i created it, but if the members of CC would rather have it be just the one across the period then that might be possible 2

I understand why you want them to be able to attack them all. It might work, I can't tell. But you should change the legend to say "All Cations border All Anions"

Dont u think just saying cation and anions can attack each other, cause when u get to ++ and -- they dont border yet are attackable, i mean this is understandable with a MINIMAL chemistry background

CatfishJohnson wrote:Dont u think just saying cation and anions can attack each other, cause when u get to ++ and -- they dont border yet are attackable, i mean this is understandable with a MINIMAL chemistry background

It should be as clear as possible. I don't think adding "all" is really going to be that complicated.

I think that anions should only be able to attack the cations they're on the same period with. Anything else and holding Halogens, Alkali Metals, and Alkaline Earth Metals will be impossible to hold unless you've got them all. Part of the diagram I already drew represents this lateral relationship relatively well.

TaCktiX wrote:I think that anions should only be able to attack the cations they're on the same period with. Anything else and holding Halogens, Alkali Metals, and Alkaline Earth Metals will be impossible to hold unless you've got them all. Part of the diagram I already drew represents this lateral relationship relatively well.

yeah thinkin about it i guess it would be very hard to play if all cation/anions were connected

Case and point, score lol, jk jk, its looking spiffy tack,keep it up

I believe this has become an official map in progress. Could you please post the current version in the first slide, and indicate which to-do tasks belong to which version? This would be most helpful in soliciting comments.

Suggestions:
There is an abundance of red, pink, and orange. Possibly you could switch the light blue of hydrogen to a larger section, and make hydrogen a shade of pink or red.

The Anions/Cations thing is very confusing. It should be clarified or eliminated.

Change the red and blue borders in color. Also, change the blue borders into lines with arrows on both ends indicating that La, Ac, Ce, & Th can attack each other, as well as Hf, Rf, Lu, & Lr.

I like the look of the white borders, but I don't believe they need to be mentioned as impassables.

In sum, I think this is a great map idea, and I look forward to it's progression.

Best,
LMR