[Abandoned] Marooned

[ManBungalow]

I'll be updating this in a week or so, and I want to see lots of nitpicky posts next time I open this thread.

I'm really liking this map and looking forward to playing it... but I think the story should make some account of the other players on the island... like hostile natives or fellow marooners

This will be done.

Also, region names will be added, and several other fixes will be made. I will have to evaluate the small image, too. The actual landmass shouldn't need to be reduced too much if I crop out some of the sea around the edges, but we'll see how it goes.

[Victor Sullivan]

I agree with BigBallinStalin!

Perhaps you just need to make your icons pop out of the background more.

-Sully

[lostatlimbo]

Hey, your subliminal message worked. Here I am.

I sort of like what you have going on, but agree with Industrial Helix about expanding the story. It seems like the bonuses will be hard to defend against, so adding predators or other figures on the island that can bombard distantly, could tie things together.

I'm really liking this map and looking forward to playing it... but I think the story should make some account of the other players on the island... like hostile natives or fellow marooners

[ManBungalow]

I've just added some colour circles to the fishing regions and the shelters to reflect the apparently popular first draft. Is it any easier to register?

[bigimg]http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr317/ManBungalow/CIRCLES.png[/bigimg]

[AndyDufresne]

I like the look of it so far. How do the colored circles look with Troop Counts on 'em?


--Andy

[ManBungalow]

More importantly, what do I need to change to get a gameplay stamp around these parts?

Remember that the shelters are the starting regions and notice the placement of the bonus regions between shelters and the distance away from each et al.

[Victor Sullivan]

I think you could add a nice losing condition here: You have to hold at least 1 shelter to stay in the game. Fits well with the gameplay/theme.

-Sully

[isaiah40]

I think you could add a nice losing condition here: You have to hold at least 1 shelter to stay in the game. Fits well with the gameplay/theme.

-Sully

What he said. Also I think that you can set a max #/player on the shelters, such as 2 or 3 per player. What type of reinforcements are there? The normal 1 for every 3 or something different, or nothing? What and how many territories start as neutral (if any)? Can you please post these in the OP so it is easier for others to glance over and get a better idea of the gameplay.

[ManBungalow]

Gameplay synopsis has been added to the original post.

I'll be back when I've added the proposed neutral values to the image.

Region names are also in the pipeline, as is the small image and various other changes.

In the meantime, I'd like to know what your thoughts are;

Does this need a losing condition?
What should the auto-decay on intermediates be (I'm probably going to up it to 2)?
How many troops should the region count offer?
How many neutrals should be on unoccupied shelters?

etc

[AndyDufresne]

In the meantime, I'd like to know what your thoughts are;

#1 Does this need a losing condition?
#2 What should the auto-decay on intermediates be (I'm probably going to up it to 2)?
#3 How many troops should the region count offer?
#4 How many neutrals should be on unoccupied shelters?

#1, Hm, I don't think the map needs a losing condition. What would it be? Holding onto at least a single shelter?

#2, An auto-decay of 2 might be too much, but I suppose it forces people to get off the trails and either to hold up in a shelter or on a food/fishing region. How many food, fishing, and shelter regions are there?

#4, I've really no idea. Since you have a mix of decay and auto-deploys, I suppose it depends how early in the game you want players to be able to go after additional shelters. Something like 6 might provide a buffer of a few turns, and 10 even more so.

=========

In regards to the graphics, have you considered ditching the awkward bridges, and making the internal river area simply 'shallows'? I'm thinking something like Age of Empires type of shallows:

show

--Andy

[ManBungalow]

Congratulations to Andy for proving that people still visit this sub-forum.

I've made an update, whereby various small things have been fixed up and region names have been added.

The shallow bridge idea doesn't seem to work quite as effectively as the log bridges, which get the job done with the minimum of fuss; but thanks for the suggestion all the same.

Proposed neutral values are coming, which I hope will secure a gameplay stamp. If any of you people reading this thread (I know you exist) have any reason to believe otherwise, please share.

[bigimg]http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr317/ManBungalow/NAMED.png[/bigimg]

[thehippo8]

I expect you should get a gameplay stamp soon ... I like your map!

[AndyDufresne]

Oh, those are logs? I thought they were just some sort of straight line bridges.

Mmmh, region names are only numbers? I suppose that allows you more easily to figure out regions are on the map, but special Regions lose their specialness (I.E. F149 for Food region 149, F155, S152 for Shelter region 152, S235, N165 for Net region 165, N178, L213 for Landmark 213) etc.

You have 3 islands, have you considered breaking it down that way, or adding a moniker in the naming convention to allow for easy name navigation that way?

Best of luck,


--Andy

[Victor Sullivan]

Hm, I'm still fond of the losing condition, myself.

And I agree with Andy above.

-Sully

[thehippo8]

Lol ... so now I withdraw my earlier comment. Without attempting to be fickle, I agree with Sully that a loosing condition may have value here. I also agree with Andy that the naming of the regions is confusing to the point of distration. Perhaps you could get creative with the huts (different coloured huts can have similar couloured paths next to them to make navigation easier. You can ascribe more creative names (like red apple camp (and then RAC1, RAC2 etc) and spider cafe (SP1, SP2, etc) etc) or whatever floats your boat!

[ManBungalow]

Interesting (and faster posted that I was expecting) opinions.

For reference, here is a much earlier draft wherein the regions have a prefix naming convention:
http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr31 ... NED_05.png

However, I don't think that added much to the image or the ease of use. In the current draft, it seems to me that the bonus regions are immediately obvious by the symbols present, and using F001 for food or S001 for shelters just seems to be a surplus character and a waste of space overall. The sheer number of regions on this map will make it somewhat daunting no matter how the territories are named.
At best, I could give each of the three islands a unique name and use two-digit numbers which appear in the log as A01, B01 and C01 for each respective island. Problem: there are more than 100 regions on the bottom island.

Also, I'll throw in a losing condition for what it's worth. Having to hold one shelter to stay alive seems fair and makes sense enough.

Thanks for your feedback thus far!

ALSO:
Consider that - with the advent of integrated clickies - region naming isn't such a hot issue.

[OliverFA]

I see the map is progressing well since last time I visited the thread. Congratulations!

[AndyDufresne]

ALSO:
Consider that - with the advent of integrated clickies - region naming isn't such a hot issue.

This is generally pretty true, though region naming is helpful when reviewing the game log.


--Andy

[Victor Sullivan]

ALSO:
Consider that - with the advent of integrated clickies - region naming isn't such a hot issue.

This is generally pretty true, though region naming is helpful when reviewing the game log.


--Andy

Hm, perhaps this could be remedied by the way things are named in the XML. For example, "088" in the XML could be named "088 (Shelter)".

-Sully

[natty dread]

[bigimg]http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr317/ManBungalow/NAMED.png[/bigimg]

This is the large map?

How do you think the small map will look with all the army numbers in it? I think you need to either cut down the territories or make the image larger... too much clutter atm. I mean, with the numbers on, it'd be really hard to tell what connects where...

[ManBungalow]

[bigimg]http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr317/ManBungalow/NAMED.png[/bigimg]

This is the large map?

How do you think the small map will look with all the army numbers in it? I think you need to either cut down the territories or make the image larger... too much clutter atm. I mean, with the numbers on, it'd be really hard to tell what connects where...

I suppose I could scale the image up and apply for supersize. It shouldn't be too difficult to recreate most of the details present at the moment for a higher resolution image.

I started this map before supersize became an option, and never really felt the need to increase the dimensions of it. For the small image, I plan on cropping some of the from the left and right, in addition to condensing the legend/header.

However, just because we can supersize, doesn't mean we have to. All the regions fit and all the names are there. If I had things my way, I'd keep the large image roughly as it is now, and perhaps apply for supersize just for the small image.

Hm, perhaps this could be remedied by the way things are named in the XML. For example, "088" in the XML could be named "088 (Shelter)".

This is really what I'm aiming for.

[thehippo8]

Hm, perhaps this could be remedied by the way things are named in the XML. For example, "088" in the XML could be named "088 (Shelter)".

This is really what I'm aiming for.

Works for me.

[natty dread]

I suppose I could scale the image up and apply for supersize. It shouldn't be too difficult to recreate most of the details present at the moment for a higher resolution image.

I started this map before supersize became an option, and never really felt the need to increase the dimensions of it. For the small image, I plan on cropping some of the from the left and right, in addition to condensing the legend/header.

However, just because we can supersize, doesn't mean we have to. All the regions fit and all the names are there. If I had things my way, I'd keep the large image roughly as it is now, and perhaps apply for supersize just for the small image.

Ok, here's a trick I use when I'm working on the large image and am not sure if the small image will be feasible...

First, figure out the size differential you're aiming for - usually, it should be between 70-85% (small map to large map) - and then, take an army number (888) and scale it up accordingly: for example if your size differential is 75%, so that small map is 3/4 of large, you scale the number up to 133% (or 4/3) size. Then just add the enlargened army numbers on your territories, and see if they all fit comfortably without covering important features of the map.

[DogAlmighty]

I should know better then to click on subliminal messages.

[ManBungalow]

Does anybody want to voice any concerns about me applying for supersize and scaling up the graphics?
I'm thinking that the small image will be about the size of the current image, with some potential for cropping of ocean and legend. I feel that the image I posted already with the region names on will accommodate the army numbers and still convey everything it has to.

Hopefully then I'll be able to get the graphics done with and the gameplay stamp whenever I get round to proposing neutral values. Then it's only the XML and we're not so far from finished, right?

I should know better then to click on subliminal messages.

Damn right.