Ninjastar13 wrote:some of the planets are a little too similar in color and can be confusing for colorblind ppl like me..... i have a hard time with the army colors i dont need it in maps. Otherwise this map looks absolutey a blast to play on. Great job.
I have difficulty with the army colors too... which is why I have the colour letters turned on for myself. But as for the planets... I'm not sure what else I can do to differentiate them... THe +0's are the big jupiter and saturn ones... the +2's are the light ones with the light glows. Everything else is +1.
If you are going to make holding all star gates a win scenario, you need to do the following:
Under "Stargates connect to all other stargates" text add the following [left aligned]:
"(Hold all stargates to win OR
Conquer your opponents)"
Not sure how that will fit on the Small map - I guess if you drop Asomin (and the asteroid text) down a couple of pixels. Also - don't crowd Suibor system name
The +0 for the Gas giants is so he can easily say "all other planets +1." That would be difficult w/o the +0 gas giants comment. Besides the red glow is important.
jako,
The XML is possible, you just need to code something like this (I don't know the appropriate win terminology):
<win_scenario> // maybe required tag starts here - with no terr count? <territory>Secunda 1</territory> <territory>Suibor 2</territory> <territory>Asomin 4 1</territory> <territory>Qyis 1</territory> <territory>Fikwi 3</territory> <territory>Eallah 3</territory> <required>6</required> </win_scenario>
That is sort of what it would look like. As I said, I don't know the specifics - but it's the same as holding all the castles for Age of Realms: Age of Might
I think it will look very similar to the Pearl Harbor and Italy partial bonuses code.
1) Were there enough total eyeballs/votes? 41 is kind of a small sample size.
2) Were there enough yes votes? 56% is pretty decent, but 60% would have been better.
3) Were there too many no votes? Doubtful as no one left ANY explanations as to why they voted no, or what issues they found in the game play or graphics.
4) Did my usage of the thumbnail [and link] in my signature help or hurt? Probably both - hopefully more of the former
5) This is the important one - does the mapmaker feel it's ready?
6) This is almost as important - does the foundry [the mods] feel that it's ready?
PS. I guess you can take the poll down now (it's after Nov 1).
I'm really liking this map. I'm glad to see more people are moving into the realms of outer space now.
I remember early early on in the thread, there was some talk about more variation in planets. I think you could still do a few minor touches to some of the brown planets...in at least perhaps terms of tone and shade, just so there don't seem to be as many carbon copies out there.
ApophisNL wrote:Well I'm ready to go ahead and finish the XML.
I have no idea how to turn off the poll!
Done for you...
Poll Results
What do you think about Galactic Conquest?
It's ready! - I like it, I want to play it! 56% [ 23 ]
Game Play has issues - work those out first. 14% [ 6 ]
Graphics has issues - fix those first. 7% [ 3 ]
I don't like it... 21% [ 9 ]
Total Votes : 41
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
AndyDufresne wrote:I'm really liking this map. I'm glad to see more people are moving into the realms of outer space now. :)
I remember early early on in the thread, there was some talk about more variation in planets. I think you could still do a few minor touches to some of the brown planets...in at least perhaps terms of tone and shade, just so there don't seem to be as many carbon copies out there.
Nice work ApophisNL!
--Andy
Andy did mention adding some variety in to the non-glow planets. I'm not sure what all you really can do. I guess you could make some icy (whitish) and some show vegetation (greenish). Just keep in mind to test with green, blue, and teal armies on greenish planets and gray and yellow on whitish planets.
1. where are the "tears in space-time" and "wormholes". Did i miss them? can you at least make it more clear what is what?
2. All your planets are the same copy-pasted image over and over again. It looks bad (IMO) and i think those will need to be changed later on in development.
everything else is pretty good. this will be an interesting map,
1. where are the "tears in space-time" and "wormholes". Did i miss them? can you at least make it more clear what is what?
2. All your planets are the same copy-pasted image over and over again. It looks bad (IMO) and i think those will need to be changed later on in development.
everything else is pretty good. this will be an interesting map,
wca -
1) the wormholes and space-time tears are right where you would think they are (next to their explanatory text). I guess the problem is that they could be confused for a part of the gas-giant planet they are next to.
1a) a potential solution would be to only have 2 space-time tears or only have 2 wormholes [on Junas and Devi - would have to alter the explanatory text slightly]
2) Andy has already mentioned this and I assume that Apophis will be making some sort of update.
The +1 is per planet. So that's a LOT of bonus planets.
I think I figured out how to handle wca's confusion. Right now the Jupiter type gas-giants have space-time tears - whilst the Saturn looking ones have wormholes. If you switch the Invey and Cylan gas-giants, then there would be a wormhole on each type and a space-time tear on each type. The "extra bits" wouldn't appear to be part of a specific planet type.
