Moderator: Cartographers
laddida wrote:if this is revamping the classic shapes isnt the game play suppose to be about the same? Looks like spots are pretty much moved all over the place
ender516 wrote:The spots may have moved, but the connections are equivalent. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the cities here and the classic regions, and all connections here match up with connections on the Classic Shapes map or with borders on the Classic Art or Hasbro map, so all your strategies will work just as well here as on the old maps.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
MrBenn wrote: The version of the map that is laid out here is the one that has been authorised by lackattack to replace Classic Shapes.
john9blue wrote:ender516 wrote:The spots may have moved, but the connections are equivalent. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the cities here and the classic regions, and all connections here match up with connections on the Classic Shapes map or with borders on the Classic Art or Hasbro map, so all your strategies will work just as well here as on the old maps.
The board game is different than Old Classic (Kamchatka and Mongolia were connected) which is different than this map (Hong Kong and Mumbai should be connected). I think other than Asia all three are the exact same, but changes need to be made.
EDIT: And what maasman said. And maybe more.
stahrgazer wrote:MrBenn wrote: The version of the map that is laid out here is the one that has been authorised by lackattack to replace Classic Shapes.
WHY?
Why not just ADD this map?
Some of us actually do enjoy "Classic Shapes." So what if the attack pattern is the same? Some like C Arts which I can't stand. Some can't stand the Classic Shapes that a few others have wisely mentioned (other threads) is very easy for teaching purposes (same reason i like it: it's SO simple to find what you want.)
I'm not downing the map, it's wonderful to have a map-looking map.
But really, WHY does it have to replace the others that ppl are used to?
lackattack wrote:sully800 wrote:[*]Adjust the red in the title. I initially liked the light red because it fits well with the pastels of the city line, but a brighter color will go better with the CC logo. Shooting for a middle ground in the next draft.[/list]
Yes, please do what you can to portray that this is the official map of Conquer Club. As well as using something more similiar to the CC logo you can also use our "official" flag icons (I'm sending you a an email now with hi-res flag icons attached) instead of the current flags.
It seems you already are doing this but I'd try to choose cities from the continents of our old Classic whenever possible, to help keep this revamp recognizeable.
Also, I think jiminski has a point about the city line being a bit on the juvenile side. Do you think you can do something more sophisticated? Sorry to be critical, but this is our flagship map and all!
Northern russia is really just waste land. Sully could reposition the circles, but it wouldn't be realistic then. I imagine more people would complain if the cities were not in the correct spots.NemesisChild wrote:1. there is a very large empty space of land above novosibirsk (grr thats gotta be spelled wrong) which makes all the circles below it seem squashed in (IMO)
I think your right. Africa could be widened a bit. But it's really no big deal.NemesisChild wrote:2. maybe it's my eyesight or sceren res i'm using but africa looks out of proportion some how, it looks about the right length but seems vey thin, kinda like its slowly melting and slipping towards the bottom of the map
mpjh wrote:This map is way too cluttered. The maps are a real distraction -- and the floating city -- what is that, OZ? That a look at the original classic -- the one we cannot use -- no clutter.
mpjh wrote:I agree that getting rid of the flags would help greatly.
RjBeals wrote:mpjh wrote:I agree that getting rid of the flags would help greatly.
God I hate to say it.... but maybe the globe legends might be too much also. A very simple legend may work better.
RjBeals wrote:mpjh wrote:I agree that getting rid of the flags would help greatly.
God I hate to say it.... but maybe the globe legends might be too much also. A very simple legend may work better.
Peter Gibbons wrote:RjBeals wrote:mpjh wrote:I agree that getting rid of the flags would help greatly.
God I hate to say it.... but maybe the globe legends might be too much also. A very simple legend may work better.
Perhaps the solution is putting the globes in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Having one in the Atlantic seems to be what really clutters things. I'd rather not see the globes go if they don't have to.
sully800 wrote:Peter Gibbons wrote:RjBeals wrote:mpjh wrote:I agree that getting rid of the flags would help greatly.
God I hate to say it.... but maybe the globe legends might be too much also. A very simple legend may work better.
Perhaps the solution is putting the globes in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Having one in the Atlantic seems to be what really clutters things. I'd rather not see the globes go if they don't have to.
I did that originally, and it feels way off balance. I didn't like it at all with two globes really off center.
The globes have been one of the most well received points of this map (meaning, more people have complimented them than anything else) and this is the first I've heard of any real criticism. Once again, I understand the fear of having a map that is too cluttered, and that is something I would like to avoid. So while I will consider removing them, I don't think that's the way to go at the moment, unless a lot of other people share this opinion.
mibi wrote:the title font terribly mismatched with the map.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users