Who would pick black?

People who don't know the first thing about geography shouldn't be making diplomacies in the first place and it's no big deal because I never join bad games anyway.

The whole point of coloring borders is to indicate all the territories within a bonus. It's pointless to have colored borders for single-territory bonuses.

Colored bonuses fail for diplomacy games when you have a slot composed of territories different than modern borders - which is true for many historical and alternate history diplos. Frankly, colored borders make games less customizable.

The slots end up looking weird and different than they were intended to be by the map creator - when in reality, there should be no correct way to set up a game.

I chose black it looks simple and clean. Players love simple maps because less attention is drawn away from the scenario.

You would normally have some kind of inkling of sense, but this map is specifically made for diplomacies set in the modern times.

The mapmaker said himself that he is unsure if the borders should be colorful or black, indicating that he is comfortable with all black as well. Now, if this really is specifically for modern diplomacies, and the borders were made black, then it could ALSO be used for other diplomacies. If the colors are kept, then it could only be (attractively) used for modern diplomacies. Why not choose the option that gives more flexibility?

Furthermore, consider a modern diplomacy on this map with color or all black. If a nation invades and conquers another, that nation will look awkward owning territories within another border color, but completely normal with all black borders.

Edited 3/6/2016 05:27:29

Sorry for being rude last post, anyhow, it's just really up to what you like best. I'd rather like a game in the 1600s set on a 2000 hued map, than a game in the 1600s set on a 1600s hued map. And like Zephyrum pointed out, the World Nations map itself has country borders.

The slots end up looking weird and different than they were intended to be by the map creator - when in reality, there should be no correct way to set up a game.

That's just you, then. Clearly the general public doesn't notice/bother such things. I myself find the bold borders in WN2014 far more disturbing.

The whole point of coloring borders is to indicate all the territories within a bonus. It's pointless to have colored borders for single-territory bonuses.

There are country bonuses in the map, all worth 1. So the colored borders do indicate bonuses.

People who don't know the first thing about geography shouldn't be making diplomacies

Why, exactly? It's by making diplomacies that I learned the basics of geography, not the other way around.

it's no big deal because I never join bad games anyway.

There'll be less "bad games" if the bonuses are colored.

Players love simple maps because less attention is drawn away from the scenario.

The other way around. Colorful maps attract players. That is valid for both strategic and diplomacy. Look at Ursa:Luna and Siege of Feldmere's ratings for strat, or Thirty Years War and Tale of Four Cities. Also, not so long ago (few months maybe), Polandball was #1 for a brief period (about a week or two). Now look at other less colorful maps, such as Millennium Mediterranean's diplomacy version; 3.38.

That's just you, then. Clearly the general public doesn't notice/bother such things. I myself find the bold borders in WN2014 far more disturbing.

I don't know, you haven't consulted the general public. That's what I think, and you have your own views. I'm sure though if we had two maps like this - color and black - black would be more popular. Sure of it.

There are country bonuses in the map, all worth 1. So the colored borders do indicate bonuses.

And they're unnecessary.

Why, exactly? It's by making diplomacies that I learned the basics of geography, not the other way around.There'll be less "bad games" if the bonuses are colored.

Let me phrase it differently. I don't care if players screw up and make bad games, players still seem to be joining good games when they can. It doesn't matter.

The other way around. Colorful maps attract players. That is valid for both strategic and diplomacy. Look at Ursa:Luna and Siege of Feldmere's ratings for strat, or Thirty Years War and Tale of Four Cities. Also, not so long ago (few months maybe), Polandball was #1 for a brief period (about a week or two). Now look at other less colorful maps, such as Millennium Mediterranean's diplomacy version; 3.38.

None of those maps compare to the reigning champions of diplomacy, the world nations maps. It's pretty clear that players prefer single-territory bonuses and simplicity, black borders included.

I don't know, you haven't consulted the general public. That's what I think, and you have your own views. I'm sure though if we had two maps like this - color and black - black would be more popular. Sure of it.

Why do you think everyone but you wants it hued, then?

There are country bonuses in the map, all worth 1. So the colored borders do indicate bonuses.

On the opposite, there can be unification wars fought - West Germany tries to take over East Germany; Russia tries to take Köningsberg; a united Spain; so on.

Let me phrase it differently. I don't care if players screw up and make bad games, players still seem to be joining good games when they can. It doesn't matter.

Well, even to you, it should matter, since the amount of "good" games is greatened.

None of those maps compare to the reigning champions of diplomacy, the world nations maps. It's pretty clear that players prefer single-territory bonuses and simplicity, black borders included.

You're right - they contrast, since the World Nations "champion" maps are worse. Just look at the ratings before making such a claim. It's more clear that huing things makes them more liked.

Why do you think everyone but you wants it hued, then?

'Everyone' as in the context of the majority of participants in this thread? No, most of them have lead poisoning. I'm talking about the majority of the player body.

On the opposite, there can be unification wars fought - West Germany tries to take over East Germany; Russia tries to take Köningsberg; a united Spain; so on.

That's what I've been saying all along. Your colored borders become useless when say, Germany takes over France. No longer fits in the borders and looks weird.[/quote]

You're right - they contrast, since the World Nations "champion" maps are worse. Just look at the ratings before making such a claim. It's more clear that huing things makes them more liked.

Ratings mean f**k all. Popularity is more important. With more popularity comes more haters, hence the lower ratings. If those maps were any better, players would play them more. But nah, most of the open diplo games use world nations unless they're more geographically specific.

Imperator I'm trying my best to appeal to you - ultimately it's your decision and I want to see this map maximize its potential. If you keep the colored borders, your map will have less flexibility and players might actually continue to prefer world nations 2014. If you make it black, your map will set the standard for diplomacy maps.

It's pretty clear that players prefer single-territory bonuses and simplicity, black borders included.

What players? The toxic RT gamers who claim everything that is neutral in the map even if they don't border, get booted before the fifth turn and boots anyone bordering them in their first chance? Because the memorable games I have in terms of actual diplomacy style have been played on other maps. The WN2014 ones are mostly just glorified FFAs with a backstory.

I don't know, you haven't consulted the general public.

Nobody complained about it when OU came out, why would they complain on this one?

That's what I think, and you have your own views. I'm sure though if we had two maps like this - color and black - black would be more popular. Sure of it.

I read it more like "It's all about opinion. But still, I'm right and you're wrong".

None of those maps compare to the reigning champions of diplomacy, the world nations maps.

Like the one that has a colored remake with a higher rating than it?

https://www.warlight.net/Play?PreviewMap=15004

Ratings mean f**k all.

Popularity is more important. With more popularity comes more haters, hence the lower ratings.

RoR is very popular and is #1 in rating. Does it not have enough haters because it is too good? Or maybe it's because your theory has a fatal flaw?

But nah, most of the open diplo games use world nations unless they're more geographically specific.

No such thing as open diplos. These are FFAs with truce. And that's only for RT games; for MD ones, I see other maps far more often than World Nations. As of right now, there are zero open MD diplomacies on WN2012 or 2014. In fact, there are more open diplomacies on Issander's Huge World (2) right now...

Edited 3/6/2016 06:32:29

accidental double post - read last page's last post

Edited 3/6/2016 06:32:17

What players? The toxic RT gamers who claim everything that is neutral in the map even if they don't border, get booted before the fifth turn and boots anyone bordering them in their first chance? Because the memorable games I have in terms of actual diplomacy style have been played on other maps. The WN2014 ones are mostly just glorified FFAs with a backstory.

Nice anecdote but stick to the substance, you're beginning to sound like a feckless weakling. Color looks bad on diplomacy games. You've given zero reasons why color is more visually appealing. You said color helps scenario builders but I told you why color ruins scenarios because it all pisses away when players start taking on more territory outside of their original borders, and there's less flexibility for non-conventional slots.

Nobody complained about it when OU came out, why would they complain on this one?

No one has to complain - in fact I'm not complaining, I like the map as it is. But you know what, it would look and player even better with black borders.

I read it more like "It's all about opinion. But still, I'm right and you're wrong".

Nice straw man, here's what I got: "I can't understand context."

Like the one that has a colored remake with a higher rating than it?

No one plays that piece of crap. Everyone prefers its diplomacy variant for the exact reasons I've been saying all along: simplicity, single-territory bonuses, and black borders.

You're not even comprehending what I'm talking about; you aren't even making a logical argument. You've simply given a few anecdotes. Why can't you tell us why color looks and plays better on a map?

No one plays that piece of crap. Everyone prefers its diplomacy variant for the exact reasons I've been saying all along: simplicity, single-territory bonuses, and black borders.

Still higher rated than the original :p

You're not even comprehending what I'm talking about; you aren't even making a logical argument. You've simply given a few anecdotes. Why can't you tell us why color looks and plays better on a map

I said multiple times, and you replied by saying I'm wrong and repeating the same argument over and over and finishing with a couple nice words on skype~

make it black

You've given zero reasons why color is more visually appealing.

Why does he have to give a reason for something that is as subjective as colour preferance, probably the most subjective thing that exists. Whatever Imperator picks won't really affect the quality of the map, so the colour of the borders isn't really that big of a deal. Whatever he picks people will still be divided on it and the only thing they can do is agree to disagree.

Edited 3/6/2016 10:08:59

It isn't a matter of opinion whether or not color looks better with diplomacy games. India having one overlapping territory in Pakistan, bordered a different color, looks bad. If you don't believe me literally make a game with slots and overlap slots in colored bonuses.

And no, one version is clearly superior as I've explained, and you literally don't know anything.

God, you are insufferable and arrogant. Color is more attractive; WN 2014 is ugly as shit. OU is beautiful. I made 30 Years War diplos on OU and no one complained about overlapping colors.

I've done several OU templates and everyone was too busy complaining about the slot distribution rather than the colors ;p

I have made 5(?) 30 Years War Diplo's, on a medieval map colored for the medieval ages. Not one complaint. I mixed up slots, I slashed Germany - nothing. And it looks fine.

'Everyone' as in the context of the majority of participants in this thread? No, most of them have lead poisoning. I'm talking about the majority of the player body.

There is actually a good amount of truth to this, Specifically in map of the week discussion threads. In two out of the three times I won, there were only one or maybe two people who said in the threads that they were voting for me.

Now, I'm not saying that I don't care what forumers think, just that it is possible to reasonably take a majority consensus on the forums with a grain of salt as Nitr01 is doing.

However, I don't really have access to a larger player base than the forums. After all, the only meaningful ways for players to express their opinion about a map are:

1. Posting on the development thread before the map gets published. That is, if the developer even makes one.

2. Ratings and reviews, which come after publication.

Imperator I'm trying my best to appeal to you - ultimately it's your decision and I want to see this map maximize its potential. If you keep the colored borders, your map will have less flexibility and players might actually continue to prefer world nations 2014. If you make it black, your map will set the standard for diplomacy maps.

And I do appreciate your thoughts, as they are basically exactly what I was thinking that got me doubting the colors in the first place. I am still skeptical of them, but I have to go with what I've got, which is the forums. Even though I'm well aware that the two groups can differ drastically.

Basically either way I release it will be a gamble. If I release colors and it fails to catch on because most people do indeed prefer neutral borders, well then I just wasted a months work on an unpopular map. If I do release a black version, well it may be popular and people will start using it, but now I have all my reviews saying "ugh why did you make the same mistake word nations made?".

It is my decision of course, but I want it to appeal to as many people as possible, since after all if it does become popular I will not be the one who is primarily playing on it.

Ultimately I don't believe that having or not having colors will make or break the map. However, I do think that it's worth noting that almost every single popular diplomacy map besides World nations does use colors. For example:

Europe Big by Срећко

A Song of Westeros and the Free Cities by Dameon

The Iron Curtain 2.0 by Me... Okay, so it's a bit of a stretch to call it a popular map, but I do see a bunch of people hosting diplos on it.

Occasus Universitas - 1444 AD by xXOmegaXx

I don't think it's fair to assume that it's impossible for maps with colored borders can't be popular. However I do think it is reasonable to assume that people simply use world nations because there's no colored alternative.