<< Back to Map Development Forum   Search

Posts 31 - 50 of 183   <<Prev   1  2  3  ...  6  ...  9  10  Next >>   
EUROPE: 5/3/2012 21:00:10


Major Risk 
Level 52
Report
Not discontinue simply change it enough to not be considered a new map with some familiar bonuses but a different version - with France, Germany, Ukraine,Romania and spain all split up into North/South ect
Do you think that is a big enough change?
EUROPE: 5/3/2012 21:04:07


{rp} Clavicus Vile 
Level 56
Report
You could probably mix up the Balkans, Poland and Russia too.

Your bonus boundaris don´t have to be equal to those of modern day europe likes Trolls, you could use a different era as a basis to split countries.
EUROPE: 5/3/2012 21:04:24


Richard Sharpe 
Level 59
Report
Major, I think that would be a big enough change to differentiate your map from the existing one.

I haven't compared them side by side so this may be moot but I'd try to make the bonus colors sufficiently different to make them visibly different. Maybe an easier way to do this would be by moving the bonus links and/or using different shapes (circles or triangles instead of squares) so that the maps are easily distinguishable. Don't want people joining a game expecting one map and getting a different one and then flooding the forum to complain... could definitely see that happening if you submitted your current version as is
EUROPE: 5/3/2012 21:16:47


uga98
Level 2
Report
I'm just saying what was so bad about the last erurope map, all you did was remove territories, add a little more sea attacks and up the bonuses on places like france, which havent changed a bit on the map, copy maps are pointless, you couldve just messed with the bonuses when you create the gaame
EUROPE: 5/3/2012 22:38:48

RvW 
Level 54
Report
*I'll try to phrase all of the following as neutrally as possible.*

## Regarding political / geographical correctness
Playability is certainly a very important factor for a map. However, you are basing this map on a real-world situation (one in which a whole lot of us happen to live and which some of us may have strong feelings about). I'd advice you to keep political and geographical accuracy in mind whenever it is at all possible. (If you really hate it that much, it might be a good idea to use a fictional settings for your next project.)

## Relation to / differences from Troll's version
The question "why are you making this map at all?" has been asked a few times; I have not really seen an answer. While in general I think "Because I can!!" is a great answer, it doesn't apply all that well to making a slightly modified copy of an existing map... especially if that existing map just happens to be the top-rated map on WL; people might think you're trying to score a cheap success over Troll's back (I'm really sorry, but I can't think of a more polite way to say it).
Or look at it another way. Let's say I create a game on your map and invite some other players. If one of them asks me "Aww, why do you want to play this version, let's just play the original!", what do you propose I should answer?

Another problem is that I highly doubt you've asked Troll's permission to do this. Like it or not, you are basically stealing his work (you traced over a screenshot of his map, and copied his territory names, bonuses, etc., didn't you?). When you upload a map, you are confirming you have all the necessary permissions to do so, which is not the case here.
Looking at [Troll's profile](http://warlight.net/Profile.aspx?p=78456200), I notice a few things:

- Invited to WarLight by Fizzer
- Currently playing in 12 multi-player games
- No "inactive for x days" message

The second and third item mean he's still active on WL, so it's entirely possible to ask his permission, just invite him for a game. (Who knows, he might have some useful suggestions for you which he himself never got around to!) The first one means that pissing off Troll might very well piss off Fizzer. Now, I'd prefer you asking Troll's permission because it's the right thing to do, but I'll settle for you asking his permission because it's the smart thing to do. (And, look on the bright side, if he's okay with it, he just might send you his original SVG.)

Hurricane wrote:
|> The Europe map isn't perfect - it has a rating of 4.67.

And that puts it in the number one position of all 440 maps on WL. (And don't try "statistical anomaly" or anything like that; it's based on just about 600 rating!)

Major Risk wrote:
|> Uservoice is slow and wastes Fizzer's time when there are more important things to be done.

Actually, to me it appear as though (an additional suggestion on) UserVoice doesn't cost Fizzer any time at all. Besides, he himself has repeatedly requested people to make suggestions through UserVoice.
More importantly though, I have to disagree with your (implicit) assumption that making this map will not cost Fizzer any time. You see, WL has a feature which lets people report one another. If you click on the "Report" button at the bottom of any player's profile you'll see a page asking the following question:

http://warlight.net/Report.aspx wrote:
|> Please select the reason you wish to report this player:
|> They booted me or another player
|> They aren't taking their turn
|> They're slow to take their turn
|> I think they hacked the game or cheated
|> They broke a truce, lied or backstabbed me
|> They made a secret pact or colluded
|> They won't vote to end even after I asked
|> They surrendered when I didn't think they should
|> They won't accept a surrender I think they should
|> They have named themselves after a world leader I don't like
|> Other

Choosing any of those reasons (except "other") displays a message which essentially says "That's not against the rules, you can't report someone for that".

Let's just say I'd hate for Fizzer to have to add an option "They invited me for a game on the Europe map, but it was not really the Europe map." (If [this page](http://wiki.warlight.net/index.php/Cheaters#Check_the_game_settings) on the WL Wiki is necessary, I'm sure people will misunderstand what's going on when connections are suddenly different than what they're used to.)

So, if you decide to go forward with this map, please make sure that (even at first glance!) it's incredibly obvious to everyone it is NOT the original Europe map; otherwise you'll cause a flood of bogus reports which all need to be processed.
EUROPE: 5/3/2012 23:08:18


Hurricane
Level 45
Report
RvW wrote:
*Hurricane wrote:

The Europe map isn't perfect - it has a rating of 4.67.

And that puts it in the number one position of all 440 maps on WL. (And don't try "statistical anomaly" or anything like that; it's based on just about 600 rating!)*

I know it's a great map, but it is by no means perfect just because it has a number 1 spot. Surely you can see room for improvement.

I'd agree that it needs a clear differentiation to the original though.
EUROPE: 5/3/2012 23:37:26


Ironheart
Level 54
Report
Luxemborg----> to Rhineland-Pfalz
Moldova----->Chernovtsy
both in EUROPE
also Murmansk to karelia in Europe Borders

Also look what we are down to copying maps instead of making original maps you should be ashamed even a slight bit.
EUROPE: 5/3/2012 23:38:42


Ironheart
Level 54
Report
also i wish it was possible for troll to sue you copied most things especially border colors.
Copyright issues blah blah blah
EUROPE: 5/4/2012 00:09:39


Moros 
Level 50
Report
And uhm... Flanders should be the northern part, not the southern. Quickly change it before you angry 11 million people! (I did the same with the Albanians one time, I thought they were part of Yugoslavia :) )
EUROPE: 5/4/2012 00:33:28


Arc Light
Level 53
Report
I suggest you could next time say the idea and describe it before the guys on the forum cut it down, but for the most part they are right. Its a good idea, but not very unique or different from the other maps, make it different.
EUROPE: 5/4/2012 06:37:43


Major Risk 
Level 52
Report
Thanks again Moros.
Also I agree with Pentrenko. I think making a sea colour which will completely distinguish from the Original Troll's Europe.
And I didn't think he was still active ( I don't know where to check..) I shall invite him to a game then later.
EUROPE: 5/4/2012 07:26:44


Domenico
Level 16
Report
His profile, naturally.

I still recommend you to tell Troll about the changes you want to make to his original map, then either let him make a new version or make a UserVoice about adopting the map.
It's the same I did with The Netherlands, the differences being of course that NMI couldn't be contacted and The Netherlands wasn't a classic.

Also, if you do upload this map, you could name it *"adapted version"* or *"alternative Europe"*. That would prevent a lot of the aforementioned bogus reports.
EUROPE: 5/4/2012 07:35:37


Domenico
Level 16
Report
Also, I think a possible partition of Germany would be the former West and East Germany. Right now, that isn't possible, as you've combined Hessen and Thűringen.

Vojvodina <--> Bosnia and Herzegovina
Loveč <--> Sofija
Čuvašija <--> Kaluga *and* Moscow
EUROPE: 5/4/2012 16:35:15


Major Risk 
Level 52
Report
Thanks Domenico, they have been fixed, also I have split up Germany also, [here](http://WarLight.net/SinglePlayer.aspx?PreviewMap=13020)
Also RvW, I have now contacted him and await troll's reply. In the meantime I am going separate some bonuses such as Ukraine - Any political corrections are welcome.
EUROPE: 5/4/2012 16:43:40


szeweningen 
Level 60
Report
Strategically partitioning Germany makes no difference, noone will pick it anyway (in warlords). The most important changes in both cities and warlords distributions are (in the order of how much it'll impact gameplay):
- partitioning UK
- western balkans
- east germany (in cities)
- finland
- baltic states
- bulgaria
- connections in sweden

I don't think that patition of germany helped. Since east has 5/5 income/territory ratio it'll be overpower, though easily counterpicked against. People will need to focus more on Czech-East Germany area to make sure noone counters the center hard from Germany. There should be some testing done, but I think Troll's basic template is more balanced. Though who knows, maybe I am wrong ;)
EUROPE: 5/4/2012 17:14:44


Major Risk 
Level 52
Report
Bonus values have been changed for Germany - but I seem to have some "Ghost Mid Point" where the former joined territory of Hessen and Thiringen used to be, I can't get rid of it but it doesn't show up in the preview...
Anyway going to do Western Balkans next.
EUROPE: 5/4/2012 17:23:34


Gnullbegg 
Level 49
Report
Well a few minutes ago it did show up in my preview but now it looks all normal...
Anyways, some typos I noticed:
it's Freistaat (not Friestaat), Baden-Württemberg (not -burg) and Rheinland-(instead of Rhineland-)Pfalz. ;)
EUROPE: 5/4/2012 17:34:15


BlueGalaxy
Level 3
Report
Minor issues-
Southern Irealnd spelt wrong (you spelt souithern)
Benelux spelt wrong (you spelt beneleux)
Podunavlje and sofia missing connection
and in case you forgot or something-"unnamed" bonus in Western Balkans
EUROPE: 5/4/2012 18:52:37


Major Risk 
Level 52
Report
Thanks Blue Galaxy and Gnullbegg for spellings ect.

Ukraine is now done however I'm not sure on bonus values yet, so could people please give there input.

Also I have created a super bonus for Ukraine, UK and Germany **BUT** they are set to 0 so only those who want it can override the bonus values.

Map is [here](http://WarLight.net/SinglePlayer.aspx?PreviewMap=13020).
EUROPE: 5/4/2012 19:07:14


BlueGalaxy
Level 3
Report
Central switzerland and western austria missing connection? sorry, didnt see before xD
Posts 31 - 50 of 183   <<Prev   1  2  3  ...  6  ...  9  10  Next >>