you should add the principality of sealand to it

LOL no that would be a waste of space. ;)

Black borders would look better. Lots of colors tend to be annoying for diplomacy because it can make it hard to tell who is which slot at a first glance.

Definetely not... As long as you aren't using shitty temporary color changes.

Do what you want but if you keep the colors it's going to look like shit. The preview looks nice and fruity but with player colors, especially if players overlap multiple countries it's just going to look bad. World Nations is very popular because players keep their uniform appearance when they spread around.
The colored outlines can change the perception of the color.

If or when you test the map, simulate a chaotic diplomacy. For example, if India invades Pakistan, the territory in Pakistan will be an eyesore, not like a part of India. Test this map and I believe you will see exactly what I'm talking about.

Edited 3/5/2016 23:36:00

I did notice it while testing, which is what got me thinking about changing it back in the first place. I kind of want to change it to all black borders, but at the same time I see thousands upon thousands of game of thrones diplomacy games being played on the westeros and the free cities map, which not only uses colors, but doesn't even have single territory bonuses.

For anyone who's wondering, here's a sort of example of what we're discussing:

http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j338/bb3bb3/Play%20Risk%20Online%20Free%20%20%20WarLight_zpsum0eakni.png

Colors are fine

Honestly, no, it doesn't seem that bad to me.

Anyone who often plays on other diplomacy maps such as 30YW is probably already used to having conflicting player and border colors. It's a small detail that doesn't even cross my mind. Hell, if you sent me that picture without saying anything, I'd probably just say "nice! what's the scenario in play there?".

World Nations is very popular because players keep their uniform appearance when they spread around.

Untrue, that's some nitpicking there.

If you're going on nitpick mode, at least go deeper into it; both World Nations maps actually have different borders for different countries. Doubt it? Well, check this out!



It's really, REALLY clear that borders have a different width - national borders are very thin, while international ones are considerably larger. And nobody complains about it; you have to be really nitpicky to be annoyed by that. It's not really a big deal.

WN2014 is not known for that, it's known for:

1) Single territory bonuses makes it easy to balance and distribute
2) The map is general is fairly good
3) It's the easiest one to make custom scenarios at
4) Simple games with simple rules and distribution are very popular on Real-Time games

So, if you ask me, I say keep the colors. It looks great, and lets you get used to political borders much easier imo. On maps like this I'd probably not do things like thinking Balochistan is part of Iran...

You're nitpicking as well. Players only play maps with colorful borders because there are no viable alternatives to those maps, and those maps have multi-territory bonuses. That's not to say that they wouldn't prefer black borders provided those maps had single-territory bonuses.

Colorful borders are great for conventional games with multi-territory bonuses but make diplomacies messy. Something looks off when you extend into another color, it isn't good for nation building, and single-territory bonuses make colors obsolete.

Indeed it's a small detail, but if you had to pick colorful or black you would certainly pick all black for a nice clean look.

As for bold borders, those would look better trimmed up but they're not as awkward because they don't conflict with the player colors.

Edited 3/6/2016 04:45:29

Players only play maps with colorful borders because there are no viable alternatives to those maps, and those maps have multi-territory bonuses.

Occasus Universalis has colored borders and single territory bonuses and no one complains about it for a very simple reason - the colors not only look better on the map and fit well, they also help with distribution a lot.

Indeed it's a small detail, but if you had to pick colorful or black you would certainly pick all black for a nice clean look.

Nope, I'd definetely pick Colored because it looks so much better when making distributions and is less of a headache to make scenarios on. Specially for players just starting out - so they won't make basic mistakes in the distribution due to lack of knowledge in geography. I'm sick of opening an RT game, checking out the scenario and seeing people splitting Malaysia between Indonesia or Indochina because they don't know it's the same country.

Edited 3/6/2016 04:57:22

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