Hi,
I wanted to ask you what the perfect map should look like in your opinion, in matter of size, isles, dry land, super and minor bonuses, connections beyond the map edges, pictures, colors, design, fictional or real, scenario distributions etc.

Real, with distributions and super bonuses. 100 to 1000 territories.

Depends on the purpose. I prefer strategic maps. So there needs to be some choke points, no overlapping bonuses or super bonuses. 100-150 territories.

If your purpose is a role playing map, there are totally different criteria. Though I hate overlapping bonuses on all maps really. I don't like when a minor bonus is part of two different super bonuses.

Disagreed. Super bonuses are generally not good for the map as it encourages cluster picking that takes away strategic value of the map. In my opinion a "perfect" map should be about the size of the Medium Earth map. If you want a bigger map, super bonuses could be fine but make sure they are not to overpowered (look at the Rise of Rome map to see the "perfect" type of super bonuses. In my opinion, depending on the map, most bonuses should give 2-3 armies per turn. To make the map more strategic it would be helpful to include some inefficient bonuses that create strategic "dead zones". Try to look at the regions or areas of the map. You don't want a bunch of 3 bonuses clustered in one side of the map and the other side being clustered with 5's. Generelly, just think about what you would enjoy playing and you should turnout with a decent map.

Sorry for double post, just to clarify I was dissagreeing with skunk, not chris.

Not every map on warlight should be stragical value. The medium earth may have all the quality's of a perfect strategy map, but it's simple and doesn't look amazing. A map like Europe 1066 or any other fancy design, can be considered well designed and quality with quantity. Super bonuses in a strategy map can be included, but with values of 1. But It's rather pointless on ME or any others similar. Obviously there perfect for big maps.

And thus it is shown that the 'perfect map' simply doesn't exist. Far too subjective a concept.

That is why I said depends on the purpose.

And another negative of super bonuses is if you play random warlords. It creates an additional warlord for the super bonuses which is a problem if you set in distribution not picked to a higher amount (like 4s instead of 2s).

On my maps, I do often use super bonuses, but then I set them to "0" in my template and include the template with the map description. That way people can use them if they want, but don't have to.

the perfect map dont needs to be perfect for everyone, just for the one, who admits it to be perfect =) or maybe a nearly perfect average, if that is possible. it is also possible to mention what makes a map allways unattractive.
Please dont try to restrict the discussion to the word 'perfect'

There is no perfect map, but there are perfect maps for strategy and diplomacy. There's never one for both, I think I've come close though with my renaissance map.

Apollo, from a gameplay aspect your map may be perfect but from an aesthetic standpoint it is a disaster. Borders overlapping everywhere and countless holes.

Unattractive maps is also subjective, but I have a big issue with bonus link location not being intuitive. If you have to click every bonus link to figure out how much bonuses are worth, you did something wrong. Some have to be moved because the territories are too small to put a link in (a recent Europe map is that way), but the locations need to be logical or the map is a pain. Also, bonus boundaries need to be visible (not overlapping with another bonus).

Those are two big things for me on it being attractive or not.

I didn't say mine looked attractive, I didn't know really how to make clean borders until now. If I have time, I may recreate it. But all I was saying, the gameplay suited both.

Edited 3/11/2014 19:16:32

Perfect Map:

http://warlight.net/Map?ID=737

I agree Pooh. Funny that it is rated only 4.1 though. Shows you how accurate ratings are. Mine should be much higher than they are as well :)

Chris I think I have an explanation for that.

The problem is, as I mentioned in another thread, most map makers don't play their own maps. You have to host games on your own map, you made it after all and if you don't want to play on it why would someone else. People are used to playing 2-4 maps they are familiar with and most players don't host games they just join.

So if you claim, as you do, that your maps are better than their rating, play on them, host games, organize tournaments, get players familiar with them.

Inner Sphere has 37 ratings.
Sanctuary has 41 ratings.
Succession Wars has 16 ratings.

That can mean only one thing, not enough people have played them.