Does Wargear have a position against "circle maps"?  If so, why?

I'm currently playing a game on a development version of a Disneyland map that someone was kind enough to port to from Warfish to Wargear.    He said it can't be released yet because there are objections from Wargear reviewers to it being a circle map.   In an effort to satisfy those concerns, he's changed the circles into Micky Mouse head  and other icons which, in my humble opinion, do nothing to improve game-play and just make the previously enjoyable underlying map less visible.   I don't see how it's possible to represent that map as anything but a circle map and preserve it's aesthetics.  Since the map literally represents attractions (nodes) connected by paths, a circle map seems the most allegorical representation.    I don't see how it can be, or why it would improve game-play, to render it into a fill-in style .  

It'd be a shame if this map wasn't released on Wargear as it was a very popular map on Warfish.  I'm baffled by concerns about it being a circle map, but I haven't been privy to the review of this map, so I thought I'd ask here for more information.

If you check the top rated and most popular boards on Wargear it includes a "circle style" map (Colossal Crusade). Having played both, I'd choose Disney in a heartbeat. Must be a selective objection.

A decision was made to raise the bar a bit and require designers integrate map mechanics into the graphic of the map, to encourage more cohesion between gameplay and visuals. Also, it helps keep out a lot of the crap that the review board is otherwise plagued by.

With regard to the map in question, he could just draw little circles if he wanted to, instead of Mickey Mouse heads.

He actually was using a fill map with circle cutouts, it wasn't actually circle mode.  It was a work-around.  I personally don't see what's wrong with the map.  I think it's discouraging to players interested in design to throw out maps in general, but I understand the process.  I know that a lot of work was put into this particular map, and I think the updates were definitely a show of willingness to cooperate with review board demands, but it was still not well received.

Edward Nygma wrote:

He actually was using a fill map with circle cutouts, it wasn't actually circle mode. 

So, was the objection to his implementation or to the concept of circle maps in general regardless of how they are implemented?

(Although I quoted Nygma, the remaining is addressed to all)

My understanding of a circle map is one in which you simply overlay an existing image and represent the territories with a single small icon which is generally circular.  The borders are represented soley by lines in the underlying image.

Are there some technical server/processing related kind of issues for wanting to discourage circle maps?   If it is soley an attempt to raise the design bar, I'm not fathoming why this is raising the bar since it doesn't affect game-play (in fact, I could argue circle maps make borders much clearer than do some non-circle maps) and there are maps like the Disneyland one where the underlying image is what adds to the appeal of the map.    

How would Wargear feel about one of my favorite maps, the Binary Madness map on Warfish: http://warfish.net/war/browse/board?bid=8899287 ; (check it out now while Warfish is in one of it's rare up moods).   That one seems the epitome of a circle map and I hope it could be brought over here someday.

Finally a suggestion for how to compromise... As they do with older show automobiles that don't meet contemporary safety standards, how about creating a "classic" map category under which it would be palatable to accept these maps and keep them differentiated from the ones designed under the higher standards.     (Although I'm a bit reluctant to even suggest this because it lends credence to the notion that circle maps are sub-par for some reason).

Mostly Harmless,

I just went over some of the posts in the two Dev games. Circle maps is not the issue (at least not anymore), nor are copyright issues. These were all discussed in those games.

At this point it has more to do with clarity of borders which, because of the density of the territories, is pretty hard to fix.  If I was one of the reviewers of that board, I might make similar comments (possibly in the form of requests, not directives).  It's worth noting that there are a few boards that have passed that I avoid playing because the borders are hard to discern.  For boards that are borderline, it's a tough call.  Reviewers could let them through and let the public decide, but that's more the WF model.

This topic has been discussed before and still needs resolution in my opinion.  Bottom line: WG needs better guidelines for reviewers. 

Mostly Harmless wrote:

How would Wargear feel about one of my favorite maps, the Binary Madness map on Warfish: http://warfish.net/war/browse/board?bid=8899287 ;; (check it out now while Warfish is in one of it's rare up moods).   That one seems the epitome of a circle map and I hope it could be brought over here someday.

He's an old friend - pretty sure he'd be okay if someone ported it and pretty sure he himself wouldn't have the time for it. I'll ask him. Reviewers do occasionally make bad or questionable decisions.

Yello wrote:

If you check the top rated and most popular boards on Wargear it includes a "circle style" map (Colossal Crusade). Having played both, I'd choose Disney in a heartbeat. Must be a selective objection.

Yello's observation is particularly poignant because not only is it the most popular map, but unlike the almost-as-popular Gotham circle map--which because of it's streets and intersections layout lends better lends itself to a circle map design-- the Colossal Crusade map seems exactly the type of map that could be argued shouldn't be represented as a circle map. 

There are many other maps using the fill-in style that are similar to the Colossal Crusade map, so one could also ask, is it possible that given those alternatives and that people are still selecting Colossal Crusade over them, that the circle approach might be better?   I realize that to some degree board popularity is self-sustaining but even if that is the reason for this board's popularity, the circle style certainly isn't a problem.   I'm questioning again what seems to be a decision that circle maps are inferior.  

My fears are that Wargear might be getting caught up in placing form over function (and form is very subjective).  

Hugh wrote:

He's an old friend - pretty sure he'd be okay if someone ported it and pretty sure he himself wouldn't have the time for it. I'll ask him. Reviewers do occasionally make bad or questionable decisions.

If you wouldn't mind asking him and no one else wants to, I wouldn't mind volunteering to port it.     It'd be a good exercise for me to learn the ropes, particularly now that I'm finally ready to give up on Warfish and my interest in risk is (re-)gaining momentum again.

I definitely still stand by the decision to not allow Circle Mode boards to be Live, I really think it was a great choice and has improved both the quality of graphics and gameplay.  The problem with Circle Mode isn't always the graphics (there have been some excellent circle boards), but with the fact that they allow anyone to simply take a Jpeg off the internet, slap some territories, and submit it.  Now it takes a bit effort and thought to make a Live board (and for those that have done this for a Circle board, it's really not too much work to make the board a Fill mode using circles or icons).

That said, you can and people have made "circle-like" boards by simply using a Fill of a circle or an icon.  A board won't necessarily fail for being circle-like.

This make sense?

My understanding is that it is perfectly fine to have circle shaped territories.  It's really up to the map maker how they want to shape their territories.  You do have to create them using the filled-territory mechanics, which is not hard to do and is really just there to make sure that the map maker has some minimum level of proficiency, and weed out the maps that are just thrown together jumbles.

It sounds like for this map the circle territories are not the issue, but instead the border clarity is the issue. I can't see the map, so I have no idea if it is really a problem in this case, but if the mapmaker is willing to put the map into beta, maybe the collective wisdom of the other map makers on wargear could help come up with a reasonable solution.

I'm sure it is frustrating to spend all that time making a map and then have it rejected by the review council.

Also, welcome to wargear.

i think i commented in both DEV games that WG does have examples of circle style maps (some of the ones i listed were also listed here). i even declined the second review to get others to take a look at the board. yes there is a cluster of borders thruout, which may or may not have been the sticky point.

personally i think that if a better source image could be found, at higher resolution, that maybe something can be done to a) make it slightly bigger to spread out the cluster and 2) to allow for individual integrated points to be filled ala some of the neater graphic boards out there now.

Yertle wrote:

I definitely still stand by the decision to not allow Circle Mode boards to be Live, I really think it was a great choice and has improved both the quality of graphics and gameplay.  The problem with Circle Mode isn't always the graphics (there have been some excellent circle boards), but with the fact that they allow anyone to simply take a Jpeg off the internet, slap some territories, and submit it.  Now it takes a bit effort and thought to make a Live board (and for those that have done this for a Circle board, it's really not too much work to make the board a Fill mode using circles or icons).

That said, you can and people have made "circle-like" boards by simply using a Fill of a circle or an icon.  A board won't necessarily fail for being circle-like.

This make sense?

Not having created a map, I don't know the mechanics that are involved with creating a map using circle mode versus fill mode. 

Are you saying that if two maps are submitted and they look and play identical except that one was designed using circle mode and the other was designed using fill-mode that you'll reject the circle mode but allow the fill-mode version so long as it lives up to other  requirements?   In other words, it's not that a map looks like a circle map, but simply that it was implemented using circle mode?

weathertop wrote:

personally i think that if a better source image could be found, at higher resolution, that maybe something can be done to a) make it slightly bigger to spread out the cluster and 2) to allow for individual integrated points to be filled ala some of the neater graphic boards out there now.

Do you have a warfish account?  If so, could you look at the version of the map on Warfish and say whether you think it is of high-enough quality?    http://warfish.net/war/play/game?gid=19941949 ;

Are you saying that you don't have any problems with the use of circles to indicate territories, but simply that the image isn't high-enough quality?    

I took part in the 2nd review game and commented heavily.  At first glance the map appears very well thought out.  The mickey mouse heads, mountains and trains is a nice touch versus the previous WF version with just a bunch of circles on top of the source material.

My biggest problem with it is the borders are hard to determine on most of the territories (and from what I gather I am not alone in noticing this).  The easiest and best way to fix that would be to move away from the "circle" style territories and carve out territories from better source material using multiple layers.

With a little effort this would/could be a fantastic looking map that plays exactly the same as the circle mode.  It should be pretty easy to make the borders more obvious using the fill style territories.

Note: Circle Mode in the designer is for dev games only.  The Circle Mode option will not allow maps to be submitted for review.

Mostly Harmless wrote:

Are you saying that if two maps are submitted and they look and play identical except that one was designed using circle mode and the other was designed using fill-mode that you'll reject the circle mode but allow the fill-mode version so long as it lives up to other  requirements?   In other words, it's not that a map looks like a circle map, but simply that it was implemented using circle mode?

Yes.  Sounds harsh, but it really does the trick.

So, I have to say that I really do appreciate all of the support on this topic (being the "designer" of the board in question).  

I feel that I have possibly found a way to make this map work in a way that will be acceptable to everyone involved, look better, and be generally more versatile.  

Honestly, I was pretty put off by the initial and secondary response to the board, primarily because the board had been so well-received over at WF.  I was aware of the rules, and thought that a simple work-around by making a fill-map under the original would be enough to pass (as several other maps clearly have)  In its first iteration it was still a psuedo-circle map with no mickey heads.  Those mickey heads are the reason that no one can tell where the borders are.  It was never a problem on the other site.  Not a single person ever had that problem to my knowledge.

That being said, the rules are the rules, and I will be spending some time making this map work the way that it needs to work for this site.  It's going to be quite a bit different from the original, but us Disney fans on here should still be able to enjoy it.  I've already got a lot of creative ideas for some of the newer additions to the site (Factories, for one).  I do a lot of graphic design work and know that graphically I can rise to the challenge.  I am, however, going to have to employ the help of a few friends on here to get things operating properly.  I'm sure they'll be available when I need them.

For those "purists" out there:  I will be putting the current non-approved version of the board on the beta list.  Play to your hearts' content, though it won't be able to be counted in your rankings.  :(

Again, thanks for the support.  Means a lot to me.

Miles Teg

Miles -- feel free to include me in that list and PM me if you have any questions ..or if you want an opinion, though it sounds like you have things under control.

M57 wrote:

Mostly Harmless wrote:

Are you saying that if two maps are submitted and they look and play identical except that one was designed using circle mode and the other was designed using fill-mode that you'll reject the circle mode but allow the fill-mode version so long as it lives up to other  requirements?   In other words, it's not that a map looks like a circle map, but simply that it was implemented using circle mode?

Yes.  Sounds harsh, but it really does the trick.

Pretty much yep!  It may sound weird, but again it really does seem to help with "junk" and incomplete maps being submitted and/or going Live.

Also normally with enhanced graphics designers are able to find better/cooler/different ways of doing things which can enhance the gameplay and play-ability of the board...in my opinion.

M57 wrote:

Miles -- feel free to include me in that list and PM me if you have any questions ..or if you want an opinion, though it sounds like you have things under control.

Will do.  Thank you.  :)