#49
|
||||
|
||||
Re: C3G Map Discussion Thread
So I think each map needs to have its "rules" defined.
Does anyone want to word that into a formal proposal? |
#50
|
||||
|
||||
Re: C3G Map Discussion Thread
Each map should have start zones, numbers of players, set requirements, and any special rules defined?
C3G can be played with official Heroscape, but it's not recommended.
DISCLAIMER: C3G claims no ownership of the characters or artwork used for C3G customs. All rights for the characters belong to their respective publishers/creators. C3G cards are not intended for sale, and C3G does not authorize any party to profit from C3G cards. |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
Re: C3G Map Discussion Thread
Quote:
I propose adding to the Rules for Map Design: 5. Each map should have its start zones, number of players and any special rules defined. |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
Re: C3G Map Discussion Thread
Quote:
Quote:
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Re: C3G Map Discussion Thread
I had few moments over here at the IN-laws and I can't resist the escape that this site offers.
I vote yea, but I would like to remind us that we are not a scenario guild, we are map makers. That is not to say that we can't create some scenarios or maps with special rules, but that should not be our major task. Remember, Scenarios, campaigns, glyphs, optional rules, etc, must be proposed, playtested, and voted on in the C3G Mainframe, where as maps and maps alone have been fully entrusted to us. I think that as our first task in this project should be a map with the start zones as was proposed by quozl. Lets ease into the scenario stuff as we build a stronger relationship with the C3G Mainframe, and as they begin to trust us more. |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
Re: C3G Map Discussion Thread
I agree with Griffin. Special rules should be few, at least until we get much more experience at this. And we need one more yes vote...
BTW, Griffin, would you like to define the rules for your map? I'm assuming two unequal forces given the start zones indicated. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Re: C3G Map Discussion Thread
Exactly. I still think we can ease into it, but at this point we are technically still one vote away from the Mainframe adopting this group. I am confident that we will have that vote by tonight at some point, but our relationship is still very young.
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
Re: C3G Map Discussion Thread
Wow, four pages of discussion already! I agree w/ Griffin that we should be cautious with special rules as we want to concentrate on the map. But I think there's room for certain map-specific rules such as a statue that can be thrown for example. I think the litmus test is whether or not it would make sense regardless of the figures that are being played on the map. If it would only make sense in the context of a specific location or with specific figures then I think it should be avoided.
Having said that, I vote YEA to the proposed rule. |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
Re: C3G Map Discussion Thread
How about we start with a simple map?
Old Street Overpass by EternalThanos86 Or are we only supposed to be testing maps by members? |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
Re: C3G Map Discussion Thread
Quote:
Edit: Quote:
|
#59
|
||||
|
||||
Re: C3G Map Discussion Thread
How many active maps do we want to have at a time? How about Proposed maps (or other proposals for that matter)?
|
#60
|
||||
|
||||
Re: C3G Map Discussion Thread
I believe Griffin suggested one active map per member. Other proposals should be limited; unless one has an addendum or ammendment to a proposal on the table, further proposals should wait.
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SSBB Discussion Thread | wk4c | Video Games | 750 | August 30th, 2010 11:15 PM |
STC 20 discussion thread. | Leif Kicker | Custom Terrain & Obstacles | 40 | March 20th, 2009 06:29 PM |
NM24 - Discussion thread | UranusPChicago | Comic Hero Custom Creations | 24 | June 18th, 2008 06:32 PM |
D&D Discussion Thread | D-Dyzzle | Other Games | 60 | October 10th, 2006 09:07 PM |