#1 not too many territories
#2 represents europe, america or whole earth from a significant and popular time period.
#3 good looking small icon size graphics
#4 width and height ratio 2:1.5/1.5:2
#5 balanced but includes places to unbalance it a litte bit
#6 tailored for 3vs3 templates
#7 right amount of space between 'the edges of the map' and 'bounding box'
#8 Bonus colours not too similar to neighboring bonuses

am i missing something?

Edited 7/13/2015 21:29:01

Space between the edges of the map and the "box" ?

Bounding box of the map.

^ very well, i write that down in my list.

• Neat territory borders.
  
• Bonus colours not too similar to neighboring bonuses.
  

---

Edit:

• Follows the map requirements (https://www.warlight.net/wiki/Map_requirements).
  
• Follows the map guidelines (https://www.warlight.net/wiki/Map_guidelines).
  

Edited 7/14/2015 07:55:10

Not all maps have to include Europe and America, but if Europe or America is what the map is based on then the place names should at least be accurate, I see a lot of forums where other 'Warlighters' comment that a map has place names that aren't right.

i updated the list

Dunno if #6 is an applicable quality seeing as we only have 1 map that actually works for 3v3 perfectly.

perfectly

I agree with you, but that's a strong word. If there was a scale, 1-100 of how well a map is in 3v3, Europe (by Troll) is a 99. Ares is about 85, Treasure Map 80, Most of RA's maps are 70-90...

We need more 99% for sure though ;-;

Some maps are still successful even with lots of territorys for example Isslanders huge world.

yeah successful in terms of diplomacy & role playing games,
so is 'Duel' having just 2 territories for lottery games.

players want to play real combat games and i think such maps don't fulfill demands of majority...

First of all illustrations are secondary. Important is that map is playable, so I focus on this point.

1. Roughly territories - same size. Maybe cities - that give 1-army be smaller or bigger.
2. Equal territory/bonus ratio and distribution
3. Balanced map whith slight variations of positiont, Cluster bonus size
4. Clear borders to understand which are the connected territories
5. Does not have to be mirror nor symmetrical, but you got to see clearly the concept of how far one territory is from another for example one map end to other. Using ships via sea, ports, teleports etc is not bad, but to skimm them down to make map comprehensible. Too many shortcuts makes the map overwhelming.
6. Try to make territory size in union with the army number inside it. So It wont be to small, but is not tremendously big so you have to scroll in.
7. Use one type of nods. To not use circle and square together (my personal preference) - it might make map look better but in real terms makes it too sharp and hard to focus on gameplay.

Add illustrations but on minor scale. Make it nice, but not overwhelming. Do not use the whole 2MB of a .svg file or enormous amounts of Nod angles (hope its right term) as they raise the map data size and might make it laggy on order phones and PC-s. Cant remember maps, but there are quite a few of those bigger overly complex maps - like the World map - the big one. On my older laptop when zooming in it sometimes freezes for a momement.

After all if its nice, but no one wants to play it? There is not use of it. So think before the concept of map. For whom it might be suitable 1vs1, 2vs2, 1000+ territory one. Then start thinking of bonuses and how big, how much, bottlenecks-connections. And then start drawing it!

For best Examples look Apollos, Incaman(correct me if am wrong) maps.
Like Rome, Jerusalem, 1000 territory England, some Europe maps. + maps by Rating.

1. mabye
2. h**l no.
3. eh
4.Not necessary
5. ? And there is nothing wrong with overwhelming.
6. You should always have to scroll.
7. nods?

"players want to play real combat games and i think such maps don't fulfill demands of majority..."

I don't like it when people claim to speak for the majority. I think you mean "the majority of people I play with who therefore tend to like the same things as me"

Only 2 qualities for a successful map as far as I am concerned:

1: I still enjoy playing it after 50+ games on it
2: Enough other people enjoy playing it that so I can get a competitive game when I want one

@Rogue Nikolai Krogius

Sorry I did not read through when posted.

2. Equal in sense that the army one bonus gives should roughly always consist of same amount if territories. For example. If you are making Bonus of 3 armies. Make them all consist of 4-5 territories or the amount you like. Of course it is not necessary. Much depends on how much each bonus has territory etc. It depends on concept of map. But i would call it to be general principle that all bonuses should have same amount of territories. It is my subjective opinion merely.
3. Balanced in sense that wherever you start you can still win. Meaning for example do not make one side of map consist only 6-bonus and higher amount bonuses and right size 1 territory 1-army. And bottlenecks to be balanced not favouring one placement.
5. Some maps are overwhelmingly nice and great to play. But if you are going to play a map in competitive way then I doubt many players join maps that would take hour or two to understand all weaks and strenghts. Simplyfing things make it easier. I am not agianst it, but as far as "majority" goes they aim simple map, and rather strategy than geopolitics.
6. Yes always have to scroll. But I assume most players want to have certain view on screen to fathom bigger picture. I mean if you have to constanty scroll in and out to see armies and status quo of things its annoying.
7. Nods in inkscape. The connections. Corners of territories. Not sure how it effects in full. But there is quite a differnce of how many, and what type they are affecting size and speed of map works in older PC-s.

Vorsicht! Martin don't like it when people claim to speak for the majority. ^^