Moderator: Cartographers
minimap is good...The Bison King wrote:I prefer Mini maps when they can fit. They're easier to read at a glance.Industrial Helix wrote:Hmm... any thoughts about the legend? What about no minimap and just using colored text?
Like a posterize filter or something? it might look good. I could try it out but often those can look sort of cheezy.Bison King, you are realy very skilled in graphics, so I believe you can make the photo as drawn picture (by your hand or using any trick with any paint program). I´ve tried to do something with it and it looks better when all map (playable map and backgroung) look alike. I used "filters" in GIMP, but must say unfortunately I´m not very skilled...
That doesn't make much sense to me. I think that would make the image very visually unbalanced.For the two you posted above, I say keep the font for Bay Area and L.A. on the first, but keep the rest like the second, though I think I'd prefer the font you had before for the minimap.
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
Wholeheartedly. It is by far my favorite.natty_dread wrote:I actually like #4.
To be honest, the latest updates of the map are comparable with the current Africa map, which is one of the most-revampable maps out there. I still think a complete graphical overhaul is in orderMrBenn wrote:Now that we're in graphics, I'm going to bring this back up.The Bison King wrote:We're not in graphics yet. One thing at a time.Victor Sullivan wrote:I agree, but does it matter at this stage? I feel like we still need to figure out some of the gameplay concepts, bonus areas, etc.MrBenn wrote:I hate to say it, but I really don;t think the visual style fits the theme of the map at all... while it worked for Thyseneal, I don't know how well it works here.
-Sulls
I really don't think the watercolour style works on this map. You could probably get away with it if you were doing something like this (below), but I don't know herePart of me thinks a complete graphical overhaul may be in order?
[img]Image[/img]

I've been spending about a day now trying to find a way to respond to this, but I'm still not sure. I mean how are you supposed to respond when someone throws acid in your face? I'm really trying to work with you guys and I'd really hope that you are trying to work with me, but saying "this sucks do it over" is not productive. I feel like the salmon trying to swim upstream while you are the waterfall rushing against me. Aren't the mods supposed to be the gentle steam that guides me to the correct spawning ground? There is no do over, I don't have that kind of time. I want to make this happen and there's still a lot that can be done to improve this but there's a limit to what I'm willing to put into this project. I honestly don't feel that it's necessary either, and I've never agreed with the sentiment that the water color style doesn't work here. That is such a subjective opinion anyway. Some people like the style and other people don't. I could see water colors not being "suited" for a map if it was of space or something futuristic, but I don't see a conflict with something as open ended as a state. I've been getting a lot of good comments and support from people, who can give me specific measures to what could improve this map. I feel that a complete graphic overhaul is completely back tracking, a complete waste of time, and completely unnecessary.MrBenn wrote:To be honest, the latest updates of the map are comparable with the current Africa map, which is one of the most-revampable maps out there. I still think a complete graphical overhaul is in orderMrBenn wrote:Now that we're in graphics, I'm going to bring this back up.The Bison King wrote:We're not in graphics yet. One thing at a time.Victor Sullivan wrote:I agree, but does it matter at this stage? I feel like we still need to figure out some of the gameplay concepts, bonus areas, etc.MrBenn wrote:I hate to say it, but I really don;t think the visual style fits the theme of the map at all... while it worked for Thyseneal, I don't know how well it works here.
-Sulls
I really don't think the watercolour style works on this map. You could probably get away with it if you were doing something like this (below), but I don't know herePart of me thinks a complete graphical overhaul may be in order?
[img]Image[/img]
I'm here again. Sorry for taking so long to reply to your question but real life was hectic in these days.The Bison King wrote:Whatever happened to this? It's been about a month now since this was stickied. If there's something specific you're waiting to see please tell me so that I can make whatever changes are needed?thenobodies80 wrote:About graphics, i personally think that when borders and connection will be fixed the map could be ready for a short sticky period and then moving to the FF.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p2875880MrBenn wrote:Now that we're in graphics, I'm going to bring this back up.The Bison King wrote:We're not in graphics yet. One thing at a time.Victor Sullivan wrote:I agree, but does it matter at this stage? I feel like we still need to figure out some of the gameplay concepts, bonus areas, etc.MrBenn wrote:I hate to say it, but I really don;t think the visual style fits the theme of the map at all... while it worked for Thyseneal, I don't know how well it works here.
-Sulls
I really don't think the watercolour style works on this map. You could probably get away with it if you were doing something like this (below), but I don't know herePart of me thinks a complete graphical overhaul may be in order?
[img]imagehere[/img]
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p2939472lostatlimbo wrote:As to the graphics, I like the overall look, but feel that a place as flashy as California should have a little more "pop" to it. Something with stronger colors and less of a watercolored look.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p2955478AndyDufresne wrote:One of the things I've always disliked---is a mix between realism---photographs---and drawn images---the landmass and other emblems. If the photo looked like the bear in style, I'd give it my thumbs up.
MinimaptheBastard wrote:Bison King, you are realy very skilled in graphics, so I believe you can make the photo as drawn picture (by your hand or using any trick with any paint program). I´ve tried to do something with it and it looks better when all map (playable map and backgroung) look alike. I used "filters" in GIMP, but must say unfortunately I´m not very skilled...
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 5#p2955472Victor Sullivan wrote:Believe it or not, I think the minimap is too big. It distracts from the main map IMO, since it's like 1/3 the size.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 0#p2956422Industrial Helix wrote:Hmm... any thoughts about the legend? What about no minimap and just using colored text?
The things posted here above are just some of them, but they show to you the main concerns that currently hold the map into the graphics workshop. I hope this list could help you to focus on things that need some work.Industrial Helix wrote:Generally I prefer minimaps too... but the repeated pattern of California is an unpleasant thing, imo.
It does seem to be the favorite. I didn't apply it to the insets because I thought it would help them stand out. could though.First of all i want to say that i prefer version 4, it is the one in which the two different styles are mixed better. Why you didn't applied it also to the insets?
Some of them I have addressed and some of them I will address now.Now..... after reading the last pages, I have decided to go backward through the thread to see if the concerns recently expressed on the map have been already addressed and if it was given a logical reply to them. I must admit that the map was accompanied from the beginning by those concerns and, in my opinion, they have never been addressed in a satisfactory manner. So, trying to give you an idea of what i'm saying, let me quote some of the posts i've found:
The post directly above yours is completely dedicated to answering this question. I defer to it.Now that we're in graphics, I'm going to bring this back up.
I really don't think the watercolour style works on this map. You could probably get away with it if you were doing something like this (below), but I don't know herePart of me thinks a complete graphical overhaul may be in order?
Since this post I actually have gone in and pumped up the colors. This was also before the stars were added and the Hollywood font was implemented, all attempts to add flashiness.As to the graphics, I like the overall look, but feel that a place as flashy as California should have a little more "pop" to it. Something with stronger colors and less of a watercolored look.
That's exactly what the photofilters are being used for. I think that they actually do give it a similar blocky shape sort of modulation that is used on the bear. I think #4 does actually do this pretty well.One of the things I've always disliked---is a mix between realism---photographs---and drawn images---the landmass and other emblems. If the photo looked like the bear in style, I'd give it my thumbs up.
again it was actually this specific comment that prompted me to use the photofilters.Bison King, you are realy very skilled in graphics, so I believe you can make the photo as drawn picture (by your hand or using any trick with any paint program). I´ve tried to do something with it and it looks better when all map (playable map and backgroung) look alike. I used "filters" in GIMP, but must say unfortunately I´m not very skilled...
I might have missed this comment or had forgotten about it. I could shrink the mini map, I don't have a problem with that.Believe it or not, I think the minimap is too big. It distracts from the main map IMO, since it's like 1/3 the size.
I just don't think this is a good idea, is there anything wrong with that? Mini maps are simple and effective.Hmm... any thoughts about the legend? What about no minimap and just using colored text?
This is pretty much the exact same comment and he even acknowledges that it is simply his own opinion. One that is not shared with by me, and no one else besides IH has suggested that there is anything wrong with using a mini map over a legend.Generally I prefer minimaps too... but the repeated pattern of California is an unpleasant thing, imo.
ah yes I see that. You're right that'll have to be changed.In addition there're another couple of things :
Sierra Nevada e Mojave Desert have unfriendly colors for colorblind people
...crap. I was unaware of that. That really sucks that font was perfect! ugh I guess I'll have to find something else.Finally the title, it's certainly nice, but the font is not freeware (read the txt included with the file) so must be changed.
Finally the title, it's certainly nice, but the font is not freeware (read the txt included with the file) so must be changed.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this mean that I'm in the clear? I'm not using it for commercial gain, it's not being used for business, It's not attached to any merchandise, and it won't be printed.This font is only for non-commercial usage.
To use this font for commercial gain, profit, business, merchandise and prints please visit the shop available at shop.sickcapital.com
Thank you,
Andrew2
Business implies money.Victor Sullivan wrote:I would imagine it would go under business.
Since Conquer Club would be using it, it is better to find something Free Ware just so there aren't any kinks.The Bison King wrote:Business implies money.Victor Sullivan wrote:I would imagine it would go under business.
Wow this map's still in the gameplay workshop? I thought it would be moved into beta way back when i made my first post!
Graphics, but thanks. It's refreshing to hear someone actually say something nice about this map.The map is still VERY visually appealing and is still my favorite map in the gameplay workshop.
Well the thinking is that it's extremely unlikely that any of these bonuses will be taken as someones first. Expanded out LA can be defended from 3 while Bay can only be defended from 4 at best. Bay also has 9 territories to LA's 8. So the short answer is that LA is less because it has less territories and better expansion potential.The Bay Area is worth +6 with 5 border territories (which is fine). However, Los Angeles is only worth +5 with 6 border territories. Shouldn't this be adjusted?
Again thank's it's good to know that the changes are at least appreciated. When you say inset map do you mean mini map?By the way, the background is much better than when I saw it last and the whole picture looks better without the inset map.
Sorry for the slow response I've been busy with a lot of other stuff lately. I'll do a new update soon. Have you checked this on the color blind test again yet? does it pass?thenobodies80 wrote:It looks 1000 times better without the minimap! Some quick thoughts: the first and the second results are nice, the last one is also interesting, but i think that the yellow background stands out a bit too much. You should work a bit on legend colors to have them that match the colors you have on the map, specially the violet, it looks really strong if compared with the "original" one, you used.
A thing that really bothers me is the part of the legend about cities...All those big black letters. Is really necessary to have them so visible?
I think that the cities bonus has the same importance than the "standard zone bonus", so i think thay should have the same font size, or at least they should appear more balanced each other, if I look the map now it seems to me that the game goes around the cities or that there is a city objective....