MarshalNey wrote:Ahhh, excellent! The starting positions look most satisfactory to me now. Into the bulletin with this map!
With haste, Sir Ney!

-Sully
Moderator: Cartographers
MarshalNey wrote:Ahhh, excellent! The starting positions look most satisfactory to me now. Into the bulletin with this map!
MarshalNey wrote:Ahhh, excellent! The starting positions look most satisfactory to me now. Into the bulletin with this map!
cairnswk wrote:Further discussion on gameplay....
At present there are only 24 starting positions.
I think that another 8 could be added to take up some of those other vacant landowners.
Thoughts anyone?
Victor Sullivan wrote:cairnswk wrote:Further discussion on gameplay....
At present there are only 24 starting positions.
I think that another 8 could be added to take up some of those other vacant landowners.
Thoughts anyone?
I think it's unnecessary, and in fact, I'd advise against it. I think what you have is good and adding more would risk some loss in gossip effect of the gameplay. I think what you have is pretty spot-on.
-Sully
MarshalNey wrote:A well-deserved stamp seems in order...![]()
Of course, this does not mean that any discussion of gameplay is over, but the focus has now moved to graphics since the map has met or exceeded the minimum Foundry standard.
Congrats carins!
-- Marshal Ney
P.S. Now let's get this thing rolling into Beta in time for Halloween
natty_dread wrote:Hey, congrats on the gp stamp...
On to graphics then... the trees, which apparently are impassables, seem to sort of get lost in the background at some places... could they be tweaked to make them stand out better? I don't know, maybe make them darker or lighter, or add some sort of shadow or glow to them...
Also the noose icons look a little pixelated... is there a way to smooth them out a bit?
And the water could use some more contrast against the land areas.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:Hi cairns,
Can I remind you that I ad a concern earlier in the production. The one about the eyes being overly detailed in comparison to the simplistic flat colours of the rest of the map?
Cheers,
gimil
On to graphics then... the trees, which apparently are impassables, seem to sort of get lost in the background at some places... could they be tweaked to make them stand out better? I don't know, maybe make them darker or lighter, or add some sort of shadow or glow to them...
cairnswk wrote:I want to know if the texture on the land that is done on half the map is working for anyone.
I propose only to do the landowners with this texture and leave the accused and accusers as they are now.
Thosw little houses will also be added to all lots where possible if room permits.
isaiah40 wrote:The separate backgrounds are okay with me. Just at the right level, you can see it but not distracting.
One thing I noticed was the noose in the legend, it has some sort of weird glow around it whereas it doesn't in the playable area.
isaiah40 wrote:The separate backgrounds are okay with me. Just at the right level, you can see it but not distracting.
ender516 wrote:I like the textures on the land. It can and should be used to emphasize the separate plots of land, allowing the boundary lines to remain knife-edge thin.
natty_dread wrote:Well, now that I look at it... I'm sorry, but I don't think the trees really fit the style of the map.
Perhaps if you could make them more like that black tree in the bottom left corner?
The water looks pretty good now, but maybe you could try making it a bit darker?
ender516 wrote:Well, if the trees can be made more attractive, I guess that is a good thing, but I suspect that the reality is that conifers like the ones now on the map are exactly the type of trees planted in that area as natural fences and windbreaks.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users