RedBaron0 wrote:There's been some discussion kinda recently on this so I won't bin it outright.... but there hasn't been a true update in forever, where are we at here?
• on October 7th Gimil posted a diagram showing how he wanted me to expand the legend info to fill rectangles larger than their current boundaries. Victor Sullivan concurred. I feel this is an awful idea and explained why when posting the next version (draft #21) on October 9th. Later on the 9th Gimil restated his objection but I wasn't sure exactly what he was looking for. I worked on the toga guy but didn't respond to Gimil. On the 14th he complained that I'd not addressed his complaint. Later that day AndyDufresne quoted him and asked, "What is your critique about his legend areas exactly? I just want to be clear." I feel this question speaks for me as well. So far Gimil has not responded. On the 18th I posted version #22 with all other issues (beside the one bridge complaint) met. Gimil has still not responded to the request for clarification.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Minister X wrote:
The most recent bridges (from one version back) were criticized by Flapcake. He says, "the bridges are not an improvement but a decline, it does not look good that they go in the same direction all together, the ones you had before was more authentic and dident look so artificial."
lostatlimbo wrote:I generally like this map, but the toga guy looks poorly photoshop'd. The jaggedy white outline stands out against the drop shadow. Its not as bad on the small, but on the large it is very noticeable.
In addition to cleaning that up, I think you should consider making him grayscale, to match the look of your other bonus icons.
I know the nitpicky stuff can be frustrating, but it really does pay off.
lostatlimbo wrote:...the toga guy looks poorly photoshop'd. The jaggedy white outline stands out against the drop shadow. ...consider making him grayscale.
AndyDufresne wrote:I think I preferred the other toga icons from before:
Flapcake wrote:...I liked the hand drawn bridges better becourse they looked more natural and not so planted but more well with the connected areas than the current version, I still have that opinion, but after you have rotated some of them in a more natural direction it have helped on the artificial part.
Minister X wrote:I'm glad you see the rotations as an improvement. I'm going to take your comment as permission to proceed without further changes - let me know if that's not right.
Minister X wrote:We had a vote to replace the guy Andy prefers because so many folks disliked him. Now let's vote (or at least get an opinion or two) on this choice:
RedBaron0 wrote:There is still the issue of the extra spaces in and around the legend. And something added artistically for greater Roman flavor.
Minister X wrote:It's not that I'm not trying. I just tried this:
But I don't like it.
Minister X wrote:I'll replace the senator with a monochrome version (slightly lighter than as shown) but that one change is hardly enough to justify a whole new draft. ANYTHING ELSE?
lostatlimbo wrote:I do, but they are mostly nitpicky and you don't seem to like those comments.
Minister X wrote:It's time to get REALLY picky about small adjustments like moving an army number one pixel's-worth one way or another. I am honestly looking forward to seeing how detail-oriented y'all can get.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users