Conquer Club

This is the deuteranope CB test for these colours on this map using ImageJ from the Visicheck site...V10 CB test addded to Page 1

cairnswk wrote:Ian, sorry, do you mean S canterbury? S canterbury is +5 on the spreadsheet...N canterbury is +7, so i'm a little confused as to which region you're talking about. Could you clarify please.

Also i looked at N Canterbury and it already has 1 tiki bonus and only needs 4 other forts to covers its borders.
It has 6 terrs while S Canterbury has 7 terrs. I thought it would be easier to holder this than the S Canterbury.

i'm agreeing with north canterbury's +6.5 on the spreadsheet: +5.5 normal and +1 tiki. given the 5 borders, including one-way attacks to christchurch, we need at least +5 normal and +1 tiki, which matches the spreadsheet's +6.5 rounded downward.

south canterbury is fine at +3 normal and +1 tiki. the spreadsheet gives +4.58, which can go either way and u've chosen downward. compared with north canterbury, downward is correct because there are only 3 borders, no one-way attacks into timaru and one of the smallest numbers of adjacent enemy bonus zones on the map.

to help those whose vision isn't so good, may i suggest using the auckland colour in hawke's bay and vice versa? hawke's bay and bay of plenty are very similar in shade. having the bright yellow auckland colour in hawke's bay provides much-needed contrast.

ian.

iancanton wrote:...
i'm agreeing with north canterbury's +6.5 on the spreadsheet: +5.5 normal and +1 tiki. given the 5 borders, including one-way attacks to christchurch, we need at least +5 normal and +1 tiki, which matches the spreadsheet's +6.5 rounded downward.

south canterbury is fine at +3 normal and +1 tiki. the spreadsheet gives +4.58, which can go either way and u've chosen downward. compared with north canterbury, downward is correct because there are only 3 borders, no one-way attacks into timaru and one of the smallest numbers of adjacent enemy bonus zones on the map.

to help those whose vision isn't so good, may i suggest using the auckland colour in hawke's bay and vice versa? hawke's bay and bay of plenty are very similar in shade. having the bright yellow auckland colour in hawke's bay provides much-needed contrast.

ian.

ian, thanks for the clarification on those. Will attend to next version in the next few days.

Version 11

1. Ian bonuses implemented for N S Canterbury
2. Auckaland colour to Wellington; Manawatu colour to Auckland: Wellington colour to Manawatu to overcome the closeness of colur issue ian had - but not pur a big section of bright yellow in Manawatu as it would have been too dominant on the map.

Hmmm ... I think that Otago and S Canterbury's colors could be switched. Otago is too close to West Coast, and S Canterbury is too close to N Canterbury in the CB test.

isaiah40 wrote:Hmmm ... I think that Otago and S Canterbury's colors could be switched. Otago is too close to West Coast, and S Canterbury is too close to N Canterbury in the CB test.

Wouldn't that still make the S Caterbury and West Coast CB colours too close.
I'll keep searching for a solution that makes good aesthetics on the map also.

cairnswk wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:Hmmm ... I think that Otago and S Canterbury's colors could be switched. Otago is too close to West Coast, and S Canterbury is too close to N Canterbury in the CB test.

Wouldn't that still make the S Caterbury and West Coast CB colours too close.
I'll keep searching for a solution that makes good aesthetics on the map also.

On my monitor, I they wouldn't be close at all.

isaiah40 wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:Hmmm ... I think that Otago and S Canterbury's colors could be switched. Otago is too close to West Coast, and S Canterbury is too close to N Canterbury in the CB test.

Wouldn't that still make the S Caterbury and West Coast CB colours too close.
I'll keep searching for a solution that makes good aesthetics on the map also.

On my monitor, I they wouldn't be close at all.

Oh, well on mine it tells a different story.

Guys, you need to calibrate your monitors.

natty dread wrote:Guys, you need to calibrate your monitors.

OK, please tell us how to do that, i haven't changed my monitor or adjusted any controls on it since i got over fours years ago.

Was there a colour profile (.icm) file provided with your monitor?

If not, the monitor manufacturer might provide one on their website... they're usually in the same place where they provide driver updates and such. After you have the colour profile file, you need to go to the display settings (if you use windows) and there to the advanced settings, and there should be a tab where you can select the colour profile to use - there, add the colour profile you downloaded and set your system to use it.

Alternatively, your monitor might have an option in it's settings to use the sRGB colourspace, in which case you can use the standard sRGB colour profile, which should be installed in your system by default.

natty dread wrote:Was there a colour profile (.icm) file provided with your monitor?

If not, the monitor manufacturer might provide one on their website... they're usually in the same place where they provide driver updates and such. After you have the colour profile file, you need to go to the display settings (if you use windows) and there to the advanced settings, and there should be a tab where you can select the colour profile to use - there, add the colour profile you downloaded and set your system to use it.

Alternatively, your monitor might have an option in it's settings to use the sRGB colourspace, in which case you can use the standard sRGB colour profile, which should be installed in your system by default.

There probably was, but i have also changed my computer but not the monitor - Asus VW192T Splendid.
I have nwo changed the colour profile to sRGB colourspace, so i'll see if there is any difference.
Thanks for your assistance on that. Much appreciated.

Guys, the colors look fine on my screen. Well, everything looks a little green.



In all seriousness, this map is growing on me more and more.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Guys, the colors look fine on my screen. Well, everything looks a little green.



In all seriousness, this map is growing on me more and more.


--Andy

Nice humour Andy, enough to lighten my mood. Boy, tax is going to be hard this semester!

Anyways, a couple of colour changes on the South Island...plus the CB test to go with it.

Oh...and i have to ask...minimap for the bonuses or as is/similar to now?

The way the bonuses are described right now seems perfectly clear. I see no need for a minimap.

ender516 wrote:The way the bonuses are described right now seems perfectly clear. I see no need for a minimap.

I think I agree.


--Andy

ender516 wrote:The way the bonuses are described right now seems perfectly clear. I see no need for a minimap.

AndyDufresne wrote:

ender516 wrote:The way the bonuses are described right now seems perfectly clear. I see no need for a minimap.

I think I agree.
--Andy

Gents, thanks for coming in so quickly to comment...
The reason i asked this question is that i am feeling the current text style while adequate because of colouration etc, couldn't be improved upon with a visual representation as well as text. Now i say as well as text because one of the reasons i do these maps apart from enjoyment for players etc and myself, has a sub-motive of education. That is one of the reasons i started with the CCC map. IN this case, if players can see where the Bay of Plenty is then they are more likely to remember it by playing the map over a couple of times if it is good enough for them to do so.
So below is an example of what the North Island might look like. What do you think?

I think the mini-map here works out very well!! Just move the abbreviation down between the mini-map and airport instructions and it will be perfect!

Poll details
Length: 14 days
From the above image Version 12 map...much of the clutter has been removed so people can see more clearly what they are voting for.
You have two options to vote for and votes are changeable should you wish.
Please only place one vote in Mountains and one vote for Legends.
The category with the largest vote will go onto the map with consideration given to any welcome constructive comments posted


Mountains:
There are 4 styles of mountains to decide upon:
* Blue box - these are filled and outllined mountains drawn in PS and imported to Illustrator as bitmaps
* Rex box - these are filled mountains only with outlines removed in PS, but black vector outlines added in Illustrator
* Old style no box - these are the original mountains
* Combinations - indicate in the poll if you think a combination of the three styles might be appropriate

Legend:
There are 3 styles of legend to decide upon:
* Text only - this is the same text style that is currently on the map for the South Island
* Mini-map - this is the mini-map without the text indicating the region names
* Mini-map and text - combination of mini-map and text - allowing players to recognise the regions by name

cairnswk, always looking for ways to improve, I like it. The mountains you had (without box) where fine. They looked OK to me. But the mini map with the text looks like a winner. Not only does it fill the space up better than the large text, it just looks nicer. It may not be needed, like Andy and enders said, but it is a winner IMO.

koontz1973 wrote:cairnswk, always looking for ways to improve, I like it. The mountains you had (without box) where fine. They looked OK to me. But the mini map with the text looks like a winner. Not only does it fill the space up better than the large text, it just looks nicer. It may not be needed, like Andy and enders said, but it is a winner IMO.

koontz193, thanks for that comment, but you know inevitably the mountains will be regarded as not good enough, so that is why i am doing this now. I agree about the mim-map and text. It looks much clearer and less cluttered.

Well, about the mountains, I still say the ones you have are great, just because one or two may not like the look or style to them, it can be said that a majority do and they can stay. But honestly, the new ones are not even close to the ones you have now. They just do not fit the style of map.

koontz1973 wrote:just because one or two may not like the look or style to them, it can be said that a majority do and they can stay.

What does "majority" have to do with anything?

For the record, it's good that you're looking to improve the mountains. However, the ones in the blue rectangles look really blurry, while the ones in the red circle look kind of weird, the lines seem to go a bit oddly there...

I think the best choice would be to do something similar to your current mountains, with the crisp look and style, but add more variation to the mountain images, so that they're not all just repetition of the one same mountain image.

natty dread wrote:What does "majority" have to do with anything?

Simple - if, in the end, the current mountains fit the style, are graphically good, get discussed in an open manner and most people want them, then it will come to a time when a late comer to the discussion can be rebuffed politely and say we have already gone over this. But this is for another thread.

It would be nice though to have a better choice of mountains though than the two you have given us.