Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:03 pm**

you want to have a killer whale (orca) that mayby fits the map?

shrink one of the 2 largest ones and i think they'll fit

P.S
i love killer whales

Posted: **Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:06 pm**

I like the whale. But would be just as good if shrunk a bit. Can you put a small sea lion and/or salmon in there too? :-)

Posted: **Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:15 pm**

Gnome wrote:
jako wrote:
Gnome wrote:I like your map...but there are some things that I don't like that much...

-some borders are to straight...as for edmonds and shoreline its ok...but the border between Mason co. and Kitsap Co. looks so unnatural...Can't you just make it like the rest? I think that would look way better...

-You also forgot to draw some black borders, the border between lakewood and Tacoma, you have a river there....you started a border at lakewood but you didn't finished it...maybe it's better to stop it at the river mouth...

-And I don't agree with some bonuses, how did you calculate them?
King Co has 7 borders and has a bonus of 7 (agree)
Snohomish has 3 borders but has a bonus of 4 (disagree)
Pierce Co has 4 borders and has a bonus of 4 (agree)
Thurston CO has 2 borders and has a bonus of 2 (agree)
Mason CO has 4 borders and has a bonus of 4 (agree, although its hard to hold explanation at Kitsap Co)
Jefferson CO has 2 borders and a bonus of 2 (agree)
Kitsap Co has 6 borders and has a bonus of 7 (disagree much...When you hold Kitsap Co you get a bonus of 7 which is a lot because you can defend Kitsap with only 5 borders...
When you take Allyn and Seattle you can easely prevent some1 to take Masson co because Tahuya can only be fortified along Allyn...and you can afford to put your defense from Bremerton and Bainbridge into 1 territory (Seattle)
I think this makes the gameplay really hard...

actually i disagree with ur bonus comments, i think her bonus values are fine, u have to also take into account how many terrs it contains that u have to control in order to get the bonus, and in this case, the amount of terrs to entry points suits the bonus values.

Ok maybe your right about the bonuses...but I still think that the way you can make it some1 really really hard to keep Mason Co and you only make it yourself easier to hold Kitsap is unfair...

but think about the amount of troops it takes to take over all the terrs required for the bonus, most players will see the large amount terrs that needs taking over, and would obviously head for small ones with lesser amount of terrs, because they will think it will be easier.

Posted: **Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:32 pm**

I'd like to keep the county borders true to the area. Mt. Rainier hasn't been just thrown in.. that is the shape of Mt. Rainier National Park.

I'm not sure how your telling me to fix the river....if u do have something better Jako, I would love to see. The light blue wasn't a layer showing through, it was part of the river. I didn't want the river completely one color. I changed it...a little bit of an outline. Is that any better?

And as for Kitsap Co. bonus, I do think it will be hard to hold it with the border of the five. It always is when trying to hold land in other bonuses as your border. Mason can easily grab Thurston Co. and have two extra for a bonus, with the same amount of borders

And I do like the new Killer Whales better. They are native to the land, and want to live on my map.

Posted: **Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:00 pm**

good start so far. You've found a region that lends itself to a CC map.

The color palette doesn't work for me... seems a bit bright for the Pacific Northwest.

Posted: **Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:31 pm**

oaktown wrote:good start so far. You've found a region that lends itself to a CC map.

The color palette doesn't work for me... seems a bit bright for the Pacific Northwest.

lol that was my next comment, yeah the colours arent what i would picture for this area, and its hard on the eyes, that up north its all bright, almost a glare like feel to it, and then down south its all dark. also ur title blends into snohomish co. too much, i almost missed seeing it. u maybe have to try another colour for the title, or darken it a bit more so it stands out from that area.

the rivers are better than before, but is there any way u can smooth it out more, seems so pixelated and choppy. (not sure if u understood that)

the orcas do look better than that humongous one earlier, but maybe making them a bit more transparent so that they are more in the background and not sticking out apart from the map too much. my eyes keep concentrating on the orcas for some reason.

the central area, kitsap co., king co., and mason co. is at a lost for me. i dont know how u can improve that area with out changing borders/ferry routes and maybe possibly the entire central layout.

Posted: **Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:38 pm**

oaktown wrote:good start so far. You've found a region that lends itself to a CC map.

The color palette doesn't work for me... seems a bit bright for the Pacific Northwest.

well.. what exactly says Northwest to you?

Posted: **Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:41 pm**

jako wrote:lol that was my next comment, yeah the colours arent what i would picture for this area, and its hard on the eyes, that up north its all bright, almost a glare like feel to it, and then down south its all dark.

Right... between the colors and the orcas this makes me think Sea World, San Diego.

This is just an idea and you may hate it, but what if you borrowed from northwestern native art? For instance, you could run a totem pole along one side and work it into your legend, then lift your color pallette from it... yellows, blues, greens, brown and white?

Posted: **Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:27 am**

oaktown wrote:good start so far. You've found a region that lends itself to a CC map.

The color palette doesn't work for me... seems a bit bright for the Pacific Northwest.

I don't know. Seattle is the "emerald city", Tacoma really is gray, and Olympic National Park is strangely appropriate in teal...

For the rivers, just do it like you did the Montlake Cut. No need to represent all the little tributaries on the map.

Oh, and whichever river that is between Kanaskat and Orting, it really should go all the way to the sea.... unless it's actually starting in the Federal Way foothills and flowing east. :lol:

Posted: **Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:36 am**

the papyrus font doesn't work

Posted: **Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:25 pm**

jako, is there anything u actually like about the map at all?

I actually loved the totem pole.. great for the North West. I found a picture of it complete.

The colors do look nice on the map, I'm just not sure where to fit a totem pole..

and is this font better reverend_kyle? (please say yes) there aren't many that I like. I know it does need shadow or something to the font...would just like reverend_kyle's approval before working on that more..

Posted: **Thu Sep 06, 2007 4:42 pm**

Your rivers are still running east.

Posted: **Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:37 pm**

better? The river in the south is actually Carbon River and the river in the north is White River...White River actually flows into Carbon River on the REAL maps... should I lie, and continue it to the sound?

Posted: **Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:56 pm**

FINALLY!!!

its kind of hard to see any of the names in Kitsap though. but i like the rest!

Posted: **Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:08 pm**

I love it!

Now, my problem is I was born & raised in Bellevue, my sister is in Tacoma, my brother lives in Everett and my parents are retired in Kingston. Which county to I dominate first?! :lol:

Posted: **Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:09 pm**

Tisha wrote:better? The river in the south is actually Carbon River and the river in the north is White River...White River actually flows into Carbon River on the REAL maps... should I lie, and continue it to the sound?

Well, you can either lie and continue it to the sound, or you can have it actually drain into the carbon river and use it as the Tacoma/Orting border. But having it just disappear randomly doesn't seem like a good option. It makes it look like it's flowing east.

Of course, that's not the only reason it looks like it's going east. The other reason is that your tributaries are pointing in the wrong direction on both rivers...

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 9:57 am**

Xyl wrote:
Tisha wrote:better? The river in the south is actually Carbon River and the river in the north is White River...White River actually flows into Carbon River on the REAL maps... should I lie, and continue it to the sound?

Well, you can either lie and continue it to the sound, or you can have it actually drain into the carbon river and use it as the Tacoma/Orting border. But having it just disappear randomly doesn't seem like a good option. It makes it look like it's flowing east.

Of course, that's not the only reason it looks like it's going east. The other reason is that your tributaries are pointing in the wrong direction on both rivers...

that's pretty much the way the river goes..

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:18 am**

try using all white text for the names and a black Drop shadow....

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 10:33 am**

Keredrex wrote:try using all white text for the names and a black Drop shadow....

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:53 pm**

Tisha wrote:jako, is there anything u actually like about the map at all?

I actually loved the totem pole.. great for the North West. I found a picture of it complete.

The colors do look nice on the map, I'm just not sure where to fit a totem pole..

and is this font better reverend_kyle? (please say yes) there aren't many that I like. I know it does need shadow or something to the font...would just like reverend_kyle's approval before working on that more..

to be honest, this wouldnt be my first pick to play on. its looking a lot better now. rivers are good, i was also gonna suggest keeping ur terr name fonts the same but it was already suggested and implemented so no problems there.

im not a fan of the borders for ur terrs, especially in mason co. it just looks rough and not very pretty. but i dont expect u to change it since that may be how the real borders are.

i dont reconmend adding the totem as it will distract player's attention from the map and create unneccesary clutter for ur map.

the colours look a lot better now, but if i may, i would like to suggest toning down the water. its pretty hard on the eyes adn is also a bit distracting compared to the lighter colours of ur land.

btw, could u do something about the border of Mt rainer. its pretty annoying to see a box terr compared to the relative style of ur other borders. i just hope u didnt add it in, just cause its a landmark near that area. box terrs dont make good terrs especially when the rest of ur map does not follow the same format.

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:45 pm**

you don't have to play on it jako.. not every one likes every map...everyone has favorites.

The font has always been one font throughout... no matter what the font was.

The borders are the borders of the actual counties, so i would like to keep them.

You don't like the map anyways jako, u haven't really liked anything about it.. would u even play it? It feels like to please you I would have to make a completely new map.

I have already changed the water. it was alot darker.... and if i do make it lighter it looks really bland to me. it's not hard on the eyes, I have been staring at it the whole time while working on this map.. might i suggest glasses? :lol:

I just didn't throw Mt. Rainier in there. I wanted a territory there... so I looked at an actual map of Washington and seen Mt. Rainier National Park was right there, in the square shape, so I added it.

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:49 pm**

maps looking good tish. I would like too see the ferry routes in white as they would blend nice other than that

****/*****

Posted: **Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:54 pm**

i guess this is my last comment on this map since tisha told me on the chat to stay away, EDITED.

to answer ur above post tisha, i would play it, at least once anyways. hell i played DiM's AoM map, and i thought that map was away worse than urs.

by font i meant font colour, sorry i was rushing and forgot to type in colour. but u fixed it so forget what i just said :lol:

(u probably dont need since ur gonna ignore my comments anyways.)

i guess u can keep the borders, but there is a fine line between accuracy, and playability. so plz keep that in mind.

i never said i didnt like ur map, i just stated that it wouldnt be one of my first picks to play. and i do like some things in ur map. let me get back to u when i can think of some.

i dont need glasses, but if u feel the sea is good enough, i cant change ur mind. it could be just me i guess.

so the map u looked at drew mt rainier as a square? hm....like i said above, there is a very fine line between accuracy and playability, its up to u which side u stay on.

okay thats it for me then. i'l stop anymore comments tisha, but i'l look in from time to time. i know u will probably not be happy i made this one final comment in ur thread.

remember i'l be watching in the background :wink:

, adn i really do hope ur map turns out for the best and goes to live play.... eventually

Posted: **Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:10 pm**

jako wrote:i guess this is my last comment on this map since tisha told me on the chat to stay away, EDITED.

to answer ur above post tisha, i would play it, at least once anyways. hell i played DiM's AoM map, and i thought that map was away worse than urs.

by font i meant font colour, sorry i was rushing and forgot to type in colour. but u fixed it so forget what i just said (u probably dont need since ur gonna ignore my comments anyways.)

i guess u can keep the borders, but there is a fine line between accuracy, and playability. so plz keep that in mind.

i never said i didnt like ur map, i just stated that it wouldnt be one of my first picks to play. and i do like some things in ur map. let me get back to u when i can think of some.

i dont need glasses, but if u feel the sea is good enough, i cant change ur mind. it could be just me i guess.

so the map u looked at drew mt rainier as a square? hm....like i said above, there is a very fine line between accuracy and playability, its up to u which side u stay on.

okay thats it for me then. i'l stop anymore comments tisha, but i'l look in from time to time. i know u will probably not be happy i made this one final comment in ur thread.

remember i'l be watching in the background , adn i really do hope ur map turns out for the best and goes to live play.... eventually

yes in chat i jokingly told you to stay away from my map, since you don't seem to care for it anyways

i didn't say that Mt. Rainier was drawn as a square, i said Mt. Rainier National Park was drawn as a square.... the playability of the map will not change whether the territory is a square or a different shape there

Posted: **Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:14 pm**

why don't you call it Mt. Rainier Park then? (Or Mt. Rainier Nat. Park) Makes it clearer so this question won't come up. Though to me it's fine without a change.

As for your bridge from Lakewood to Tacoma, I would extend the ends of the bridge to go into the actual territories. That way it actually looks like a bridge. (see cairns coral coast map)

Conquer Club

The Puget Sound [Quenched]