[Official] Brazil REVAMP [Quenched]

[Night Strike]

Without the tilt, it did lose some of its flair, but it's still an attractive map.

Your Non-Crossing Borders label might look better underneath the mini-map in the "hook" of the map. (Kind of like having it nest down to the bottom left corner from the top right.)

Perhaps you could fit the flag or something in the bottom right.

[WidowMakers]

Tilt still looks good. But 3 things:

1) I like the old legend. But since you cannot tilt, there is no room for that.
2) Bring back the old Non-Crossing borders. The white is better.
3) Do you think you could put the flag or crest in the lower right? Maybe fill up the empty spaces a bit.

Other than that I am fine with it.

WM

[jiminski]

The vetoed map uses space and the confines of the square frame with greater elegance.
Therefore the image is now attempting to catch up to what it was, by cramming flags and legends into various empty corners.

If we could tilt the square frame so that the same composition could hug the diagonals of the board.. then it would be fine .. I assume we we can not(?).. at least without shrinking the map and placing a skew diamond into an additional, conventional square frame.

The Tilt utilises the confines of the Square frame.... if you could somehow recapture the illusion then i would be happy. At present, in the replacement map, we have a reminder of balletic symphony without recreating it.

[RjBeals]

2) Bring back the old Non-Crossing borders. The white is better.
3) Do you think you could put the flag or crest in the lower right? Maybe fill up the empty spaces a bit.[/list]

1) I can try to put the crest in the lower right. I don't think I want the flag there. The flag's colors are just to gaudy. It doesn't fit the color scheme of the map.
2) Sure I can bring back the white (actually a bit pink) non-crossing borders.

Your Non-Crossing Borders label might look better underneath the mini-map in the "hook" of the map. (Kind of like having it nest down to the bottom left corner from the top right.)

Sure - I can try to flip those 2 around. I'll see how it looks.

The Tilt utilizes the confines of the Square frame.... if you could somehow recapture the illusion then i would be happy. At present, in the replacement map, we have a reminder of balletic symphony without recreating it.

I know what you mean jim. I'm not sure I can pull it off, I surely can't angle the maps square border. But I can try to do something different, using some of the culture and colors.

[Hotdoggie]

looks better without the tilt but w.e...just cave into the orquardness to sacrifice a better look.

[jiminski]

looks better without the tilt but w.e...just cave into the orquardness to sacrifice a better
look.

It's a fine line between awkwardness and striving for what one thinks is best. All that often differentiates between the two is our initial perspective. The tilt issue is the perfect example of that.. from both sides of the 'debate'.

And genuine, not false debate, is the only correct way to reach the most correct result!

[Hotdoggie]

looks better without the tilt but w.e...just cave into the orquardness to sacrifice a better
look.

It's a fine line between awkwardness and striving for what one thinks is best. All that often differentiates between the two is our initial perspective. The tilt issue is the perfect example of that.. from both sides of the 'debate'.

And genuine, not false debate, is the only correct way to reach the most correct result!

lol I typod... *It looks better WITH the tilt.

Now what I said makes sence =]

[MrBenn]

Click image to enlarge.

The army circles look slightly oval; is that deliberate, or a side-effect of the un-tilting, or just an optical illusion?

[edbeard]

I only can see a couple of concerns for this map

1. oval army circles

2. border between Vihena and Madeira. Is it supposed to be there? I don't think it is. Seems like the impassable border needs to be extended a bit there. And, speaking of the impassable border...

3. The colour of the impassable border. Maybe it's just me but I think the green and gold is quite ugly for the border. The green works for the map background. The gold works for the frame or trim of the map. Put them together for the impassable border and it looks awful to me. Also, why is the colour different on the legend version? I'd say try the black you used for the regular borders instead of the green for the outline of the impassable.

[RjBeals]

The oval army circles are deliberate. It's so the 88's fit perfectly centered.
The little border you mentioned ed will be fixed -it must have slipped in there?
And I'll work on the impassables.

Marv was concerned that the upper left area of the map didn't exactly fit to his original map,if you laid them on top of each other. It's true - it's because I used a rounded google earth image to trace my borders, and Marv used a flattened map to trace his. They will not match. I have really not addressed that problem yet. I'm thinking of my next move.

[ZeakCytho]

Marv was concerned that the upper left area of the map didn't exactly fit to his original map,if you laid them on top of each other. It's true - it's because I used a rounded google earth image to trace my borders, and Marv used a flattened map to trace his. They will not match. I have really not addressed that problem yet. I'm thinking of my next move.

Given the background, I think a flat tracing would work better. If the background were of the surrounding countries and the ocean, then I would be in favor of the round one.

[RjBeals]

Marv was concerned that the upper left area of the map didn't exactly fit to his original map,if you laid them on top of each other. It's true - it's because I used a rounded google earth image to trace my borders, and Marv used a flattened map to trace his. They will not match. I have really not addressed that problem yet. I'm thinking of my next move.

Given the background, I think a flat tracing would work better. If the background were of the surrounding countries and the ocean, then I would be in favor of the round one.

Good point Zeak. This will mean reworking the borders one more time, but I'm getting good at it now An update will come soon I hope. I work in the printing industry (real life) and this is about the time of year we start printing Holiday catalogs, so I'm busier than normal at work. I want to start the xml for Charleston, and then get to this. I'll leave Iron Curtain on hold for a bit.

[jiminski]

that's it then? .. debate is pointless on this map i take it; what Marv says is what will happen anyway!?

hehe, sheesh... i really wish the Foundry had not involved anyone else in this excercise if this is the reality.

[RjBeals]

From what I understand Jim - Marv has final say on the map. Revamps do not follow the normal foundry process - as we can comment on graphics, but within the original makers guidelines. It's hard to do - especially on my end. But if I'm wrong, I would love to know otherwise.

[jiminski]

From what I understand Jim - Marv has final say on the map. Revamps do not follow the normal foundry process - as we can comment on graphics, but within the original makers guidelines. It's hard to do - especially on my end. But if I'm wrong, I would love to know otherwise.

it must be very frustrating for you RJ; The dynamics of the revamp process appear to be fundamentally flawed.

I think many people enjoyed RJ's great work when it was put to the broader community.
If more people are to be included in the map revamp process (and in the foundry in general), as apparently was the desire, their views should not be completely dismissed... heheh it is not good for morale

[Mjinga]

If more people are to be included in the map revamp process (and in the foundry in general), as apparently was the desire, their views should not be completely dismissed... heheh it is not good for morale

My morale is fine. The views of people who liked the tilt were not dismissed. Marv went to the trouble of explaining why he didn't like it. Dismissal would be just "nope, no tilt possible" without any kind of reason why. Just 'cause you didn't come 'round to his point of view doesn't mean you were dismissed.

RJ, any way that the Non-Crossing Borders might be renamed Impassable Borders or sommat? Non-Crossing is very awkward.

[jiminski]

If more people are to be included in the map revamp process (and in the foundry in general), as apparently was the desire, their views should not be completely dismissed... heheh it is not good for morale

My morale is fine. The views of people who liked the tilt were not dismissed. Marv went to the trouble of explaining why he didn't like it. Dismissal would be just "nope, no tilt possible" without any kind of reason why. Just 'cause you didn't come 'round to his point of view doesn't mean you were dismissed.

heheh it does MJ, it was just a 'nope' in discussions false clothing, made by the only opinion that mattered.. no matter how long it took to do it, it was dismissal. May be ok for your morale but it all depends on where we start off.
The vote said one thing and now we move in another direction (literally) it's not exclusively my morale I meant either, it is that of all those whose vote was discarded, people like me, who may wish to contribute something, however small, to our maps!
(i will leave out RJ as I am sure he does not wish to be involved but the artists discretion should be ultimately respected.)

The foundry so obviously wishes to be more inclusive and bring more people in but when it does it does not heed its majority oppinion.
"Hey no one will notice anyway.. who cares what they vote, the majority just click buttons!" well if that is the case and views are so easily dismissed in the minutiae, why bloody ask!? (remember that Oaks may well have won if the more esoteric Cartography-set alone, had voted)

Specifically to me again; It may be that i'd have been very happy with RJ's map, under Marvs veto, had i never seen the tilt .. but i did.. and i liked it, i preferred it!

What does the process want: Does it want to draw upon the community opinion or does it not?

Now i agree that may not be Marvs fault but it is the systems!

Anyway i give up, no more Revamps for me, as watching them is frustrating... i'll go back to pissing and moaning once they are finished... i think it is ultimately more satisfying
.. if you see me in here again, swear at me and throw rocks.. it's for my own good!

[edbeard]

so I noticed the iron curtain update and I'm wondering what's going on with this

[RjBeals]

so I noticed the iron curtain update and I'm wondering what's going on with this

Nothing.

I'm going to get the xml done for Charleston. then move to iron curtain. Then come back to this eventually.

[RjBeals]

Before I even touch this map again, I need some agreement on the borders. For a refresher... I used this image for my map outline and borders.



If you lay my most recent map on top of Marv's original, it will not match. His is a flattened map. It's close, but not exact. In addition, I adjusted borders as I saw fit in the blue northeast region, in order to squeeze some of the territory names into the borders, instead of having them outside the map. This was also done in the middle of the yellow central axis region as well. I don't think 99% of people would even notice. I alter all the borders on my maps, very little of course, in order keep aesthetic appearances (names and borders living in harmony). This is ultimately a board game, and not a geography book.

Marv would like the borders to match. I'm fine with that - but I've already redrawn the borders once in order to remove the tilt. I do not want to redo again unless it's totally agreed upon.

So Marv and whomever else wishes to chime in, please agree or disagree to redraw borders to match Marvs. If I do retrace borders, they will match Marv's exactly, except for the jagged pixilation.

My Map

Click image to enlarge.

Marv's Map

Click image to enlarge.

[edbeard]

if your borders match google earth's then I don't see why there's a problem

[ZeakCytho]

As I mentioned before, it would be optimal for the revamp to have flat borders because it is a flat map. If you were including neighboring regions and showing the rest of SA, a spherical projection would be fitting.

However, I think the benefit gained from redrawing the borders is small compared to the amount of time that would have to go into it. So my vote goes to leaving the borders as is.

[amazzony]

I've been following the revamp process quietly since beginning I think because Brazil is one of my favourite maps on this site and I can't wait for the revamp that it deserves to finish.

Also, I might not understand completely what all the fuss is about but for me the current Rj's map looks great and I see no reason to give him extra work because the change that we would see is minor IMO (or perhaps I'm missing something important). The sentence came out weird but point was that I would say no to re-drawing of the borders.

[pamoa]

should it be a spherical projection, cylindrical or who knows what else, bla bla bla.
Marv you should stop arguing about it and let it go, it's not your map anymore.

[foregone]

The borders are fine as is. I can't even tell the difference when I try to look.