Conquer Club

jiminski wrote: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.

Mjinga wrote:

jiminski wrote: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!

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

edbeard wrote: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.

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


Marv's Map

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

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.

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.

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.

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

The world is not flat.
Leave them as you have them RJ.

pamoa wrote: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.

Actually it is still his map and he has all the right to argue and defend his views! But at the same time he should take under consideration that he did allow a revamp and he should give up on some demands because changing the map is part of this process (actually more like the point of this process).

amazzony wrote:

pamoa wrote: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.

Actually it is still his map and he has all the right to argue and defend his views! But at the same time he should take under consideration that he did allow a revamp and he should give up on some demands because changing the map is part of this process (actually more like the point of this process).

Agree with amazzony. If someone ever wanted to revamp one of my maps, and I was still an active member of the site, I would like to provide reasonable direction on what / what not should be changed, and have a stronger influence over the map than the general forum public. I also think that if another revamp (or revamp contest) happens, that explicit rules should be stated before any revamping is done. For instance:

* Is the revamp intended to keep the overall appearance of the original, just graphically touching up bad areas?
* Is the revamp artist allowed to have total graphical freedom, as long as gameplay & bonus amounts don't change?
* Is the map skeleton (size / borders) suppose to remain intact, including North position?
* Are the color's of the territories allowed to be changed? Or keep the overall colors, but changing shades is allowed?
* Can we change the style of the legend from text to a mini-map?

And the list could go on.

jiminski wrote: ...this is not what was voted on.... but this exercise in artistic ego ignores entirely what those who voted desire... i am completely disillusioned with the revamp process, which appears to be counter to normal foundry process. i will not be participating in another.

This is exactly why the rules should have been more clearly defined before the contest was opened up to the entire site via the announcments banner.

Link to Brazil Competition Here

Here are the rules we were bound to, and this is all that was posted:

marvaddin wrote:
Hmmm, conditions for the revamp, I think I have said this a ton of times already, lol...

1. At least 1 Brazilian symbol, like flag or coat of arms.
2. No changes to the playability without my personal permission.
3. The impassable are NOT supposed to be any natural obstacles, like rivers or mountains. They are just political borders of Brazilian states, so they can't be replaced by anything natural.
4. I keep the right to veto anything on the artistic side, like a colour, colour scheme, texture, font, etc. I don't intend to use my veto unless something sounds offensive, or wrong according to Brazilian feelings. Some things I will veto right now include placing signatures in Brazilian flag (someone tried it already, lol), and putting the title in any colour that is not in the flag.
5. It must be done in Paint (just kidding...)

Revamp - To renovate, redo, or revise.
Redraw - To draw again.

Now I'm pretty sure this a revamp, i can understand marvaddin having a veto over most of the process, but this is about making the map better, not just re-drawing the graphics, other wise it would be called Brazil REDRAW.

reggie_mac wrote:Revamp - To renovate, redo, or revise.
Redraw - To draw again.

Now I'm pretty sure this a revamp, i can understand marvaddin having a veto over most of the process, but this is about making the map better, not just re-drawing the graphics, other wise it would be called Brazil REDRAW.

You're parsing the words too closely.

RjBeals wrote:and putting the title in any colour that is not in the flag.

You could be in trouble!!

C.

yeti_c wrote:

RjBeals wrote:and putting the title in any colour that is not in the flag.

You could be in trouble!!

C.

I think we worked though that.

The minimap's text and the minimap itself feel a bit flat when compared to the rest of the map... they seem to clash w/ the slight bevel effect on the entire map (which I like, it works well with the spherical projection, which I also support). Maybe play around with it a bit more if you can.
Keep on truckin' RJ...

this is an awful waste of one of the most stunning maps i've ever seen.

jiminski wrote:this is an awful waste of one of the most stunning maps i've ever seen.

Yes, jim, yes it is.

It would seem that this revamp project, which began over two months ago with so much promise, has died a tragic and untimely death. My thoughts...

As somebody who spent many hours making my own revamp entry - twice - I am personally saddened by what seems to be the end of this effort, and I suspect I'm not alone. A lot of folks other than RjBeals have spent a good deal of time on this project, including gimil, the dozen or so folks who made an entry, and the hundreds of CC users who discussed and voted during the competition. We've all been let down.

As a CA, I've learned a lesson from the failure of this process. If we're going to launch a revamp in the future we need to do so with the full support of the mapmaker. Giving marvaddin "the right to veto anything on the artistic side" was a mistake, as was allowing a process to proceed in which one individual had the power to veto anything and everything. This process never had marvaddin's support, only a reticent nod of approval.

As a member of the Foundry community I've said on many occasions that we mapmakers are a pretty ego-centric lot. You see it in the way that we deal with foundry newbs, and here we're seeing it in the way that we deal with each other. Marvaddin has legitimate concern about the presentation of his country, and Rj has a legitimate argument for why his way looks better. Somewhere in between there lies an answer that will make this revamp a reality.

The direction that this project has taken leaves a bad taste in my mouth... kinda tastes like Caipirinha. And that ain't good.

You're right veto was too much power for an unreasonable mapmaker ego, even stamp licker do not have such direct power.
Maybe you can give the original mapmaker the right to call for a poll about, let's say maximum 10 issues of is choice.

oaktown wrote:It would seem that this revamp project, which began over two months ago with so much promise, has died a tragic and untimely death. My thoughts...

As somebody who spent many hours making my own revamp entry - twice - I am personally saddened by what seems to be the end of this effort, and I suspect I'm not alone. A lot of folks other than RjBeals have spent a good deal of time on this project, including gimil, the dozen or so folks who made an entry, and the hundreds of CC users who discussed and voted during the competition. We've all been let down.

As a CA, I've learned a lesson from the failure of this process. If we're going to launch a revamp in the future we need to do so with the full support of the mapmaker. Giving marvaddin "the right to veto anything on the artistic side" was a mistake, as was allowing a process to proceed in which one individual had the power to veto anything and everything. This process never had marvaddin's support, only a reticent nod of approval.

As a member of the Foundry community I've said on many occasions that we mapmakers are a pretty ego-centric lot. You see it in the way that we deal with foundry newbs, and here we're seeing it in the way that we deal with each other. Marvaddin has legitimate concern about the presentation of his country, and Rj has a legitimate argument for why his way looks better. Somewhere in between there lies an answer that will make this revamp a reality.

The direction that this project has taken leaves a bad taste in my mouth... kinda tastes like Caipirinha. And that ain't good.

it is a tragedy if this work does not see the light of day.

For RJ to made to dance through hoops; to compromise himself and his vision to the point of breaking, is indeed a lesson which must be heeded.

I suspect beyond the point Jim...

C.

Give Rj some time, I'm hoping he'll come round.