Forum

by **lostatlimbo** on Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:45 am

14th Draft update:
Dropped auto deploy idea.
Upped N bonus by 1.
Changed "NW Ind." to "NW Industrial"
I toned down the textured elements of map - parks, bridges, waterways in an effort to minimize the visual clash. I did leave some texture in Forest Park, because I want it to be evident that the entire territory is a park, but I made it look more like a NW territory. I also lowered the bridges to make them look level and not looming over the map.

Does this address most of the graphic concerns at this point?

see below for more recent update

by **iancanton** on Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:54 pm

i think the highlights won't be held that often, since people usually don't like spreading their forces. u could make them more attractive by increasing the highlights bonus to +5 (or give up the attempt and leave it at +4). i'm not sure about the graphics concerns but, now that the bike lane neutrals are down to 2, the gameplay looks good.

ian.

by **lostatlimbo** on Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:05 pm

iancanton wrote:i'm not sure about the graphics concerns but, now that the bike lane neutrals are down to 2, the gameplay looks good.
ian.

Woo-hoo!

by **lostatlimbo** on Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:12 pm

15th Draft update:
Toned down Forest Park texture more and added trees.
Converted parks into park bench icons to better match look of map.
Upped Highlights bonus by 1.

Click image to enlarge.

by **AndyDufresne** on Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:37 pm

I really like what you've done with the Forest---good work. I think it fits that map perfectly now. The picnic icons I'm not terribly fond of...perhaps a simple tree would work as well. But in any case, I would say what you have currently do indeed fit better with the theme of the map you have going, so good work as well.

Now, just to get rid of those bridges...I keed I keed.

Things really look terrific, and the gameplay does't look to shabby either.

--Andy

by **oaktown** on Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:20 pm

What I like: just about everything. This just keeps getting better visually, and you've brought the individual elements together beautifully. It's clean and easy on the eye. The bonuses work (even the flex ones) and the neutral resets on the bike lanes is a nice touch. Nice map lost. =D>

What I don't like: the only thing on this map that I think doesn't work with the overall image would be the rose photo behind the top legend. The color of the roses would be less out of place if it were tied in with something on the map itself, but mostly I don't like that it's a photograph on a map of fun hand made artwork.

Andy make a joke about the bridges so maybe there's a story behind them that I'm unaware of, but they also don't fit in for me - they are too 3-D for a map that is stylistically flat (in a very good way). And it's weird that some have vertical uprights and some not... if you just said on the last page that they're still a work in progress just tell me to shove it and keep on working.

by **iancanton** on Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:04 am

can u adjust the boundaries between alberta arts, alameda, hollywood and irvington so that it's clear as to what borders what? now that the ponds no longer look like oil slicks, i have to agree with oaktown.

oaktown wrote:What I like: just about everything.

ian.

by **Frito Bandito** on Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:20 pm

Where is the Sam Adams pinata? or maybe a blow up doll?

by **lostatlimbo** on Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:04 pm

iancanton wrote:now that the ponds no longer look like oil slicks, i have to agree with oaktown.
oaktown wrote:What I like: just about everything. Nice map lost.

AndyDufresne wrote:Things really look terrific, and the gameplay does't look to shabby either.

Thanks all!

16th Draft update:

Click image to enlarge.

oaktown wrote:What I don't like: the only thing on this map that I think doesn't work with the overall image would be the rose photo behind the top legend.

Agreed. It was meant as a placeholder that I never got around to replacing. I think I like the black with the Made In Oregon sign.

oaktown wrote:Andy make a joke about the bridges so maybe there's a story behind them that I'm unaware of, but they also don't fit in for me - they are too 3-D for a map that is stylistically flat (in a very good way).

I've been resisting on this one, because I quite liked the look of the other bridges and didn't find them all that out of place, but I've finally thrown in the towel on this fight and gone with a basic, flat bridge. The benefit here is that it allowed me to add some land bridges over the MAX line. I noticed certain areas were getting too closed off since you have to go through the MAX only to get between NE and SE or NE and N. The two bridges I added alleviate the MAX bottleneck, but shouldn't affect bonus structure.

iancanton wrote:can u adjust the boundaries between alberta arts, alameda, hollywood and irvington so that it's clear as to what borders what?

Oops! Forgot to change that back after moving the Bike Route.

by **iancanton** on Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:00 pm

lostatlimbo wrote:some land bridges over the MAX line. I noticed certain areas were getting too closed off since you have to go through the MAX only to get between NE and SE or NE and N. The two bridges I added alleviate the MAX bottleneck, but shouldn't affect bonus structure.

i'm not a fan of these. when using the bike lanes to attack a bonus, u're likely to lose 4 troops to the neutrals, plus 2 left behind on the bike lanes, making 6 in total. since this is already such an open map, after u add the extra two bridges, it's hard to see the bike lanes being used at all, other than in escalating games. that said, the gameplay certainly isn't broken.

ian.

by **lostatlimbo** on Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:07 pm

Okay, fair point. Land bridges are gone.

Anything else I need to tweak on here? I guess I keep fiddling with it and adding stuff because it feels like this map is kind of just stuck. Is there anything to be done to move this onward or is it doomed to lack of community interest?

17th Draft update:
Dropped new land bridges.

Click image to enlarge.

by **ghirrindin** on Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:26 pm

Are St. John's and Forest Park connected? If so, perhaps you should place the bridge on top of the impassable rail line to make that less confusing.

by **DJ Teflon** on Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:37 am

I'm glad you got rid of the land bridges - as per ian's point- the Bike Lanes are more likely to be a feature now.

Revisiting the map afresh I think the only uncertainty a player would experience is the bridge border discussed above.

Nice work

by **neanderpaul14** on Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:36 pm

Wow just noticed this map this looks great I really like the bike routes which reset to neutrals after each turn.

However I do miss the old style bridges you had on the first versions I thought those were great looking.