natty dread wrote:I think it's a good start. Don't worry about the XML right now, there's no point in making the XML at this time.
The south-side-up view doesn't quite convince me though. It just seems too gimmicky, novelty for novelty's sake.
natty dread wrote:It was maybe an "arbitrary decision" once. Now, it's a convention. Flipping the map around doesn't bring anything useful to it, it doesn't serve any useful purpose.
It's kind of like a hipster thing, being different for the sake of being different. There's no inherent value in being different, if it doesn't bring anything useful to the table, and in this case it only serves as a distraction - it doesn't fit the theme, it just makes the map look gimmicky.
tkr4lf wrote:I like it. It's interesting.
More than anything, I like the artwork, it has that hand-drawn look to it.
Good luck in making this happen...I'd definitely play it if it does get made.
j21623 wrote:So I've got 3 votes for (plus my own, if that counts) and 1 vote against. How many votes are needed for the Draft Stamp?
natty dread wrote:It doesn't work that way... the foundry is not a democracy.
Basically, you keep working on your map, according to the feedback you receive, and when the CA:s deem your map ready you'll get the draft stamp. To get it you need to show that the concept of your map is viable and has reasonable support, and that you're able to take the graphics up to CC standards.
j21623 wrote:1: What constitutes "reasonable support?"
j21623 wrote:2: What does it mean to take graphics up to "Conquer Club Standards?" I'm working with Gimp, not Photoshop.
j21623 wrote:Also, I kinda wanted to keep the sketchy look if that's ok.
j21623 wrote:Also, how many CA's need to agree? How many are there?
greenoaks wrote:i don't see the point of this map.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests