natty dread wrote:There's simply no reason to keep the current bridges
Yes there is, I like them.
Moderator: Cartographers
natty dread wrote:There's simply no reason to keep the current bridges
natty dread wrote:That's not how this works and you know it.
Sheesh, you're supposed to be a foundry assistant, shouldn't you be setting a better example? You don't just brush away valid criticism by saying "nuh-uh, I like it like this". If some new guy comes to the drafting room with an image drawn with ms-paint, and refuses to learn how to do proper graphics because "he likes it" what are you going to say? "Don't do what I do, do what I say"?
natty dread wrote:Yep. As soon as I get around to it...
hatchman wrote:Pretty nice update, but what's with the mountains and glaciers? Those parts look bush league. Like blobs of poop someone said.
natty dread wrote:I think they're fine. But you're entitled to your opinion of course.
koontz1973 wrote:No. I would try to guide him in the right direction.
koontz1973 wrote:The bridges in your opinion look like poo, but what you want is not right in my opinion
koontz1973 wrote:so until you come up with something more constructive and fitting to the map, these will stay
koontz1973 wrote:You should know that, just by saying you do not like something, automatically forces me to change it, this is not how the foundry works. It works by a gathering of opinions,
koontz1973 wrote:Now, if I go post in any of your map threads and say this does not look right and you can do better, would you go and do better
koontz1973 wrote:Past experience with you leads me to say that you would do bugger all and even if more than one person suggests the same thing, you will still do nothing about it.
natty dread wrote:koontz1973 wrote:No. I would try to guide him in the right direction.
That's what I'm doing here. I'm guiding you into changing an element of your map that looks like crap. Literally.
koontz1973 wrote:natty dread wrote:koontz1973 wrote:No. I would try to guide him in the right direction.
That's what I'm doing here. I'm guiding you into changing an element of your map that looks like crap. Literally.
No your not, you are trying to force a change that is not warranted. You are fighting like you always do when someone says no to you. That is all.
koontz1973 wrote: So to have a bridge that is as detailed as you want is not going to fit the map.
koontz1973 wrote:the bridges you pointed me to for some reason where on a map that is based around concrete.
koontz1973 wrote:The single brush stoke as you call it would seem to fit the painted feel to the map.
koontz1973 wrote: But it is not a brush stroke as you can it< it is a wood texture
koontz1973 wrote: So a wood effect fits Jakarta, the stroke effect as you call it, fits the painting. enough of a reason for you.
koontz1973 wrote:but this one has to be chalked up to two very stubborn people who both think they are right. I only want to get the best map out to the people to play. But I do not see his solution as being better than mine.
koontz1973 wrote:Thanks, completely redrew the map.
isaiah40 wrote:This looks much better! The only thing I would suggest right now is to subdue the background a tad bit to bring more contrast between the map and the background.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users