Knights

by **koontz1973** on Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:23 am

natty_dread wrote:One more thing, the patterns on almost all of the dark or light squares seems to be almost identical. That doesn't look natural. Try finding larger wood patterns, ones you can use for a little variation on the board.

Done.

by **koontz1973** on Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:15 am

Large and small.

show: with 888

show: CB tests

by **thehippo8** on Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:28 am

Hey Koontz, I am impressed at this change! It is impressive to see you scrap the original and make something cohesive and thematic. Brilliant stuff!

by **isaiah40** on Sat Dec 17, 2011 10:53 am

I like it!! IMHO it looks 100x's better!! Great job!! Though you forgot to put what the bonus values are for holding 3 or 4 squares of each color.

by **koontz1973** on Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:10 am

thehippo8 wrote:Hey Koontz, I am impressed at this change! It is impressive to see you scrap the original and make something cohesive and thematic. Brilliant stuff!

isaiah40 wrote:I like it!! IMHO it looks 100x's better!! Great job!! Though you forgot to put what the bonus values are for holding 3 or 4 squares of each color.

Thank you guys. Added the bonus values :oops:

by **isaiah40** on Sat Dec 17, 2011 12:36 pm

Both right corners seem to be separated a tad bit.

by **koontz1973** on Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:31 pm

isaiah40 wrote:Both right corners seem to be separated a tad bit.

Fixed.

by **koontz1973** on Mon Dec 19, 2011 2:21 am

Swapped the large knight so the light is on the left hand side.
Added the shadow to the courtyard from the wall.
Sorted out spacing to the text.
Added a little colour to the large knights feathers so the letter on top shows better.
Added some more small knights to the wall along the bottom.

by **koontz1973** on Wed Dec 21, 2011 1:38 am

Large

Small

Got got the last of the lighting done.

by **koontz1973** on Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:56 am

Large

Small

Cleaned up the small map and made the small bonus lines from scratch.

by **QoH** on Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:58 am

Looks nice!

Is it proper though, that your coat of arms is more fancy than England's?

by **koontz1973** on Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:24 am

QoH wrote:Looks nice!

Is it proper though, that your coat of arms is more fancy than England's?

They are both mine. The one on the left is the family coat so that cannot be changed.

by **koontz1973** on Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:38 am

Large

Small

Last of the clean up done.
Changed the text around the board as font used had different sizes for each letter and number.
And if anyone has not guessed it, I was going for a retro 80's gaming look.

Anything else?

by **natty dread** on Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:19 am

koontz1973 wrote: I was going for a retro 80's gaming look.

80's gaming? You mean like... Atari 2600 games?

Click image to enlarge.

Anyway, your fonts should probably be changed... the text looks really ugly on the small version.

Also there's no punctuation on the text Why is that It makes the text read awkwardly Can you add some punctuation to it

by **koontz1973** on Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:31 am

Slightly later. Maybe a early 90s type game for the PS1 would be more in keeping.

The font needs a change for the small and therefore the large as well.

I purposely did not put any punctuation in as when I did the Rorke's Drift map, I was told to take it out as it looks like stray pixels.

Easy enough to put it in.

by **natty dread** on Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:42 am

koontz1973 wrote:Slightly later. Maybe a early 90s type game for the PS1 would be more in keeping.

The PS1 was introduced in 1994 and it was the first home console to feature textured 3d polygon graphics, even though on a low resolution... I don't think those kind of graphics are what you're going for either.

koontz1973 wrote:I purposely did not put any punctuation in as when I did the Rorke's Drift map, I was told to take it out as it looks like stray pixels.

That's a bit different. Your text on that map only had periods at the end only had short sentences. Here you have a much more descriptive text, I think you can't do with only a few periods here, you might have to whip out some colons and commas as well.

Ps. "The only way to win is to eliminate your opponent(s)" seems more than a little redundant. I'd remove it alltogether. I mean, that's the default assumption, you don't need to mention it explicitly.

by **koontz1973** on Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:31 am

natty_dread wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:Slightly later. Maybe a early 90s type game for the PS1 would be more in keeping.

The PS1 was introduced in 1994 and it was the first home console to feature textured 3d polygon graphics, even though on a low resolution... I don't think those kind of graphics are what you're going for either.

koontz1973 wrote:I purposely did not put any punctuation in as when I did the Rorke's Drift map, I was told to take it out as it looks like stray pixels.

That's a bit different. Your text on that map only had periods at the end only had short sentences. Here you have a much more descriptive text, I think you can't do with only a few periods here, you might have to whip out some colons and commas as well.

Ps. "The only way to win is to eliminate your opponent(s)" seems more than a little redundant. I'd remove it all together. I mean, that's the default assumption, you don't need to mention it explicitly.

Either way, it is old school graphics, what ever the period of time.

Changed the text for both legends. Easy to read now.
Going to keep the sentence in for a couple of reasons. A lot of maps now come with winning/losing conditions now and I can guarantee that someone will ask in beta what is the winning condition. :-s

It also fills out the space that side better. It might be redundant but in it stays (for now).
I have also reduced the size of glow on the text.

by **natty dread** on Mon Dec 26, 2011 4:56 am

koontz1973 wrote:Going to keep the sentence in for a couple of reasons. A lot of maps now come with winning/losing conditions now and I can guarantee that someone will ask in beta what is the winning condition.

Ugh... here we go again, with this pandering to the lowest common denominator thing. :roll:

If you're going to write down not only the features what your map has, but the features your map doesn't have, it's just a huge waste of space, not to mention insulting people's intelligence.

by **koontz1973** on Mon Dec 26, 2011 5:03 am

natty_dread wrote:
koontz1973 wrote:Going to keep the sentence in for a couple of reasons. A lot of maps now come with winning/losing conditions now and I can guarantee that someone will ask in beta what is the winning condition.

Ugh... here we go again, with this pandering to the lowest common denominator thing.

If you're going to write down not only the features what your map has, but the features your map doesn't have, it's just a huge waste of space, not to mention insulting people's intelligence.

I have just had to bold the winning condition in RD because someone failed to read the legend and complained. I agree, that if someone does not read the legend, it is there own fault but to now have this bolded piece of crap on that map pissed me off. Will keep it there for now but it can come of later.

by **natty dread** on Mon Dec 26, 2011 5:11 am

koontz1973 wrote:I have just had to bold the winning condition in RD because someone failed to read the legend and complained.

As a mapmaker, you have to learn that you don't have to listen to every single complaint that comes up. There are some really retarded idiots out there who like to complain about some really stupid bullshit.

If someone fails to read the legend that is their mistake, and the fault is entirely on their side. It's not something you can fix, ever - there will always be idiots who think they can just jump in to any map and play it without reading the instructions.

Every complicated map I've made, I've had 1 or 2 people show up complaining because they did something stupid that could have been avoided if they had just read the legend. I always tell them the same thing: it's already written on the map, it's not my fault if you don't read it.

by **koontz1973** on Mon Dec 26, 2011 5:48 am

That may be so, but when nobodies and enders say it is better to bold it, bold it I do. Best not to piss of the people that let the maps progress. If RD was my one and only map, then I may of fought for it but as these two are going nicely, then why rock the boat.

by **natty dread** on Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:12 am

Well, in any case, it's a different issue. On RD you had to bold a piece of text, but that text was still a relevant piece of the game instructions, ie. it tells you that the map has a victory condition. It tells of properties that the map does have, which is fine, but there's absolutely no reason to mention properties that the map doesn't have.

I mean come on, that's like writing on every territory a text that says "this territory does not give autodeploy".

by **koontz1973** on Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:14 am

natty_dread wrote:Well, in any case, it's a different issue. On RD you had to bold a piece of text, but that text was still a relevant piece of the game instructions, ie. it tells you that the map has a victory condition. It tells of properties that the map does have, which is fine, but there's absolutely no reason to mention properties that the map doesn't have.

I mean come on, that's like writing on every territory a text that says "this territory does not give autodeploy".

Should I put that on this map? What about the bonuses? HELP

by **koontz1973** on Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:00 pm

Large

Small

Changed the background/floor of the image.
Took out the offending text (Only way to win is to eliminate your opponent(s)).

Would be nice to see some official feedback.

by **natty dread** on Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:07 pm

One thing, change "territories" to "regions", since that's what they're called in the game log.

Knights

Re: KNIGHTS [17/12] Page 1 & 12

Re: KNIGHTS [17/12] Page 1 & 12

Re: KNIGHTS [17/12] Page 1 & 12

Re: KNIGHTS [17/12] Page 1 & 12

Re: KNIGHTS [17/12] Page 1 & 12

Re: KNIGHTS [17/12] Page 1 & 12

Re: KNIGHTS [17/12] Page 1 & 12

Re: KNIGHTS [17/12] Page 1 & 12

Re: KNIGHTS [21/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [24/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [24/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [24/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [26/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [26/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [26/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [26/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [26/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [26/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [26/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [26/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [26/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [26/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [26/12] Page 1 & 13

Re: KNIGHTS [07/01] Page 1 & 13 Gimme me some love mods :)

Re: KNIGHTS [07/01] Page 1 & 13 Graphics look over please :)

Who is online