I really like the perspective, very nice touch. However, I feel that legend perhaps slants away a little too much. Maybe just tone it down a touch.
They are all still vector based. SInce I made them small Photoshop for some reason is messing them up. I guess rotating a small font 2 degrees makes it weird. Once the names settle down I will rasterize the layers and fix the text issue.KEYOGI wrote:I didn't notice this on the previous image, but your territory names are a little wonky... if you get my meaning. Some letters are higer/lower than others next to them.
I like the old legend too but people were saying it was too hard to read. I will make this my next poll question.KEYOGI wrote:I'm not sure I like the new legend. I think the original was fine, it just needed some tweaking. I'm not sold on the colouring and texturing of the lakes either. How they were was ok and I think the texture was less noticeable then.
I can eliminate the rivers and see what people think. My concern is that it opens the map up a lot and makes a lot more borders.KEYOGI wrote:I think the rivers are ok, if a little uneccessary. Maybe try it without them and see how it looks. I'd like to see some different bridges, the one's you have do the job, I just feel you could come up with something better.
WidowMakers wrote:They are all still vector based. SInce I made them small Photoshop for some reason is messing them up. I guess rotating a small font 2 degrees makes it weird. Once the names settle down I will rasterize the layers and fix the text issue.
joystickgenie wrote:WidowMakers wrote:They are all still vector based. SInce I made them small Photoshop for some reason is messing them up. I guess rotating a small font 2 degrees makes it weird. Once the names settle down I will rasterize the layers and fix the text issue.
A bit off topic but how did you get the names to rotate while still being vector based in photoshop? I have always had to rasterise them before rotating/skewing/bending/modifying them. the only think I can change when they are vector baed in the font, pt size, justification and direction(left right, up down) honestly doing anything vector based in photoshop has been a pain for me(I hate that pen tool).
oh but I am using photoshop 7.0. Is that somthing they added in cs?
WidowMakers wrote:I have CS2. I don't kno wif this works in 7. Just make a text layer and Crtl+T. This (for me in CS2) puts the transform box around the text and lets me move it.
mibi wrote:be wary of the foundry's ability to group think
KEYOGI wrote:I didn't notice this on the previous image, but your territory names are a little wonky... if you get my meaning. Some letters are higer/lower than others next to them.
MR. Nate wrote:For the text, you could perhaps have it "standing up" perpendicular to the map itself, to highlight the text without the fading.
Samus wrote:For the ports, I would very much like some sort of graphic that physically connects the lake and the land, like a pier. This will make it much more clear that it is only connecting those two territories.
You need to do something about the border around the lakes to indicate that, aside from the ports, they do not connect with the land territories. Perhaps do some sort of 3D land rise so that the land is above the lakes, and only the piers go down to it. (i.e., sink the lakes slightly)
For the bridges and lake connections, I thought a 3D bridge with a two-way arrow running underneath it would look good and be much more clear.
You need to shrink the mountains between Scranton and Harrisburg to make it more clear those territories connect.
I'm somewhat torn on the rivers. I think from a visual perspective they look great as is, but at the same time they are rather thin and often the divisions take a closer look. I could see a lot of people making the mistake that certain territories connect, like Madison and Minneapolis.
I would change North Bay to no longer be a port. This would both reduce Ontario to 4 borders instead of 5, and give the Great Lakes one territory that isn't a border (Lake Huron). Both regions would then be MUCH more holdable, whereas the way they are now neither is a viable region to go for.
mibi wrote: Before it was a battle of the great lake states! Now its a battle of a bunch of territories who are only unified because a little color coded graphic in the corner says so. I think you have stripped a lot of character out of the map by removing the BETTER of the legends.
DiM wrote:*i actually really like the font. it sort of gives the impression it flows with the relief of the regions
Keyogi wrote:Your territory names are a little wonky
sully800 wrote:As for the ports- your intention is for them to only be able to attack lakes they border correct? So Detroit could only attack Lake Erie (which I guess is why you extended the dark blue above the detroit-windsor bridge). I think a better solution would be to move that bridge so it connects Saginaw and Windsor. That way the bridge crosses exactly at the lake borders as is the case with every other bridge.
keiths31 wrote:The Detroit-Windsor bridge is there, because it is there in real like. Saiginaw and Windsor don't connect, that's why he made it like that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users