Conquer Club

DiM wrote:

Gold Knight wrote:I agree with DiM, it was my fault for not going in here during in its production and giving my thoughts, which is why i realize not a whole lot can be done. But what about the people that come here to play and dont come on the forums? Not saying that its their fault for not checking the forums on occaision, but some come just to play, not to chat.

well for those people i suggest making both the revamp and the original available.

completely agree, but its enough trouble for Lack to run this site, without having multiples of each map available. I just think there should be a testing time for each map. If it receives mainly bad reviews, it can be scraped or improved upon. Im not saying the the majority dislike this map, but so far on the forums there has been a lot of hate on the map.

Gold Knight wrote:

DiM wrote:

Gold Knight wrote:I agree with DiM, it was my fault for not going in here during in its production and giving my thoughts, which is why i realize not a whole lot can be done. But what about the people that come here to play and dont come on the forums? Not saying that its their fault for not checking the forums on occaision, but some come just to play, not to chat.

well for those people i suggest making both the revamp and the original available.

completely agree, but its enough trouble for Lack to run this site, without having multiples of each map available. I just think there should be a testing time for each map. If it receives mainly bad reviews, it can be scraped or improved upon. Im not saying the the majority dislike this map, but so far on the forums there has been a lot of hate on the map.

i believe a testing facility for maps in production would be much harder to implement and supervise than allowing a map to have 2 versions

DiM wrote:

Gold Knight wrote:

DiM wrote:

Gold Knight wrote:I agree with DiM, it was my fault for not going in here during in its production and giving my thoughts, which is why i realize not a whole lot can be done. But what about the people that come here to play and dont come on the forums? Not saying that its their fault for not checking the forums on occaision, but some come just to play, not to chat.

well for those people i suggest making both the revamp and the original available.

completely agree, but its enough trouble for Lack to run this site, without having multiples of each map available. I just think there should be a testing time for each map. If it receives mainly bad reviews, it can be scraped or improved upon. Im not saying the the majority dislike this map, but so far on the forums there has been a lot of hate on the map.

i believe a testing facility for maps in production would be much harder to implement and supervise than allowing a map to have 2 versions

I sort of agree, but i think you took my testing example the wrong way. Just leave the map as it is now, then set up a poll somewhere in the foundry whether others enjoy it or dislike it. It really wouldnt be that hard i dont think, and i think it would make for better maps if mapmakers could see it "constructively criticized" in actual gameplay.

DiM wrote:the maps stayed in production for more than a month. the foundry is an open forum free for all to visit. everybody had a chance to say something. if all the people that started complaining now would have voted on the revamp poll perhaps the results would have been different or perhaps not. the point is complaining now is useless. for all those that complain perhaps this should be a lesson, be more aware of what goes on in the foundry and you'll be able to give feedback when it is needed.

i did not comment on this issue previously for one reason I thought this map was part of a competion in here, I never realised this map was going to be quenched to be played like the other maps I simply thought it was part of a design competion between cartographers - I would have raised the issue before it was ever quenched if I realised this was going to be a playable map. This was caused partly by my reading of the first post which only talks about a competition and secondly from my belief that the existing Canada map did not need replacing.

After the red armies issue I offered to look at all maps for such clashes prior to quenching (2 cartographers contacted me about this offer and i looked at their maps) that offer is still valid.

i have tried to give input around here but it is sometimes extremely difficult to do so. That said I will over the next few days go through all the maps in final forge and post my detailed observations so at least I will have raised my concerns prior to quenching.

Night Strike wrote:I found a difference between the XML and map text. "Gaspes" on the right side of the map is listed as "Gaspe" in the XML. (Game 1121217)

It looks like this needs to be bumped up since it's an issue regardless of the colors. (And because I like WM missed it.)

WidowMakers wrote:Can i get an answer as to why no one was complaining about the old map please? The new maps colors are actually lighter then the old one. Why the big deal now?

Just a few facts here:

On the new map, you didn't put any Magenta armies in the North, purple area. You didn't put any Red armies in Ontario (the red area). The Green armies that you put in BC were placed in Victoria which is surrounded by the sea (grey) instead of the land (green) like the rest of BC. No Cyan armies in the Maritimes (light blue/greenish area). And you put two sets of Blue armies in Quebec (the blue area); they are very hard to read.

I don't think this is a fair representation of the trouble-spots.

On the old map, the only numbers that are hard to read are in Quebec (where you filled Blue on Blue).

Maybe the best idea would have been to fix the old Quebec.

rebelman wrote:i have tried to give input around here but it is sometimes extremely difficult to do so. That said I will over the next few days go through all the maps in final forge and post my detailed observations so at least I will have raised my concerns prior to quenching.

I can't see what is so difficult about giving input rebelman. You have no trouble doing it now on this issue

As for visitng the maps in FF, I would suggest you make a point of visiting the foundry also, since a lot of these colour issues need to be ironed out WELL BEFORE the maps gets to FF.

Any if you know of any others who have the same colour issue, their input would be well received also.

I must also ask, there is a facility in the MY SETTINGS menu that turns on a letter placed before the actual army number (a facility for the colour blind)...have u used this yet or do you not see it as being helpful?

PS...i have let WM know of your precise concerns.

cairnswk wrote:I can't see what is so difficult about giving input rebelman. You have no trouble doing it now on this issue

i have outlined this elsewhere (as have others) but instead of draging this thread totally off topic i will pm you what i am refering to.

As for visitng the maps in FF, I would suggest you make a point of visiting the foundry also, since a lot of these colour issues need to be ironed out WELL BEFORE the maps gets to FF.

I intend to but the reason I mentioned final forge is my concern that further maps will be quenched (have been quenched a lot lately) with basic obvious flaws standing out like this one, d day's red numbers etc.

Any if you know of any others who have the same colour issue, their input would be well received also.

will do

I must also ask, there is a facility in the MY SETTINGS menu that turns on a letter placed before the actual army number (a facility for the colour blind)...have u used this yet or do you not see it as being helpful?

yes i have and its not helpful as i know what the colors are i just can't make out the numbers - i have pointed out this shortcoming in this setting elsewhere.

PS...i have let WM know of your precise concerns.

thanks

Night Strike wrote:

Night Strike wrote:I found a difference between the XML and map text. "Gaspes" on the right side of the map is listed as "Gaspe" in the XML. (Game 1121217)

It looks like this needs to be bumped up since it's an issue regardless of the colors. (And because I like WM missed it.)

I got it. It is fixed. Just waiting to iron out all of this color stuff.

Gold Knight wrote: Im not saying the the majority dislike this map, but so far on the forums there has been a lot of hate on the map.

Actually there are lots of people who do like it. I was reading through game logs (before this happened) and very few people said anything negative. Most of the time the minority of people who have an issue are the loudest to speak. Not too many people who like the map are going to come into the forums and start a post.

Oh and here is the new map with colored armies


WM

the complaints against the new map simply baffle me. the old map was gaudy and damn unreadable in parts.

WidowMakers wrote:
Oh and here is the new map with colored armies


WM

looking at the two maps side by side both with numbers surely it is obvious that that the new one is far more difficult to read - in this instance a picture truly tells a 1,000 words

WidowMakers wrote:
The reason i asked is that the colors on the old map are hard, if not harder, to read than the new map. Several people have said this. While I am not saying the numbers are like reading black font on white paper, they are easier to read than the old one. I am not trying to be a pain here but this map went though TONS of criticism and I actually redid the entire thing from scratch after the competition was over. So I am not trying to put our junk and make it harder for people to play.

I guess what I am saying id that if it had been a problem with the old map, people would have complained and then you would have a case. But the did not complain so it is hard for me to understand why it is a problem now.


The main issue I have with this is that the foundry is open and people can voice their opinions and issues. If after a map if quenched and there were no gameplay issues (XML, misspelled names, missing graphics) but people can complain about it and force a fix, then we are all in trouble. A map should not be taken off or required to be drastically changed because a very small percentage of players dislike it. This is a dangerous precedent and I believe should not be allowed.

And again it is not because I don't have time to fix them or don't think I can. It is because the stage is now set for anyone to complain about anything on all of the current maps to potentially make them fix the "problems"

WM

The above quote comes from another thread but as its specific to this map - I am responding here.

i had no difficulty reading the old canada map, the reason for my current difficult is the particular background shade. i'm going to use green as an example - if 2 leafs are different shades of green and both fall on the same lawn, I may be able to distinguish one but not the other. In the old map I can distinguish the numbers from the territories quite easily unfortunately on this new one I'm in trouble and I know by posts i am not alone. This map if it remains unchanged needs a warning attached as was suggested by someone else on another thread. Those of us that are visually impaired in any way should where possible be considered in the map design process eg using the color blind pallet and avoid blending/clashing colors where possible.

Relatively speaking i am new to this site but I am finding my feet all the time. over the last while I have been commenting on maps at the stage where comments should be made (check Gimil's Classic - outside of "joke comments" I have been a regular contributor to that thread over the last while or DiM's AoMight, I commented on cairn's bamboo jack before it reached the foundry and I have posted a few comments in Oaktown's new map, so I am making use of this open policy to comment on maps.

I already said I got a huge shock when this came out to play as I always assumed based on the first post this was a competition thread and this map was never going to be played - I will know better in future (although reading back over the thread from the start to a foundry / site noob like me it really fails to spell it out that this was going to be going into play hence I payed it no attention, other than admiring it from a visual perspective.

I genuinely believe in this instance there is a huge gameplay issue if a selection of players not just me can't make out army numbers that is a fundemental gameplay issue. After the red numbers issue in d day - I appealed to catographers to not clash colors like this and I volunteered to check the maps of anyone that thought they may have a problem and this offer was taken up by some. I already said to cairns I will start in the final forge and work backwards commenting on maps that have obvious clashes this will take some time but it would be great if the cartographers themselves could avoid clashing colors as a rule.

I never said I dislike this map in fact the opposite is true, I really like it that is why it is so frustrating that it is unplayable for me and others like me.

I joined cc at the start of August and this is the second map quenched in that time where a problem like this has arisen - d day first with the red numbers and now this. Actually refering back to gimil's map on an earlier version it looked like he would have a similar problem with numbers but I flagged it on the thread and he changed it when he updated.

Regarding your comments on not setting a precedence, that is your choice but then the site needs to attach a warning to this map that it is not suitable for some with a visual impairment at least then no new member with a problem like mine will play this map and think that all cc's maps are designed in this way.

I have made my comments very clear at this stage on this map and despite what you said above if I encounter problems with quenched maps in the future I will highlight them obviously if I see them prior to quenching i will flag them then and i hope others will continue to do the same.

Looking at the above pictures -> I feel that Blue and Red are harder to read on the old map...

However I notice that Green is harder to read on the new map...

BTW - I've got good eyesight.

Widow -> the colours? Did the original Cartographer ask you to keep them the same?

C.

PS Regardless of this issue however -> the new Canada map is far far far far superior to the previous one.

PPS I've just uploaded a new version of BOB (2.5+) this should help with the sight issues - although I agree it's not a perfect fix... it definitely patches over the cracks...

WM, why don't you go through your map and add army circles. I imagine this has been said quite a bit already though... Just thought I'd restate it to piss you off

With the small territories like North Bay army circles would be difficult without resizing or moving all of the text. This is not something I plan on making WidowMakers do, and I doubt Andy will either.

The map is fine as is. WidowMakers has been more patient with all of you than he really has needed to be and I think you should all be pleased that DiM didn't win the revamp vote, which everyone had access to, where people picked the best one and voted for this one or we would have a different conversation right now.

No offense meant to DiM of course. ... hot head

Coleman wrote:With the small territories like North Bay army circles would be difficult without resizing or moving all of the text. This is not something I plan on making WidowMakers do, and I doubt Andy will either.

The map is fine as is. WidowMakers has been more patient with all of you then he really has needed to be and I think you should all be pleased that DiM didn't win the revamp vote, which everyone had access to, where people picked the best one and voted for this one or we would have a different conversation right now.

No offense meant to DiM of course. ... hot head

Coleman this reminds of your initial reaction to d day and red numbers - there has been a significant negative reaction from players who are having genuine problems but f**k them the map looks great. I genuinely would expect a mod. to see the bigger picture and understand no matter how good a map looks if its not playable that is a huge problem. I hope andy / cairns do not share your appearance first, playability second views if that is the case we need a mod in this forum with their priorities in the right order.

The red numbers had a much larger reaction than this one. And it was a brand new map.

This is a revamp. The numbers, despite what you are telling me, are far more legible on this map than the previous one. I can't be convinced otherwise. Andy outranks me. If he feels otherwise he can force WidowMakers to change it. I'm just saying that I will not, and that in my opinion it is fine as is.

Per Andy's request.
New-New

Old-New

I can't see much difference - what have you changed?

C.

yeti_c wrote:I can't see much difference - what have you changed?

C.

Blue , red, green

I think you may have a winner, WM. Green on Green looks better, Blue on Blue looks better. And the rest looks readable.

What do the rest of you think?


--Andy

Coleman wrote:The red numbers had a much larger reaction than this one. And it was a brand new map.

This is a revamp. The numbers, despite what you are telling me, are far more legible on this map than the previous one. I can't be convinced otherwise. Andy outranks me. If he feels otherwise he can force WidowMakers to change it. I'm just saying that I will not, and that in my opinion it is fine as is.

Coleman i am many things but a lier is not one of them, I could read numbers on the last one, I cant on this one ...........fact

Have you counted the negative comments on all the threads ?

There have been more individuals criticised this than the red numbers as someone involved in both campaigns i am certain of this. But in case you do not believe me i will list them here (these are coming from 5 seperate threads)

critics (excluding me) who have issues over the readability / playability of this new map:

.Kush wrote:just plan ugly and confusing. changed the map in the middle of my game too. i dont like it at all

Dancing Mustard wrote:

.Kush wrote:just plan ugly and confusing

Sounds like a pretty acurate representation to me

Risktaker17 wrote:I like the old one better.

nikola_milicki wrote:I like old one better, maybe there should be a poll to decide

D.IsleRealBrown wrote:This should have been a pole.

And Widowmakers, please GFY FTW.

AndrewB wrote:I dont like it either. It was one of my favorite maps before, now it is too busy with graphics, and I won't play it anymore.

And I did check the thread before it was quenched. But saying "I don't like it" apparently is not good enough, so I didnt bother.

Syzygy wrote:

rebelman wrote:

Syzygy wrote:I prefer the new style. Both maps are easily playable. I really don't see what the hell is the problem here?

see my post above it is extremely difficult to see army numbers for someone like me with not so perfect sight - although i suspect even those with good eyesight will struggle to see green army numbers in B.C.

Ah, alright. That does make perfect sense. Isn't there a colourblind option in Greasemonkey though?

But if the colourblind isn't , I'm sure widowmakers would fix that.

That good point aside, there isn't anything else bad about the map.

amazzony wrote:

The Fuzzy Pengui wrote:

amazzony wrote:And Canada map - it looks great! But I haven't played it so I don't know how playable it is.

The playability is the same as before...there weren't any changes to the playability, except I think there may have been a 4 way border before that has been resolved, but not 100% sure....GREAT JOB WM!

Yeah, I know, I just meant if it's harder to see the troops on some territories (like rebelman mentioned) or if some borders are more... "foggy"/harder to notice. I didn't make myself clear enough

TheProwler wrote:I don't use any plug-ins/add-ins for this site and I hope I never have to.

Can you imagine a new user to the site playing his first few games on the new Canada map? What a bad first impression. Maps like this will cost CC users and money.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to say "And to play this map, use this plug-in with this setting or this other plug-in with this setting." Why not just make the map work well without any plug-in or add-on or whatever??

Aerial Attack wrote:rebelman,

I can "see" where you are coming from. On a map like Canada v2 - the colorblind feature won't actually help you. You'll still get a letter of a color (blended into the background) that you can't differentiate from certain areas of the game map. The map fade feature of AJAX BOB will help somewhat (so long as you don't fade too much - thanks OPie).

The biggest difference is that this is one of the few maps that does NOT use Army Circles. These usually carry either much lighter or much darker shading which gives a contrast to both the army numbers and the map area. I guess not enough people with bad eyesight visit the Foundry.

Adding army circles would definitely improve people's ability to differentiate the number of armies (not just whose armies) are in a specific location. Unfortunately, members of the Foundry [with good eyesight] thought army circles took something away from the stunning visual nature of the map.

Maybe there needs to be wording in "my settings" (near the Colorblind feature) that says "if you are in some way visually impaired, make sure to visit the foundry and comment on maps in production"

NOTE: I can see just fine (for the moment), but I definitely use BOB and the Colorblind/Map Fade features.

lord voldemort wrote:seems fair...though i dnt have any current tournys with canada...

agreeing with my suggestion to exclude this flawed map from tournies unless/until it is fixed

apologies to those I left out above I wanted to shoe coleman just a representative sample so he understood the outcry this has caused

There were several other comments in flame wars about this seriously flawed map but as this is not a flaming thread I will not repost them.











[/b]

ok i have been drinking tonight and i will probably regret this post in the morning but it now looks like the map is moving

rebelman wrote:Coleman i am many things but a lier is not one of them, I could read numbers on the last one, I cant on this one ...........fact

Have you counted the negative comments on all the threads ?

There have been more individuals criticised this than the red numbers as someone involved in both campaigns i am certain of this. But in case you do not believe me i will list them here (these are coming from 5 seperate threads)

The most vocal people are sometimes the ones who like things these least. But that does not make those people the majority. By simple showing 15 names of people who don't like it, you have not shown how a majority don't.

So here you go. The blue color is now all washed out and flat. The red is the same. The green is just covered up with blurry clouds and is now neon.

WM