Re: Land and Sea [Beta]
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 11:09 pm
danfrank wrote:IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!
Panama canal
Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=358&t=55709
danfrank wrote:IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!
Danyael wrote:danfrank wrote:IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!
Panama canal
danfrank wrote:With all the petty scrutiny i read everday in the foundry , this map is proof that preferential treatment is given to certain members.
oaktown wrote:I can't help but wince when I consider the real-life ramifications behind some of the land-sea connections. The Arctic's only landfall is in Alaska, while seagoing countries like Scotland don't? Quebec has access to the Atlantic while the Eastern US doesn't? The only Pacific port in North America is in Mexico? The only Pacific port in Asia is up where the ports freeze every winter?
oaktown wrote:The map is solid from a gameplay perspective. The graphics are clean and user friendly. Those CC users who were good enough to visit the thread and participate were comfortable with the connections as is. Those who did not participate in this map's production can now choose to play it or not. But please, before you go accusing folks of something, do your homework.
Danyael wrote:danfrank wrote:IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!
Panama canal
oaktown wrote:No, this is proof that not enough CC users take part in the mapmaking process. This map has been in the works for eight months, yet some critics choose to show up after the map has been quenched and make accusations about how this map received preferential treatment. Give me a break. I was the gameplay stamper on this one, and here is one of my many concerns about this map that received no support (from November 6):
danfrank wrote:But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!
danfrank wrote:But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!
danfrank wrote:With all the petty scrutiny i read everday in the foundry , this map is proof that preferential treatment is given to certain members.. The graphics for starters is not up to par with what is being expected in the foundry.. Is this map drawn to scale? Much of the water territories are huge and therefore they take from areas where the circles dont even fit in the region.Also how were the attack routes figured out.. No part of the US can even attack the water .And the east coast of africa not attacking the water either. Now thats just silly. But the gulf of mexico can attack the pacific ocean I give this a thumbs down .all the way down .. IT MAKES NO SENSE FROM A REALISTIC POINT OF VIEW!!!
Voryn wrote:Possibly fix the borders for ocean parts that touch land territories that they can't attack (example: IN2 and EU7.)
Their touching is unnecessary and confusing. Change the borders a bit, and for certain other instances (AT5/AT7/AF5 border, etc. etc.)
Other than stuff like that, good map. Maybe less confusing territory names than just the "codes," though.
AndyDufresne wrote:Voryn wrote:Possibly fix the borders for ocean parts that touch land territories that they can't attack (example: IN2 and EU7.)
Their touching is unnecessary and confusing. Change the borders a bit, and for certain other instances (AT5/AT7/AF5 border, etc. etc.)
Other than stuff like that, good map. Maybe less confusing territory names than just the "codes," though.
Any thoughts on this comment?
--Andy
AndyDufresne wrote:Voryn wrote:Possibly fix the borders for ocean parts that touch land territories that they can't attack (example: IN2 and EU7.)
Their touching is unnecessary and confusing. Change the borders a bit, and for certain other instances (AT5/AT7/AF5 border, etc. etc.)
Other than stuff like that, good map. Maybe less confusing territory names than just the "codes," though.
Any thoughts on this comment?
--Andy
Bruceswar wrote:I just played this map for the first time. 3 game series on it. I won 2-1 due to dice in a 1 vs 1, but both players made many mistakes thinking that each area touching the water could attack it
edbeard wrote:Bruceswar wrote:I just played this map for the first time. 3 game series on it. I won 2-1 due to dice in a 1 vs 1, but both players made many mistakes thinking that each area touching the water could attack it
to me, that's a not reading the legend issue. we can't do anything about that. I think we've put everything in place for people to understand the map without too much thought. arrow means attack. people know the world and where land is and where water is. oreo.
Gilligan wrote:I haven't been keeping up with the discussion so I apologize if this was already said... Perhaps make them a bit darker and more noticeable?
AndyDufresne wrote:Much debate occurred about the arrows, and I think they are suitably understandable for game play. Other's thoughts?
--Andy
MrBenn wrote:This map has developed nicely, and is very clean and crisp. Getting a map to this stage is no mean feat, so you can be proud of your achievement over the past however-many-months :-p
Anyway, here's my take on the graphics - the intention here is to help you put some thought into making some tweaks to bring the map up to the next level... please take any criticism in the constructive manner in which I mean it
1. Territory Borders
For the most part, the borders are crisp and clear; but in some places there is pixellation/fuzziness (eg. Newton/Cloverdale).
In a couple of spots, the borders don't meet cleanly (eg. Boundary Bay/Burns Bog or Aldergrove/Campbell Valley/Glen Valley).
Where territory names overlap the borders, it might be worth moving some borders to make it more clear where the name blongs (eg you could redraw the bottom of UGC so it isn;t overlapped by the K of Kerrisdale; or in Edmonds, you could move the border to be above the text). There are countless examples of maps where the borders have been slightly distorted to assist legibility, and I think you may have to make some similar geographical sacrifices here
2. Territory Names
As mentioned before, there are a number of places where the text overlaps territory names. You could either resolve this by moving some borders slightly, reducing the font size a little, or possibly even finding a new font altogether?
Some of the text on pale areas of the map (Burnaby) is difficult to read. It might be worth playing around with an outer glow on the text instead of just a drop shadow.
3. Textures
The sea/rivers feels a bit fluffy - have a look at some other maps around (Charleston springs to mind) for some ideas of how to highlight the transition between land and water
In spite of the texture on the land, the map still feels very flat; the texture doesn't feel very 'landy'... it might be worth having a bit of a play around a bit...
4. Train Lines
The purple (pink?) line runs very close to the coast in the yellow area; if you can pull it away from the terrtory edge a little, it will be more obvious that the territry extends beneath it, and that the train line isn't a border. You could possibly add (or increase the distance) of the drop shadow, to make it feel more like the line is above the territory space.
The colouring you've used on Downtown is a little bit confusing, and really doesn;t help visibility of the army number. Consider extending the colour around parts of the circle edge (you could split it almost three ways) - check out the train lines on NYC to see how the double-line-stations are done on there; I'd suggest trying to emulate that style as much as possible as people should be familiar with that concept.
5. Title
A good title should feel like part of the map, and at the moment it feels like it doesn't really belong there and is just filling a convenient space. If you're happy with it, that's fine, but It would be nice to see if there's any way to make it come alive a little bit
6. Legend
The legend is broadly functional, although I'm not sure how easy it is to match up the coloured blobs with the region colours.
The train line symbols aren't clearly differentiated from the other blobs - at first I was looking for another railway line across the Coast Mountains
The order of regions on the legend doesn't seem to correspond with their positions on the map.
The ports symbol doesn;t do a great deal for me, and looks more like a snowflake - this is entirely subjective really I know (think?) you had an attack line over the sea in an earlier version, but it would be nice to see how a narrow dashed/dotted line works now - you could use the current border line colour instead of white?
7. The Small Map
The train lines (at least the stations) will have to be moved a little bit on the small map in order to keep the army numbers centered properly. At some point it would be helpful to see a small version (even if it's just a shrunken large one) to get an idea of any further adjustments that are going to be necessary
All in all, your doing well. Keep up the good work