Conquer Club

The Neon Peon wrote:

oaktown wrote:

MrBenn wrote:Final Forge I say!

If we don't see the jury in the next day or two I'll PM them... looks to me like we're still waiting on all three thumbs.

This map is done. Why do we need to bring in a jury for a map that has had no changes even suggested for a while now? (excluding the small stuff you would normally see in the final forge)

Because if we have a jury system it should be applied to all or nothing. You can't pick and choose which maps to give democracy to, thats just not democratic

gimil wrote:

The Neon Peon wrote:

oaktown wrote:

MrBenn wrote:Final Forge I say!

If we don't see the jury in the next day or two I'll PM them... looks to me like we're still waiting on all three thumbs.

This map is done. Why do we need to bring in a jury for a map that has had no changes even suggested for a while now? (excluding the small stuff you would normally see in the final forge)

Because if we have a jury system it should be applied to all or nothing. You can't pick and choose which maps to give democracy to, thats just not democratic

Optimus Prime will smash democracy!!!

This might be the wrong place to say this, but hasn't democracy been proven to be a bad system and the republics like the one where we have delegated leaders (cartographers) make decisions are more efficient and prevent people who have less clue about what they are talking about from making decisions?

The Neon Peon wrote:This might be the wrong place to say this, but hasn't democracy been proven to be a bad system and the republics like the one where we have delegated leaders (cartographers) make decisions are more efficient and prevent people who have less clue about what they are talking about from making decisions?

Sometimes those cartos are so blind by everything they have done that they miss or ignore (sometimes not purposely) little things that could get better.

For instance on this map:

-The shadows under the bridges needing to move up
-The lake not looking correct
-The 888 issue in the smaller territories

I did not do these things on purpose or try to get away with not doing work. I missed them. The jury was sent out to REALLY look over the map and find anything they felt was wrong.
There were other things but they were more of an opinion and not issues of consistency with the map (the lake being the best example)

I like the jury. It forces the carto to listen and make changes. For if the jury says no, the map don't go.
And as long as those requests are reasonable demands and valid as well, the maps will be that much better.

AndyDufresne(judge) wrote:Has the jury reached a verdict?

Map Foundry Jury delegates wrote:We have your honor.

AndyDufresne(judge) wrote:On the charge BETTER MAP MAKING IN THE 1st DEGREE how do you find the cartographer?

Map Foundry Jury delegates wrote:Guilty you honor. Guilty all the way to Final Forge.

oaktown wrote:

MrBenn wrote:Final Forge I say!

If we don't see the jury in the next day or two I'll PM them... looks to me like we're still waiting on all three thumbs.

time to pm, all we need is caeser

LED ZEPPELINER wrote:

oaktown wrote:

MrBenn wrote:Final Forge I say!

If we don't see the jury in the next day or two I'll PM them... looks to me like we're still waiting on all three thumbs.

time to pm, all we need is caeser

sent.

As for the jury, well, I also like the idea, but I have some changes in mind.

Hi guys.

Sorry for keeping you waiting but I was conquering Gaul and those barbarians were a bit too smelly for my civilised tastes.

As I said before the map looks fine but the small version is too small. It strains my eyes. I always play the small versions of the maps on my monitor and I would like to see this one enlarged a bit (perhaps 20-25%) if possible.

That's my only issue with the map, but it is an important one as personally I feel it would limit my enjoyment of the map.

I really don't see why it is a big deal. RJ set out to make a map that did not use every pixel and he did a great job. I see no reason why this is a problem. There are many more maps that are much harder to read on their small and they are bigger.

If you don't like the small map, play on the large map.

Here are some other small small maps. And I have never, myself, heard anyone complain.

Agreed.


--Andy

WidowMakers wrote:I really don't see why it is a big deal. RJ set out to make a map that did not use every pixel and he did a great job. I see no reason why this is a problem. There are many more maps that are much harder to read on their small and they are bigger.

If you don't like the small map, play on the large map.

Sorry but I do not agree with your reasoning. If there was a problem with the visuals of older maps it does not mean that this has to be replicated in this one right?

The problem is not about using every pixel. Just look at the images you posted. Classic Art or Mongol Empire for example while not being much larger than your small version (but they are larger which makes a difference) use simpler graphics which make reading the map easier as they are clearer and cleaner. You will notice this even more once you add army numbers.

What is the problem with increasing the size of the map? It's not a big deal so why are you so reluctant to do this change? I always use the small size for every map and that works fine. Should I have to switch to and fro setting whenever I play this map?

I don't see the point of asking people to come over here and comment when their views are not considered.

Ruben Cassar wrote:Sorry but I do not agree with your reasoning. If there was a problem with the visuals of older maps it does not mean that this has to be replicated in this one right?
The problem is not about using every pixel. Just look at the images you posted. Classic Art or Mongol Empire for example while not being much larger than your small version (but they are larger which makes a difference) use simpler graphics which make reading the map easier as they are clearer and cleaner. You will notice this even more once you add army numbers.

I really don't see what you mean here Ruben. The new Midgard map is easily the easiest to read for me. It is the one with the least amount of contrast ans the colors are much easier on the eyes. The font is much easier to read than most of the other maps her as well. Ans the "88" are not hard to read. I already posted them and the foundry made suggestions on moving them to make sure they are readable.

Ruben Cassar wrote:What is the problem with increasing the size of the map? It's not a big deal so why are you so reluctant to do this change? I always use the small size for every map and that works fine. Should I have to switch to and fro setting whenever I play this map?

Here is the problem. You are the only one that really seems to want an increase in size. And the big deal is that I will need to redraw EVERY pixel of this map. The borders, the mountains, the textures, the dragons, the bridges, the lakes, everything. If I don't it will get fuzzy and blurry. I don't see the reason to redraw and entire map (that is seen to be fine by almost everyone) for one person who wants it bigger.
I could make the small map larger and keep the large where it is but then they will be too close and then that might not be acceptable from a foundry map process.
Right now the
large is 700 x 400
small is 560 x 320
so to keep with the map making rules, the large map must be 9% greater than the small map (but should try to be at leat 33%)
Right now the large is 25% larger
If i increase the small size to 630 x 360 the large is then 11% bigger than the small and the small is bigger itself with the need to redo the large map.

Ruben Cassar wrote:I don't see the point of asking people to come over here and comment when their views are not considered.

Please don't feel that I am ignoring yor views. There is a big difference between not considering and not implementing. I have heard your request, I have given examples of why it is not needed (compared to other maps and looking at Midgard itself) and I feel that the maps stands well.

There have been other suggestions to change other things during the jury session. I have not implemented them all because all fo them do not make the map better. All options are weighed against the benefits and then the ones that really need to be done are. I updated the bridges, the lake by topaz was completely redone, some of the names were adjusted and the 88 were adjusted as well.

Okay if you say it's that much hassle to make the smaller version a bit larger then fine. I was not aware that the graphics would become so blurred with this process. I already told you I like the map and have no complaints apart from the dimensions. I am not the kind of person who likes to stall a map from getting quenched, on the contrary I am one who likes to see maps quenched as soon as possible when they are as good as this one.

When I said it's difficult to read I meant it's because it's a bit more cluttered than the other maps you posted, which to be fair most of them were that little bit larger to make a difference. I would have preferred if the smaller map was a bit larger as it would have made my playing experience on it better, but maybe that's just me...a personal opinion against the majority. And after all who am I to budge in towards the end of the development of this map and start imposing.

So along the aforementioned principles of democracy by all means go ahead with my blessing and support.

Ruben Cassar wrote:Okay if you say it's that much hassle to make the smaller version a bit larger then fine. I was not aware that the graphics would become so blurred with this process. I already told you I like the map and have no complaints apart from the dimensions. I am not the kind of person who likes to stall a map from getting quenched, on the contrary I am one who likes to see maps quenched as soon as possible when they are as good as this one.

When I said it's difficult to read I meant it's because it's a bit more cluttered than the other maps you posted, which to be fair most of them were that little bit larger to make a difference. I would have preferred if the smaller map was a bit larger as it would have made my playing experience on it better, but maybe that's just me...a personal opinion against the majority. And after all who am I to budge in towards the end of the development of this map and start imposing.

So along the aforementioned principles of democracy by all means go ahead with my blessing and support.

I guess I misunderstood what you said. I thought you wanted the larger version larger. I can always make the smaller bigger but then there is the issue of it being to close to the same size as the large. I did say in my post that I could make the smaller map bigger.

Here is a chart that shows the possible sizes that are in between what we have now and what is allowed (large must be at least 9% bigger than small)


I say 595 x 340 is a good compromise between the possible sizes for small.
Does that make you happy then Ruben? If so then I will update the Small and redo the XML

I really don't want to redo the small map. I think it is good as is. What does everyoen else think? DO we need a poll?

WM

I honestly don't mind, but hey, if whatever you say. FF this baby.

.44

WidowMakers wrote:I guess I misunderstood what you said. I thought you wanted the larger version larger. I can always make the smaller bigger but then there is the issue of it being to close to the same size as the large. I did say in my post that I could make the smaller map bigger.

Here is a chart that shows the possible sizes that are in between what we have now and what is allowed (large must be at least 9% bigger than small)


I say 595 x 340 is a good compromise between the possible sizes for small.
Does that make you happy then Ruben? If so then I will update the Small and redo the XML

I really don't want to redo the small map. I think it is good as is. What does everyoen else think? DO we need a poll?

WM

Hehe. No I was always speaking about the small version.

I like the idea of the 595 x 340 compromise. Of course if it's only me I don't want to give you a hassle but I think it would be better if the small version was a bit bigger for visual clarity. As I told you I always play using the small setting and the small version of the map seems a bit crammed as it is.

I think it looks fine the way you've got it right now. Ruben is the only one so far who has raised this issue.

RjBeals wrote:I think it looks fine the way you've got it right now. Ruben is the only one so far who has raised this issue.

Hey RJ. Haven't heard from you in a while. What's up?

I know that I'm the only one who has commented about this issue so far but to be honest not many people are commenting on this map anyway, and in my defence I think I am the guy who has played most games on CC who's been commenting, and I always use the small setting.

I don't want to be difficult. I think it's a great map and I'd hate not being able to fully enjoy it because of such a small issue. That's all from my end I guess.

I like the smaller ones because of the stupid CM issue where it drops down to the bottom. That's overcome by small small maps, which are great.

But not my decision, although I'm with RJ.

.44

I don't have an issue with this because I always use the large, but if I was someone who had small as default, I would probably not be happy with the size of the small.

If there isn't too much work in increasing the size of the small image, I would support a slight increase. If it means redrawing borders etc, then I would leave the small image alone.

The large one is perfect

MrBenn wrote:If there isn't too much work in increasing the size of the small image, I would support a slight increase. If it means redrawing borders etc, then I would leave the small image alone.

The large one is perfect

Agreed, the small is a bit too small imo, a slight increase would be fine, i think. However, if it's too much of a hassle; its ok this way, as its not unreadable, just a bit harder to see

I use exclusively small maps and don't see a need for it to be increased in size. I can read everything just fine.

I also only use small maps. my opinion is that the small should be a bit bigger. While I can read it perfectly, I would simply like it to be bigger... but like others have said, if it's a huge hassle for you, then I can live with the slight inconvenience on the other end.
I just can't wait to play on it!

rustlemania wrote:I just can't wait to play on it!

I agree with rustle...maybe I could actually bring myself to play midgard more often b/c I won't touch centerscape

UPDATES:
Resized the small to 595 x 340

XML V6
http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/6/15/ ... rd_v06.xml
LARGE Version 12

SMALL Version 7

XML TEST
Large

Small


WM