

C.
Moderator: Cartographers
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:are you guys crazy? I think te image quality of bad spelers versions is much crisp, cleaner and legiable. Graphically superior.
yeti_c wrote:gimil wrote:are you guys crazy? I think te image quality of bad spelers versions is much crisp, cleaner and legiable. Graphically superior.
Legibility is the only thing that the new version has superior...
Evilotto's is brilliant with a) strategy, b) LnF, c) Namings, d) Images
C.
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
gimil wrote:yeti_c wrote:gimil wrote:are you guys crazy? I think te image quality of bad spelers versions is much crisp, cleaner and legiable. Graphically superior.
Legibility is the only thing that the new version has superior...
Evilotto's is brilliant with a) strategy, b) LnF, c) Namings, d) Images
C.
I mspeaking of graphical competance nothing else
yeti_c wrote:gimil wrote:yeti_c wrote:gimil wrote:are you guys crazy? I think te image quality of bad spelers versions is much crisp, cleaner and legiable. Graphically superior.
Legibility is the only thing that the new version has superior...
Evilotto's is brilliant with a) strategy, b) LnF, c) Namings, d) Images
C.
I mspeaking of graphical competance nothing else
Well I SOOOOOOOOO disagree...
In fact you're the one who's crazy... Otto's is much nicer.
C.
rebelman wrote:yeti_c wrote:gimil wrote:yeti_c wrote:gimil wrote:are you guys crazy? I think te image quality of bad spelers versions is much crisp, cleaner and legiable. Graphically superior.
Legibility is the only thing that the new version has superior...
Evilotto's is brilliant with a) strategy, b) LnF, c) Namings, d) Images
C.
I mspeaking of graphical competance nothing else
Well I SOOOOOOOOO disagree...
In fact you're the one who's crazy... Otto's is much nicer.
C.
Yeti, there is an obvious explanation for gimil's views he and bad speler are clearly multis, (check any of gimil's posts or early map drafts for proof of this)
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Coleman wrote:the new map is the only viable one. However it could borrow somethings people liked about the old one.
What I'd suggest. Take those extra pixels and make it 840 by 800. Don't change the play area size. Make it look like it is on a table. Add some money for ascetics, you don't need to play on them like the old one. Maybe make the goofy blue legend look more like a rule card sitting on the table.
i like what this coleman suggestedColeman wrote:the new map is the only viable one. However it could borrow somethings people liked about the old one.
What I'd suggest. Take those extra pixels and make it 840 by 800. Don't change the play area size. Make it look like it is on a table. Add some money for ascetics, you don't need to play on them like the old one. Maybe make the goofy blue legend look more like a rule card sitting on the table.
Coleman wrote:the new map is the only viable one. However it could borrow somethings people liked about the old one.
What I'd suggest. Take those extra pixels and make it 840 by 800. Don't change the play area size. Make it look like it is on a table. Add some money for ascetics, you don't need to play on them like the old one. Maybe make the goofy blue legend look more like a rule card sitting on the table.
Thanks very much, I wasn't exactly sure if it ended up well.Coleman wrote:That's already leaps and bounds better.
Bad Speler wrote:Took many of the suggestions...havent gotten around to some of them yet. Tried a new wooden background. Having trouble making the legend look like paper, but I'm still working at it.
cena-rules wrote:1) on the ships if there is a blue on ship 1 it will be hard to see etc
2) are you having army circles can you put them on please
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users