Antarctica v9 [I, Gp, Gr]

[TaCktiX]

My thoughts right now:

- Saying that the mainland can be attacked by fleets and not vice versa is visually represented as one-way attacks, something plenty of people are familiar with. You can keep it due to wanting to fill space, but it can be dropped if something else needs to be clarified.
- I miss the continent names! Any chance of adding them back, maybe on the minimap (less likely) or the map itself (more likely)?
- I don't like the triangles pointing into the South Pole. At cursory glance, people will miss the one-wayness (I did the first few times I looked at this map). Putting proper arrows into the Pole from surrounding territories would be better in my opinion.
- The Antarctic extremities are still rather pixellated. I would suggest a Sharpen Edges or something similar to give them a little more clarity and less blur.

[e_i_pi]

My thoughts right now:

- Saying that the mainland can be attacked by fleets and not vice versa is visually represented as one-way attacks, something plenty of people are familiar with. You can keep it due to wanting to fill space, but it can be dropped if something else needs to be clarified.
- I miss the continent names! Any chance of adding them back, maybe on the minimap (less likely) or the map itself (more likely)?
- I don't like the triangles pointing into the South Pole. At cursory glance, people will miss the one-wayness (I did the first few times I looked at this map). Putting proper arrows into the Pole from surrounding territories would be better in my opinion.
- The Antarctic extremities are still rather pixellated. I would suggest a Sharpen Edges or something similar to give them a little more clarity and less blur.

1) That text is just in there as a space-filler, as you suspected Tack. It'll go if other information is needed
2) I miss them too, they'll go back in, I'm stuck as to where at the moment
3) I don't like them either, and it will be changed
4) I'm having trouble with the pixellation. I tried a Gaussian Blur to 0.4 pixels on each layer, but that doesn't seem to be doing it. Gaussian Blur at 1.5 pixels is miles too much. I think it has to do with the inner glows, not so much the blurring. This will also see attention.

Also, every other suggestion since v6.0 update is being taken on board. A complete list of suggestions to be done can be found on the first post.

Thank you everyone for the feedback, it helps a lot

[Natewolfman]

its about time someone got around to make an antarctica map! looks great so far, keep it up, ill be looking out in FF for this one

[reggie_mac]

I think it has to do with the inner glows, not so much the blurring. This will also see attention.

I had some issues with my borders/etc and blurring out while using inner glow, i changed to a gradient stroke and it seems to tidy it up nicely, maybe that would help.

[e_i_pi]

I think it has to do with the inner glows, not so much the blurring. This will also see attention.

I had some issues with my borders/etc and blurring out while using inner glow, i changed to a gradient stroke and it seems to tidy it up nicely, maybe that would help.

Dude, I never even thought of doing that, I'm gonna try it as soon as I get home

[oaktown]

Welcome to the Main, e_i_pi. Now the real work begins!

This is my first close look at the map, so forgive me if I'm repeating something... though it looks like most of the recent discussion has been around visual issues, which I'll leave to the experts. Visually I like the overall look, though I'm no fan of the space background.

For starters, I like the idea of allowing each player equal access to the mainland and giving each the same shot at reaching the pole. However, when determining starts and territory lay-out, I wouldn't make pole access the main criteria. I personally wouldn't want to go after the pole early on - odds are that once I got there I wouldn't have enough armies to do any real harm anyway. And once you get armies in there you can't fortify them out (one-way attacks means one-way forts) so those armies are lost to the -1 bleed. I'd rather go after a quick bonus, and the easiest bonus is the +3... advantage USA?

Hmm, about that: your first post says that "All continents are contested by at least two fleets" but it looks as if that +3 region can only be hit by the USA (unless I'm seeing wrong - I do have some trouble with the colors used). And only one other fleet is can attack a bordering territory (NZL). You may want to consider lessening the advantage that I believe this gives to the USA player.

I'd say it kinda sucks to be the Australian player, as both starts are in huge regions. Ditto France. Moving France's attack route from Mertz to Ninnis, or re-drawing Mertz to connect with Oates, would give France access to the +3 region, and allow another player to challenge the USA for that little region. It might also open up a lot of territory for the Australian player to go after - why would either of his neighbors want to start in a big expanse of nothingness?

That blank space next to Pine Is. is part of Thwaite? That could use some clarification. And some of the mountains may require some clarification as well - for instance the glow around "Stancomb" gives the suggestion that the mountain opens up there.

Alright, carry on. This will be a nice addition to the CC collection.

[e_i_pi]

Welcome to the Main, e_i_pi. Now the real work begins!

This is my first close look at the map, so forgive me if I'm repeating something... though it looks like most of the recent discussion has been around visual issues, which I'll leave to the experts. Visually I like the overall look, though I'm no fan of the space background.

For starters, I like the idea of allowing each player equal access to the mainland and giving each the same shot at reaching the pole. However, when determining starts and territory lay-out, I wouldn't make pole access the main criteria. I personally wouldn't want to go after the pole early on - odds are that once I got there I wouldn't have enough armies to do any real harm anyway. And once you get armies in there you can't fortify them out (one-way attacks means one-way forts) so those armies are lost to the -1 bleed. I'd rather go after a quick bonus, and the easiest bonus is the +3... advantage USA?

Hmm, about that: your first post says that "All continents are contested by at least two fleets" but it looks as if that +3 region can only be hit by the USA (unless I'm seeing wrong - I do have some trouble with the colors used). And only one other fleet is can attack a bordering territory (NZL). You may want to consider lessening the advantage that I believe this gives to the USA player.

I think originally I had each comtinent contested by two players each, but I shuffled the attack routes around, and this hasn't been reflected on the first post.

I'd say making Ninnis and Mertz part of Victoria Land (the pink one) would solve the adv USA problem, and also re-balance the continent bonuses a little.

I'd say it kinda sucks to be the Australian player, as both starts are in huge regions. Ditto France. Moving France's attack route from Mertz to Ninnis, or re-drawing Mertz to connect with Oates, would give France access to the +3 region, and allow another player to challenge the USA for that little region. It might also open up a lot of territory for the Australian player to go after - why would either of his neighbors want to start in a big expanse of nothingness?

Kind of answered by the change above, but I'll go on.

I have tried to create choke points on the players that start in outlying regions of the map, and defence points on the players starting in largely uncontested territory. You'll notice that USA, Russia, NZ, Argentina, and Great Britain must all go through a 2 territory choke point in the purple continent to reach the pole (and the other players). Similarly, Great Britain, Norway, and Argentina have to squeeze through a tight area near Fimbul.

Australia and France, though, have a bit more room to breathe, and can "close off" areas they wish to claim. Australia can quickly move to Agrus/Lambert and Totten, and France can quickly move to Totten and Ninnis. Norway has a slightly similar position, but must move through territory before it can close off borders, mollifying that "claim" advantage a little. Also, France and Australia still duke it out for the consolidated border province, but also have room to expand within their own borders, a luxury not afforded to the other starting positions.

I think the switch of Mertz and Ninnis to the pink continent instead or orange will address the problem reasonably well though, as it increases the difficulty of capturing pink continent, and decreases difficulty of capturing orange.

That blank space next to Pine Is. is part of Thwaite? That could use some clarification. And some of the mountains may require some clarification as well - for instance the glow around "Stancomb" gives the suggestion that the mountain opens up there.

I'll extend the Stancomb mountains into the sea, curling around the bottom of Norvegia. Filcher mountains will also curl round the bottom of Coats I'd say. I may also put a knobbly bit on the Getz-Roosevelt end of those mountains.

Re: Thwaite, I'll join it up. I've been avoiding doing it, because I'd hoped that the circles and territory names could be shuffled around to allow the circle to join the breach, but it doesn't look like this is going to happen easily. Oh well, Icestream will now be an ice pond

Alright, carry on. This will be a nice addition to the CC collection.

Thanks for dropping by, much appreciated

[e_i_pi]

ANTARCTIC COLONIES v7.0
List of changes:

• Fixed up mountains to remove ambiguity
• Improved atmospheric glow around earth, and removed stars
• Increased pointsize of ticker font, and changed the text content
• Included continent names on main map
• Joined up Thwaite so that it is one land mass
• Changed arrows leading to South Pole, mmm much nicer
• Made Ninnis and Mertz part of Victoria Land
• Upped Victoria Land to 4 bonus
• Downed Wilkes Land to 5 bonus
• Reworked land edges to further decrease pixellation, should be fine now
• Made many small changes to outlying pixels on layers that add only effects, reducing the overall graininess of the image

[bigimg]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll71/e_i_pi/Antarcticav70.jpg[/bigimg]

[e_i_pi]

To do list is barren apart from XML and Stamps, more feedback is welcomed!

[yeti_c]

The borders between aren't too easy to see

Cape Adare <-> McMurdo
Prince Harald <-> Fimbul
Coats <-> Stancomb
Filcher <-> Recovery (This one from the naming)

C.

[e_i_pi]

The borders between aren't too easy to see

Cape Adare <-> McMurdo
Prince Harald <-> Fimbul
Coats <-> Stancomb
Filcher <-> Recovery (This one from the naming)

C.

Noted. Next update will have these clearer

[InkL0sed]

I think you should merge Lambert and Argus, and move Norway's one-way to Enderby, that way there's only one territory between the Norway's one-way and Aussie's one-way, like everywhere else.

[e_i_pi]

I think you should merge Lambert and Argus, and move Norway's one-way to Enderby, that way there's only one territory between the Norway's one-way and Aussie's one-way, like everywhere else.

Would give both Norway and Australia an unfair advantage by being 4 steps from the pole. No can do

[MrBenn]

Wow... have only looked at this briefly since you've been in the main foundry, but I love the planet look... The whold thing looks crisper and cleaner and just 'zings'...

The mini-map doesn't look quite as polished... you could use a simplified version - possibly redrawing your borders to look smoother and more digital (think Arms Race, but grey not green)...

[InkL0sed]

I think you should merge Lambert and Argus, and move Norway's one-way to Enderby, that way there's only one territory between the Norway's one-way and Aussie's one-way, like everywhere else.

Good point. I still don't like that irregularity though. Maybe it isn't such a big deal in the end.

[e_i_pi]

I think you should merge Lambert and Argus, and move Norway's one-way to Enderby, that way there's only one territory between the Norway's one-way and Aussie's one-way, like everywhere else.

Good point. I still don't like that irregularity though. Maybe it isn't such a big deal in the end.

Keep in mind both Norway and Aussie are contesting the biggest continents, and therefore hardest to hold. Also the irregularioty you are talking about also exists between France-USA, and GreatBritain-Argentina (in Queen Maud Land, not Peninsula)

[oaktown]

The borders between aren't too easy to see

Cape Adare <-> McMurdo
Prince Harald <-> Fimbul
Coats <-> Stancomb
Filcher <-> Recovery (This one from the naming)

Agreed, especially the Cape Adare - McMurdo border... it's hard to tell where the American boat lands. For that matter there are a few points where it wouldn't hurt to make it dreadfully obvious to which territories the boats connect, as some of the arrows seem to point to ocean/bays.

Since gimil has been tied up, one visual comment I have is that the map lacks texture... solid black exterior, solid blue water, etc. The mountains represent the only texture on the image, which I think makes them clash with the rest of the map.

And you may think this is too nitpicky, but something about the perspective bothers me. You've shrunk the globe considerably in order to be able to show the outline of the earth as if this is the entire southern hemisphere... this is something I can understand from a graphics standpoint, as it is more interesting than just showing water stretching off the edges of the map. But what bugs me is that the sunlight glowing around the edges of the earth suggests that the sun is directly above the north pole, which of course would be impossible.

[e_i_pi]

The borders between aren't too easy to see

Cape Adare <-> McMurdo
Prince Harald <-> Fimbul
Coats <-> Stancomb
Filcher <-> Recovery (This one from the naming)

Agreed, especially the Cape Adare - McMurdo border... it's hard to tell where the American boat lands. For that matter there are a few points where it wouldn't hurt to make it dreadfully obvious to which territories the boats connect, as some of the arrows seem to point to ocean/bays.

I'll fix all these up in the next update.

Since gimil has been tied up, one visual comment I have is that the map lacks texture... solid black exterior, solid blue water, etc. The mountains represent the only texture on the image, which I think makes them clash with the rest of the map.

There is texture on the ocean, it is very subtle though. I didn't want an offputting texture on the ocean, but I'll up the % on it a bit and see how it goes down with the folks.

And you may think this is too nitpicky, but something about the perspective bothers me. You've shrunk the globe considerably in order to be able to show the outline of the earth as if this is the entire southern hemisphere... this is something I can understand from a graphics standpoint, as it is more interesting than just showing water stretching off the edges of the map.

I was wondering when someone would raise this. Unfortunately, this is the way the earth looks when viewed from close to the South Pole. Think about it - the only way you can see the entire Southern Hemisphere is if you are viewing from an infinite distance away. The image of earth you see will always be circular, but will never be a perfect hemisphere. Here is an image to demonstrate:

But what bugs me is that the sunlight glowing around the edges of the earth suggests that the sun is directly above the north pole, which of course would be impossible.

It's atmospheric glow, which should probably be toned down a bit. You can see on the image above that there is an atmospheric glow, that is actually darker than what I have.

I will work on the space a bit more though, I just cleared it out completely because I didn't like the stars that were in there before.

[oaktown]

I can buy that... as I wrote that last post I was thinking this might be the way the perspective worked, but it's late and I couldn't quite wrap my brain around it.

As for the atmospheric glow, wouldn't it be significantly brighter on the side from which the sun was shining? I guess technically since we see the dark space all around this map shows winter in antarctica, which means we really wouldn't be able to see any of this... but that wouldn't be practical, now would it. Artistic license and all... do what looks best.

[e_i_pi]

I can buy that... as I wrote that last post I was thinking this might be the way the perspective worked, but it's late and I couldn't quite wrap my brain around it.

As for the atmospheric glow, wouldn't it be significantly brighter on the side from which the sun was shining? I guess technically since we see the dark space all around this map shows winter in antarctica, which means we really wouldn't be able to see any of this... but that wouldn't be practical, now would it. Artistic license and all... do what looks best.

Yeah I just don't know what would be aesthetically better. If I have the sun on the right, then the glow would help fill the blank space in the top and bottom right, but may look to bold. Having the sun on the left is a waste though, as you don't see that part of the glow I figure this will be one of those tweak things that will just never be right

[reggie_mac]

If it was mid summer there would be no difference of the glow anyway, as in mid summer its in full sun anyway.

[e_i_pi]

Version 7.2 is up
[bigimg]http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll71/e_i_pi/Antarcticav72.jpg[/bigimg]

[oaktown]

How cool would it be if the ticker across the bottom actually ran across the screen? Animated GIF?

I'm not seeing any major problems with the layout, and that kinda frightens me. I keep thinking I'm missing something major, but maybe I'm not and it's just a well designed map.

The biggest thing I'd suggest at this point is going over the entire thing and looking for possible points of confusion. For instance, some of the borders still need to be made a bit more clear; the Reedy-Transantarctic border could be missed, especially in the future small map. The Thwaite title seems to cut that territory in half, suggesting that perhaps that top part isn't a part of Thwaite. Whether or not Cape Adare and Oates share a border is a bit unclear as well - at first I thought Cape Adare was just the strip of land to the left of the mountains, now I think it extends down and around the mountains.

In looking for areas that aren't clear, first scale the map down to the small size (max 630 wide, 600 high). Anything that looks muddy there should be cleaned up on the large size as well.

[e_i_pi]

How cool would it be if the ticker across the bottom actually ran across the screen? Animated GIF?

Definitely doable, but image size is a concern. I'll look into it

I'm not seeing any major problems with the layout, and that kinda frightens me. I keep thinking I'm missing something major, but maybe I'm not and it's just a well designed map.

The biggest thing I'd suggest at this point is going over the entire thing and looking for possible points of confusion. For instance, some of the borders still need to be made a bit more clear; the Reedy-Transantarctic border could be missed, especially in the future small map. The Thwaite title seems to cut that territory in half, suggesting that perhaps that top part isn't a part of Thwaite. Whether or not Cape Adare and Oates share a border is a bit unclear as well - at first I thought Cape Adare was just the strip of land to the left of the mountains, now I think it extends down and around the mountains.

In looking for areas that aren't clear, first scale the map down to the small size (max 630 wide, 600 high). Anything that looks muddy there should be cleaned up on the large size as well.

Will do

[MrBenn]

How are the colours for people? I think the pink of Victoria Land is very close to the purple of West Ant. The border between Transantartic and McMurdo is still difficult to make out.

I know that gimil will want to have a look at the small map before giving any stamps out... Now is probably the time to work on it, as I expect there are going to be a couple of visibility issues.