California [Quenched]

by **Victor Sullivan** on Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:29 pm

Bleh, take 'em out. (Sorry)

Also, I'm noticing LA's zoom-in doesn't quite match in color intensity to the un-zoomed portion. And the dark brown "flare" on the east side of Bay Area on the un-zoomed portion doesn't appear on the zoomed-in portion (and I think some "flare" on LA is missing too).

by **The Bison King** on Fri Mar 25, 2011 5:39 pm

Bleh, take 'em out. (Sorry)

I might, but I'm going to try a few things first to make them look better.

Also, I'm noticing LA's zoom-in doesn't quite match in color intensity to the un-zoomed portion. And the dark brown "flare" on the east side of Bay Area on the un-zoomed portion doesn't appear on the zoomed-in portion (and I think some "flare" on LA is missing too).

I don't know why that happened but I don't mind it. I don't really think the images need to be identical. I kind of like the variation.

by **The Bison King** on Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:52 pm

Ok sorry for the long lull in progress. Here are a couple solutions for making the lakes look better:
V1, a simple saturation of the colors:

Click image to enlarge.

V2, adding in the texture used on the water in the background:

Click image to enlarge.

V3, simply taking them out. I think this is a completely viable option since the lakes are an extraneous decoration and serve no true function:

Click image to enlarge.

Let's hear what you think about this, I'll make a quick fix to whatever the favorite is and hopefully something will happen with this soon!

by **natty dread** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:29 am

I think taking them out is the best option. They don't serve any gameplay purpose, so it's better not to have them.

by **Riskismy** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:10 pm

What? Why take them out now that they're there?

Version 2 is the better by far!

by **natty dread** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:24 pm

They don't really fit the style of the map. All other water areas (namely, the ocean) are represented as "empty space", through which the background shows. So having two lakes that are represented in a different style kinda sticks out, and since they don't have any function...

Either take them out or make them into "holes", to be consistent with the ocean.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:55 pm

natty_dread wrote:I think taking them out is the best option. They don't serve any gameplay purpose, so it's better not to have them.

Seconded.

by **Riskismy** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:56 pm

meh, don't really care. Just seems like a waste of work for no good reason to me.

by **natty dread** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:11 pm

Riskismy wrote:Just seems like a waste of work for no good reason to me.

Surely you can see how that is irrelevant. The amount of work spent on a component of a map has absolutely no bearing on whether said component contributes to the map. If a part of a map looks good, it looks good even if it was done in 5 minutes, and if it looks bad, it looks bad even if it took 2 months to make.

Also there's no such thing as wasted work. Even if something you've made ends up being scrapped, it's not wasted, since you've now explored another possibility and you've learned something from the process - if nothing else, at least that that particular idea does not work for your map, so you can disregard it in later development and focus on other ideas.

For example, on the baseball map, I made something like 3 or 4 different versions of a scoreboard, and in the end, none of them ended up on the map. But it was still good that I made them, because it gave us the knowledge that adding a scoreboard on the map was not a good idea, and even those who initially wanted one on it were satisfied when we had explored the possibility.

Now, back to the topic at hand...

by **lostatlimbo** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:19 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:
natty_dread wrote:I think taking them out is the best option. They don't serve any gameplay purpose, so it's better not to have them.

Seconded.

I completely disagree. At least 1/3 of the map doesn't "serve any gameplay purpose". Why not just make the entire background white? It doesn't serve a gameplay purpose. Nor do the state seal, the state flag or the mapmaker's names.

There are plenty of elements to every map which are either graphical accouterments or elements that give the map historical, geographical, and/or ambient authenticity.

Lake Tahoe & Salton Sea are two such things. Lake Tahoe is a huge tourist & recreational mecca for California.
The Salton Sea (as I have previously posted) has huge historical importance to Los Angeles and SoCal in general.

There is certainly an argument to be made for altering geography to create better gameplay, but the idea that all geographical elements on a map must effect gameplay is backwards, imo.

After all, why not just replace the mountains with a fence or a river? As far as gameplay is concerned, they are interchangeable, but mountains make the map more authentic - as do two of the most prominent, notable lakes in the state.

$.02

by **lostatlimbo** on Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:22 pm

The Bison King wrote:Let's hear what you think about this, I'll make a quick fix to whatever the favorite is and hopefully something will happen with this soon!

I personally like V1 the best (FWIW)

by **natty dread** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:20 am

lostatlimbo wrote:I completely disagree. At least 1/3 of the map doesn't "serve any gameplay purpose". Why not just make the entire background white? It doesn't serve a gameplay purpose. Nor do the state seal, the state flag or the mapmaker's names.

Sigh... I'm so tired of people creating strawman arguments every time they disagree with something...

No one is suggesting that any elements should be removed simply if they do not serve a gameplay purpose. That is not even the issue here.

The issue is that the lakes do not look good on the map, in their current form. They simply clash with the style too much. No other water areas on the map are represented as actual water. You can look at the bay area, then look at the lakes, and wonder why are those two areas of water different. I know, one is saltwater and one is not, but that isn't really relevant from a mapmaking point of view.

That's why I recommend removing the lakes. Another option would be to make them similar to the sea, by cutting them out of the map, but I'm not at all sure if that would look good...

---

On a completely unrelated note... There's something about this map that has been bothering me for a while. I only now realized what it was though.

It's the borders. They don't quite seem to fit the map... in several places they look downright shoddy, if you forgive me for being so direct.

I suggest redoing the territory borders. I know it might seem like a chore at this point, but honestly I think this is one thing that is holding back this map, and redoing them would benefit the map immensely.

I know it's really hard to draw good looking borders freehand on a mouse. So I suggest trying a path tool, that lets you manipulate the paths of the strokes more accurately. Also I suggest stroking them with a slightly unsymmetrical brush, to give them a less generic feel, and add some calligraphic quality to them.

by **InsomniaRed** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:27 am

My personal opinion is that I like version 2. This is really just a personal opinion decision. It looks just fine both ways. I think you should just decide which version YOU like better because they look just fine there, and also the map looks fine without. I wouldn't agree that they look bad, I like them, but in the end they are rather inconsequential so I would just make a personal judgment call for the lakes.

by **Vlasov** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:20 am

My two cents: Keep the two lakes, but make them even less "blue" -- maybe even match the ocean color next to the two inset/enlargements.

Also a small suggestion: I know you like "No Name" for that one territory, but have you ever heard of Zzyzx, California near that part of the Mojave desert? It's an obscure little place with a bizarre name that sounds almost as mysterious as "No Name"...

by **natty dread** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:28 am

Xxzyx would be a great territory name

by **Vlasov** on Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:36 am

Sorry Natty -- I was just correcting and expanding the above post when you replied. The actual name is ZZYZX.

According to Wikipedia, a certain "Doctor" Curtis Springer placed a mining claim on the land in 1944, and proceeded to build a "hot" mineral springs spa and resort. He was an evangelist and health-remedy quack who was heard on nationwide radio. He named his place "Zzyzx" so it would be "the last word in health"... truly a prototypical flakey California huckster/evangelist story!

by **lostatlimbo** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:16 pm

natty_dread wrote:The issue is that the lakes do not look good on the map, in their current form. They simply clash with the style too much.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like.... your opinion, man.
- The Dude

by **Victor Sullivan** on Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:14 pm

lostatlimbo wrote:
natty_dread wrote:The issue is that the lakes do not look good on the map, in their current form. They simply clash with the style too much.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like.... your opinion, man.
- The Dude

And mine

by **The Bison King** on Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:04 pm

The Dude wrote:Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like.... your opinion, man.
- The Dude

I was hoping to channel the spirit of the dude through this map.

by **The Bison King** on Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:13 pm

Any way I'm sorry I've been so silent all week, I've been super busy lately. There's been some really interesting conversation lately though. Here's where I stand. With the 3 presented options I'm currently leaning towards removing them all together. However, I'm going to do 1 more version with the lakes to try and make them work. Then will see which of those stands up. also regarding the ZZYZX thing... yeah that's great I'll totally do that. I think I knew about that at one time. In fact I know for a fact that I drove past that on the road trip we took out there.

by **InsomniaRed** on Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:16 pm

Yep if you drive on I-15 out to Las Vegas you pass Zzyzx Road

It'd be great to have it as a territory.

by **The Bison King** on Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:31 pm

InsomniaRed wrote:Yep if you drive on I-15 out to Las Vegas you pass Zzyzx Road It'd be great to have it as a territory.

We did the reverse we were driving from Los Vegas to LA, I was pretty tired at the time and "food stoned" from the Vegas buffet. So I was passed out in the backseat but I seem to remember my friend Jarrod mentioning passing ZZYZX. I think he knew about it in advance.

oh here, if you're curious here's the path we took (only the California leg of the trip, which was by far where we spent the majority of our time). 2 nights in LA and 4 nights in San Jose with some family of mine.

by **The Bison King** on Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:16 pm

Lakes vs. No Lakes the final decision.

Lakes

Click image to enlarge.

No Lakes:

Click image to enlarge.

by **greenoaks** on Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:28 pm

why is there no South Central LA ?

surely that would be a good place to put a decay of 1 troop per round from gangland drive-by shootings

by **The Bison King** on Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:39 pm

greenoaks wrote:why is there no South Central LA ?

surely that would be a good place to put a decay of 1 troop per round from gangland drive-by shootings

that's a good one.

California [Quenched]

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Re: California 3.8

Who is online