California [Quenched]

by **InsomniaRed** on Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:37 pm

Yeah I like it BRIGHT and HAPPY.

by **Industrial Helix** on Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:31 pm

Bah, sorry this is taking me so long to respond... the reason the colors desaturate is because it doesn't matter what you save it as, it will be uploaded to the site as a jpg. So save your image files as jpgs and that's what it should look like on the site... there's probably some more details to that, I'll run it by MrB to see for sure.

As for the logo... er... title, I'm liking the first font with the "The Golden State" bit right above "California", so where both are horizontal. It fits and works, imo.

by **The Bison King** on Sat Apr 16, 2011 11:18 am

Well, it looks like the current fonts will be fine as they are. I readjusted some of the borders to make sure everything fit alright. Here's the results:

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

As for the logo... er... title, I'm liking the first font with the "The Golden State" bit right above "California", so where both are horizontal. It fits and works, imo.

Like this?

Click image to enlarge.

I think that looks ok. Kind of plain, I think the tilted version has more personality. I don't hate it though.

Victor, have you stopped working on the XML? I'm hoping that we'll be needing that soon, so I'd like to know where you are with that right now.

by **natty dread** on Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:31 pm

I still think you should at least make the background darker. Keep the sunset at current brightness but darken all else around it. It would give you more contrast both within the background and against the foreground.

by **Industrial Helix** on Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:58 pm

Sorry to be a nag, but I'm going over the map now and making sure everything is kosher. Has this map been vischecked? I know that nobodies made mention of it a while ago, but I couldn't find a vischeck image in the thread.

I'm noticing some pixelation on your interior borders... can you try a slight black glow to even it out? It's not horrendous, but I'd like to see it go. See Medecino and Napa Valley to get an idea of what I'm looking at.

There's a little bit of that red bleeding and some choppiness at the bottom of California's border.

Can we get an image with 888s? The only place that seems like it might be a problem is Berkley on the small map. Some places the xml coordinates could be scooted over.

Now, when this gets uploaded. If there is no reduction of saturation on the map, would you be willing then to lower it a tad?

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sun Apr 17, 2011 2:41 pm

The Bison King wrote:Victor, have you stopped working on the XML? I'm hoping that we'll be needing that soon, so I'd like to know where you are with that right now.

I'll get right on it, sir!

by **Victor Sullivan** on Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:33 pm

Alright, see if this is good. I changed the territory names where applicable and fixed the errors thenobodies pointed out awhile back: http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18 ... 0//Cal.xml

by **Vlasov** on Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:16 am

"San Francisco" is misspelled 5 times on that XML.

by **The Bison King** on Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:17 pm

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Version 4.2

I made the BG a tad bit darker to Natty's suggestion. I also cleaned up some of the borders a bit and tried to take care of some of that pixelation.

I still think you should at least make the background darker. Keep the sunset at current brightness but darken all else around it. It would give you more contrast both within the background and against the foreground.

Done, but a little more subtle than your example.

I'm noticing some pixelation on your interior borders... can you try a slight black glow to even it out? It's not horrendous, but I'd like to see it go. See Medecino and Napa Valley to get an idea of what I'm looking at.

should be fixed. The ones that jumped out at me anyway.

Has this map been vischecked?

Yeah, a while back. The only weird thing was the Sierra Nevada Mojave border but I fixed that.

There's a little bit of that red bleeding and some choppiness at the bottom of California's border.

Fixed.

Now, when this gets uploaded. If there is no reduction of saturation on the map, would you be willing then to lower it a tad?

not sure, maybe, but maybe not especially since I dropped some of the color in the BG.

Can we get an image with 888s? The only place that seems like it might be a problem is Berkley on the small map. Some places the xml coordinates could be scooted over.

Well, I would but there wouldn't be much point unless it was the coordinates as plotted in the XML which brings me to Victor.

Victor, I've only looked at the coordinates on the small so far. Most of it looks good but there are a few mistakes like the coordinates for ZZYXZ sitting directly on top of the word... also that thing about San Francisco.

but the biggest problem is that there must still be an error in the actual coding of the gameplay. The coordinates show up but I still can't review territory borders when I "test XML"

by **natty dread** on Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:55 pm

The Bison King wrote:Done, but a little more subtle than your example.

I had to do a before/after comparison to see it... indeed subtle, I personally would have gone for a bit stronger effect, but it works like this as well. I'm satisfied.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:39 pm

Vlasov wrote:"San Francisco" is misspelled 5 times on that XML.

Did I really? Lol, okay I'll fix that.

The Bison King wrote:Victor, I've only looked at the coordinates on the small so far. Most of it looks good but there are a few mistakes like the coordinates for ZZYXZ sitting directly on top of the word... also that thing about San Francisco.

Yeah, I used the old coordinates, I'll fix them.

The Bison King wrote:but the biggest problem is that there must still be an error in the actual coding of the gameplay. The coordinates show up but I still can't review territory borders when I "test XML"

Alright, I'll investigate...

by **Industrial Helix** on Wed Apr 20, 2011 7:51 am

Coordinates! We need coordinates!

by **Victor Sullivan** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:38 pm

There, I checked and double-checked it (I found that I had misspelled "overrides" as "oberrides" in one place on my second run through :lol:

), let me know if any coordinates need changed: http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18/3040650//California.xml

by **The Bison King** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:41 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:There, I checked and double-checked it (I found that I had misspelled "overrides" as "oberrides" in one place on my second run through ), let me know if any coordinates need changed: http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18/3040650//California.xml

...it still doesn't work... Do you know how to use this tool?:

http://www.conquerclub.com/mapmaker/index.php

If you go to the Final Forge > XML Checks there's a link to it in the first paragraph it should help a bit. As far as the Coordinates go, the smalls mostly good. Death Valley, Lake Tahoe and Salton Sea need to be moved up. Lassen, San Mateo, Oakland and Morro Bay could all be moved a tad to the the left. Ventura and needles could both stand to be moved a tad down and left.

As for the Large, pretty much every coordinate needs to be re-graphed. They all seem a little down and too the right.

As of Current:

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Any way use that tool when working on the XML and it should help. When the XML works the territories a region can attack should appear when you hover your curser over a region (just like when using BOB) When useing "Inspect map"

by **Victor Sullivan** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:51 pm

The Bison King wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:There, I checked and double-checked it (I found that I had misspelled "overrides" as "oberrides" in one place on my second run through ), let me know if any coordinates need changed: http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18/3040650//California.xml

...it still doesn't work... Do you know how to use this tool?:

http://www.conquerclub.com/mapmaker/index.php

Yes, that's what I used! Sigh, I'll investigate.

by **The Bison King** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:58 pm

Victor Sullivan wrote:
The Bison King wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:There, I checked and double-checked it (I found that I had misspelled "overrides" as "oberrides" in one place on my second run through ), let me know if any coordinates need changed: http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18/3040650//California.xml

...it still doesn't work... Do you know how to use this tool?:

http://www.conquerclub.com/mapmaker/index.php

Yes, that's what I used! Sigh, I'll investigate.

Keep your stick on the ice.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:03 pm

Ummm... Uh... I don't really know how to respond to this...

And I'm just gonna start anew on the XML. I'm wondering if there was something weird with the old file.

by **thenobodies80** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:11 pm

don't start a new one, gimme 5 mins to look at it.

by **thenobodies80** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:19 pm

ok, you did a couple of mistakes.

line 216 --> you missed a <territory> tag (Ventura)

line 134,line 151,line 168,line 185,line 202,line 218 --> you missed all the <override> tags

You wrote:

Code: Select all: <continent> <name>4 cities</name> <bonus>4</bonus> <components> <territory>San Diego (city)</territory> <territory>Bakersfield (city)</territory> <territory>Santa Barbara (city)</territory> <territory>Fresno (city)</territory> <territory>Stockton (city)</territory> <territory>Monterey (city)</territory> <territory>Sacramento (city)</territory> <territory>Redding (city)</territory> <territory>Eureka (city)</territory> </components> <required>4</required> <overrides>3 cities</overrides> </continent>

but instead you should write:

Code: Select all: <continent> <name>4 cities</name> <bonus>4</bonus> <components> <territory>San Diego (city)</territory> <territory>Bakersfield (city)</territory> <territory>Santa Barbara (city)</territory> <territory>Fresno (city)</territory> <territory>Stockton (city)</territory> <territory>Monterey (city)</territory> <territory>Sacramento (city)</territory> <territory>Redding (city)</territory> <territory>Eureka (city)</territory> </components> <required>4</required> <overrides> <override>3 cities</override> </overrides>

</continent>

by **Victor Sullivan** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:28 pm

Okay, thanks nobodies.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:39 pm

Alright, try this: http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18 ... ornia4.xml

by **The Bison King** on Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:33 am

Victor Sullivan wrote:Alright, try this: http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18 ... ornia4.xml

Bang up job! it works! The coordinates look good too. I'll give it a closer inspection down the line there might be a few small changes but over all it's looking good.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:37 am

The Bison King wrote:
Victor Sullivan wrote:Alright, try this: http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18 ... ornia4.xml

Bang up job! it works! The coordinates look good too. I'll give it a closer inspection down the line there might be a few small changes but over all it's looking good.

Yes! Finally! Thanks for bearing with me :oops:

by **isaiah40** on Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:03 am

I finally figured out what is wrong here. Can you please reduce the opacity of the background? The sunset as it is right now is the focal point. We want the focal point to be the playing area itself. Try reducing it by around 30%, and don't forget to reduce the opacity in the insets as well to match the background. Everything else is looking good, so if you can do this please, I'll take another look at it, then maybe we can get this bumped along.

by **natty dread** on Sat Apr 23, 2011 11:08 am

isaiah40 wrote:Can you please reduce the opacity of the background?

Isaiah, I don't think you're using the term "opacity" correctly here... Opacity is the inverse of transparency. Ie. reducing opacity is making something more transparent.

I don't think you want to suggest making the background more transparent?

California [Quenched]

Re: California 4.0

Re: California 4.0

Re: California 4.0

Re: California 4.1

Re: California 4.1

Re: California 4.0

Re: California 4.1

Re: California 4.1

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.1

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Who is online