California [Quenched]

isaiah40 · Post by **isaiah40** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:57 pm

Argh! I hate it when I can't think of the correct terminology! Yea, I think I meant subdue the background to make it so it's noticeable but not the focal point.

natty dread · Post by **natty dread** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:23 pm

isaiah40 wrote:Argh! I hate it when I can't think of the correct terminology! Yea, I think I meant subdue the background to make it so it's noticeable but not the focal point.

Yeah, in that case I agree, I suggested earlier to make the background darker.

The Bison King · Post by **The Bison King** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:14 am

isaiah40 wrote: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.

Most excellent. Sorry for the delay, I've been out of town all weekend. So I can get to this tomorrow.

The Bison King · Post by **The Bison King** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:19 pm

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

K, I didn't mess with the opacity but I reduced the saturation in parts of the background to produce the same desired effect. Which is a decreased emphasis on the background, directing more focus to the Map itself.

isaiah40 · Post by **isaiah40** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:18 pm

Not too bad. Me thinks it needs a little more desaturation. And please do not forget the insets as well!!

The Bison King · Post by **The Bison King** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:28 pm

isaiah40 wrote:Not too bad. Me thinks it needs a little more desaturation. And please do not forget the insets as well!!

I did hit the insets as well. But I'll give it a little more.

The Bison King · Post by **The Bison King** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:36 pm

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Industrial Helix · Post by **Industrial Helix** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:27 pm

How about an image with 888s

Victor Sullivan · Post by **Victor Sullivan** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:11 pm

*crosses his fingers*

The Bison King · Post by **The Bison King** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:18 pm

Industrial Helix wrote:How about an image with 888s

Of course:

Everything looks 90% good. I've only got a few coordinate fixes for you Victor.

SMALL:

Click image to enlarge.

-Nappa Valley bump it up and to the left, just over the "A"
-Berkley, San Mateo, & Santa cruz, bump a little to the left
-move Oakland up and left so it sits just above the tip of the y in Berkley
-Sierra Madre, relocate it above the text.
-Lassen bump left
-Salton Sea & Needles bump left
-Hollywood, Central, Anaheim, $ Pasadena can all be bummped just a smidge to the left.

LARGE:

Click image to enlarge.

-Nappa Valley (same treatment as small)
-Oakland (same treatment as small)
-Central bump to the right
-Sierra Madre (same treatment as small)

Victor Sullivan · Post by **Victor Sullivan** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:25 pm

Alright, but Central to the right on the large?

Victor Sullivan · Post by **Victor Sullivan** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:56 pm

http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18 ... ornia5.xml

The Bison King · Post by **The Bison King** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:51 am

Oh sweet. Sorry I've been out. I'll take a look at this tomorrow morning.

pamoa · Post by **pamoa** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:29 am

love the sunny felling of the map
and as you are in graphic
I have a readability problem with bay area insert
you have to make it independent from the main map
by closing the frame as you did for LA

The Bison King · Post by **The Bison King** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:02 am

love the sunny felling of the map
and as you are in graphic
I have a readability problem with bay area insert
you have to make it independent from the main map
by closing the frame as you did for LA

Why do I have to close it up? obviously if you are aware of the fact that you were looking at an inset for the Bay area you didn't actually have a readability problem.

The Bison King · Post by **The Bison King** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:09 am

Ok here's the test results for the new XML

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Everything looks good to me. As for central on the large I did in fact mean "left" when I said "right" but it looks fine to me how it is on the version.

pamoa · Post by **pamoa** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:12 pm

The Bison King wrote:
love the sunny felling of the map
and as you are in graphic
I have a readability problem with bay area insert
you have to make it independent from the main map
by closing the frame as you did for LA
Why do I have to close it up? obviously if you are aware of the fact that you were looking at an inset for the Bay area you didn't actually have a readability problem.

because it is not clear it is an inset and a map prolongation
and it took me a while to figure how those territories where connected

Industrial Helix · Post by **Industrial Helix** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:25 pm

Hmm... i had no trouble at all when I viewed it. I mean, i recognized it as an inset right off... but then, i look at maps on CC too much.

What about labeling the bordering territories in the inset, even though the numbers wouldn't be there. That way it would be clear what borders what.

The Bison King · Post by **The Bison King** » Thu Apr 28, 2011 11:39 pm

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

How's that look?

pamoa · Post by **pamoa** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:05 pm

well it helps a bit
but my confusion came from the bay itself in the main map
it doesn't seems to be sea but land!
the black frame of the inset seems to be some coast
and so the inset isn't an inset but an extension
maybe with a double or triple line for the coast

Victor Sullivan · Post by **Victor Sullivan** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:10 pm

Oh, one thing that's been bothering me is Oakland and Berkeley are quite disproportionate on the map itself compared to the inset.

And pamoa, I don't really think it can be helped at this point, and I honestly don't see what's so hard to understand...

-Sully

The Bison King · Post by **The Bison King** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:09 pm

I don't really think it can be helped at this point, and I honestly don't see what's so hard to understand...

This is exactly how I feel on the subject.

pamoa · Post by **pamoa** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:04 am

well sorry for disturbing

Vlasov · Post by **Vlasov** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 9:00 am

Isn't this California map getting anywhere NEAR the Final Foundry or Beta yet? It's been a long time, and some of us would like to play it and try it out.

Those latest XML images look okay to me. I think Bison King has done well. How long will it be until we can battle in California, and iron out the glitches?

P.S. Yes, the relative sizes of Berkeley & Oakland appear different on the main map, as compared to the OBVIOUS inset map.

The Bison King · Post by **The Bison King** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:15 pm

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

Berkley re-sized.

California [Quenched]

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.2

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.3

Re: California 4.4

Re: California 4.4

Re: California 4.4

Re: California 4.4

Re: California 4.4

Re: California 4.4