Conquer Club

Are the images in the first post the latest updates?

I've been watching this map for a while now, and I really think I'll enjoy the minimalist style it is employing.


--Andy

Images posted here:
viewtopic.php?f=468&t=103703&start=105#p2581633
and also, the first two images in the first post are the latest versions posted (1.9 - 06.05.2010).

Next version coming very soon.

AndyDufresne wrote:Are the images in the first post the latest updates?

I've been watching this map for a while now, and I really think I'll enjoy the minimalist style it is employing.


--Andy

Make it a project to add all countries to the site that don't have a map yet.

I'll get right on Djibouti then... :LOL:

Looking forward to it nn!

Guys, very sorry for the delay, i am still not finished, i really really hope i'll be able to compile the new version in 2-3 days, sorry again for misleading you with previous posts.

Don't worry, Rome wasn't built in a day
Take your time.

thenobodies80 wrote:Don't worry, Rome wasn't built in a day
Take your time.

Macedonia either...

Hi all, here is the latest version - v2.0

Changes:
- some mountain ranges are expanded so that bordering/impassable is clearer to the players
- for small map, territory names are with bigger font than previous versions (exporting to png did not have the desired effect in the context of readability so it's jpeg again but with bigger font)
- the arrows pointing to neighboring countries are removed
- the degree markers now include hemisphere notation (N, E)
- Continent colors are changed and shuffled a bit so there is no two similar colors in neighboring continents
- added the plus sign for the bonuses
- minor border and frame graphic changes

- The so-called thematic overhaul mentioned in some of the posts - to make the map more "macedonian" - not done because i simply do not have good ideas, short of adding a really big tomato in the middle of the map I think there is enough info about the country as it is now.

Latest Version, Large v2.0 (23.05.2010):


Latest Version, Small, v2.0 (23.05.2010):


Also, here is the link for the photobucket album containing versions from 1.5 up to latest:
http://s972.photobucket.com/albums/ae208/nixonie/Conquer%20Macedonia%20Map/

Nice version. Do you really need the big image to be 840 pixels wide?

No, it can be a bit smaller i guess... Question is, why?

I'm sorry, but the update just made it worse wrt. colour blind people.

Here's the colourblind simulation of the latest version:



Change Skopje with Kumanovo and Stip with Strumica.

Hi, just asking here, don't shoot , is the colorblind test a requirement for the maps to get through the Graphic workshop?

Another thing, are all maps colorblind tested?

And in the end - if all of the above answers are yes, how does "Change Skopje with Kumanovo and Stip with Strumica." make the map better colorblind-wise?

Please reply.

n.n. wrote:Hi, just asking here, don't shoot , is the colorblind test a requirement for the maps to get through the Graphic workshop?

To the best of your ability, it is. For the the most common form of color blindness,(red/green) pretty much anything that isn't blue or yellow will just about be the same color.

how does "Change Skopje with Kumanovo and Stip with Strumica." make the map better colorblind-wise?

Take a look at this.



Tetovo & Skopje look very similar. Bitola & Strumica as well. If you do the changes I said, it will be much easier for colour blind people to see these bonus zones.

Hi,
thanks for the answers, i will shuffle colors as suggested by natty.

Are there any other problems with this map?

(please let me know before i do the "colorblind" change....)

From where I sit, right now Tetovo and Strumica look very similar, so natty's swaps may not be the whole answer, but they should be an improvement.

Actually, swapping Berovo <-> Strumica might be better than Stip <-> Strumica.

natty_dread wrote:

how does "Change Skopje with Kumanovo and Stip with Strumica." make the map better colorblind-wise?

Take a look at this.



Tetovo & Skopje look very similar. Bitola & Strumica as well. If you do the changes I said, it will be much easier for colour blind people to see these bonus zones.

natty_dread wrote:Actually, swapping Berovo <-> Strumica might be better than Stip <-> Strumica.

I think if you swap Skopje with Kumanovo and Berovo with Strumica, then Kumanovo and Berovo will be just as similar as Tetovo and Skopje are now.

Yeah, I just figured it out... I think the best idea would be Berovo <-> Strumica and Stip <-> Skopje.

Looking at the colour blind map, I wonder if the problem is that there simply aren't enough distinct colours. Tetovo, Bitola, and Strumica are nearly indistinguishable, with Stip slightly lighter and Skopje a little darker. Then Berovo and Veles are quite similar. Kumanovo and Ohrid are the most distinct. Perhaps introducing an entirely new colour with a fair amount of blue (purplish, wine red?) to replace the one used by one of those first three territories would break things up.

And easy solution would be to make Strumica and Tetovo a fair bit darker or lighter. (In the case of Strumica, it must be darker, since lighter would be same as Skopje).

But, you know, there are those thick lines separating the bonus areas. So perhaps we shouldn't pay so much attention to the colours...

You know, actually, that colour-blind version looks quite nice. I wouldn't mind if the actual map had colours like that... it would fit the style IMO.

Another thing you can try that might sort of negate the colorblindness thing some is instead of a legend listing is to do a mini map in your own style. porken suggested it before, it got glazed over with the extra graphics he added.... but the idea has some merit.

RedBaron0 wrote:Another thing you can try that might sort of negate the colorblindness thing some is instead of a legend listing is to do a mini map in your own style. porken suggested it before, it got glazed over with the extra graphics he added.... but the idea has some merit.

A minimap wouldn't really be necessary here, nor would it fit the style of the map, IMO. The colourblindness is mostly a non-issue, since bonus zone names are identified by the bolded territories which share the same name.

What we've been trying to do here is seeing that no two adjacent colours are too similar for the colourblind. While there are thick black borders separating the bonus zones, I'm afraid the similar colours next to each other could still cause some confusion...

Sorry nat,
but you are dead wrong. A mini-map is indeed needed here. Not only for the colorblind issue, but for the sake of overall clarity itself. Who wants to keep looking back and forth from the map to those little boxes to determine whats what ? It is needless confusion, when a mini-map gets the job done perfectly, with but a glance.

porkenbeans wrote:Sorry nat,
but you are dead wrong. A mini-map is indeed needed here. Not only for the colorblind issue, but for the sake of overall clarity itself. Who wants to keep looking back and forth from the map to those little boxes to determine whats what ? It is needless confusion, when a mini-map gets the job done perfectly, with but a glance.

You're still missing the point here: the colours aren't the only identifier. Each bonus area is named by it's capital territory, and the capital territory has it's name in bold.

In most maps I like minimaps. This one doesn't need it IMO.