Conquer Club

Looks great to me. I can't wait to give it a try!

Looking good. I think this map will help cater to those who are looking for giant maps. The Cluster idea I think will definitely make sure that though this map is large, it is still playable.

The only thing that still bothers me are the territory division lines, and the impassables. They look underdone. But I'm not sure there is anything you can do to alleviate that.


--Andy

Thanks for the post andy.
I am not sure what you mean by underdone on the borders.

There is only so much room on the small map so pixel lines are needed.
And I want to keep the maps looking similar so that is why the late map looks the way it is.

Is there anything else?
If not killer can start the XML

WM

WM. is there anything that can be done to increase the height of the id cell numbers.
I'm having great difficulty telling 16, 18 ,19 and 20 apart..although they are clearer on the small map than on the large map and look less squashed.

cairnswk wrote:WM. is there anything that can be done to increase the height of the id cell numbers.
I'm having great difficulty telling 16, 18 ,19 and 20 apart..although they are clearer on the small map than on the large map and look less squashed.

I can look into it. Most likely will be possible. Just need to see how the pixel letters enlarge.

Large Version 3
-Made letters and numbers taller for better readability

WidowMakers wrote:Large Version 3
-Made letters and numbers taller for better readability

...

WM, that is so much better for legibility, thank you!

NP cairns.

Are there any other issues?
If not we can get working on the XML

GFX stamps

Yes, it is starting to look better. It does however, still have a fuzziness to it overall. I think you can fix that, if you play with the drop shadow a little. Don't be afraid to crank it all the way up until it goes out of focus, and then slide the bar back and forth to see just where it looks the clearest.

porkenbeans wrote:Yes, it is starting to look better. It does however, still have a fuzziness to it overall. I think you can fix that, if you play with the drop shadow a little. Don't be afraid to crank it all the way up until it goes out of focus, and then slide the bar back and forth to see just where it looks the clearest.

What drop shadow are you referring to.

WidowMakers wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:Yes, it is starting to look better. It does however, still have a fuzziness to it overall. I think you can fix that, if you play with the drop shadow a little. Don't be afraid to crank it all the way up until it goes out of focus, and then slide the bar back and forth to see just where it looks the clearest.

What drop shadow are you referring to.

Oh, I am sorry it is not a drop shadow, but a bevel setting on the cells.

I still think the region naming convention is a little wordy... I'm sure there must be some way to indicate which territory is the "lowest alphanumeric value" in each cluster? I wonder if you could indicate the "Master" territory with square brackets or something: [A1], or possibly with underlining or a red dot or a larval grub or something??

MrBenn wrote:I still think the region naming convention is a little wordy... I'm sure there must be some way to indicate which territory is the "lowest alphanumeric value" in each cluster? I wonder if you could indicate the "Master" territory with square brackets or something: [A1], or possibly with underlining or a red dot or a larval grub or something??

Basically: HONEYCOMB CLUSTER NAMING: Number of Hexes in each color group + Name of underlined Hex?
How is that?

I will get to your suggestion too pork. But just so I understand, you want a more crisp bevel correct? The current one is too soft for you right?

WM

WidowMakers wrote:

MrBenn wrote:I still think the region naming convention is a little wordy... I'm sure there must be some way to indicate which territory is the "lowest alphanumeric value" in each cluster? I wonder if you could indicate the "Master" territory with square brackets or something: [A1], or possibly with underlining or a red dot or a larval grub or something??

Basically: HONEYCOMB CLUSTER NAMING: Number of Hexes in each color group + Name of underlined Hex?
How is that?

I will get to your suggestion too pork. But just so I understand, you want a more crisp bevel correct? The current one is too soft for you right?

WM

Yes, get bold with it. It feels like I am looking at it without my glasses on. If that makes any sense to you. Just try to bring it into focus.

I expect your next update will be the one that gets the stamp

Version 15 Small-I am making these updates on the small map due to the size issues. Whatever we decide on here will be able to get translated (I hope) into the large map

Updates/Choices to make:
1-Hex Bevel -

Right side of image is new "harder" edges that porkandbeans requested (basically harder inner bevel on the hex cells)
Left side of image is current map (softer bevel)

My personal opinion is the softer. The hex borders already provide the hard differentiation. The cells are too small for the extra harshness. Just my opinion. Thoughts?

2-Cluster naming & naming symbol
The wording in the legend will get changed to something like this:
HONEYCOMB CLUSTER NAMING: Number of Hexes in each color group + Name of ___ Hex

Now we just need to fill in the ____
Symbol Options (these are put all over the map to show differences)

1) + A1 +
2) < A1 >
3) > A1 <
4) x A1 x

My personal favorite is the + sign. Thoughts.
Once the bevel, wording and symbol are discussed and decides, i will update both map sizes.

Putting in army numbers would help make the decision easier...

john9blue wrote:Putting in army numbers would help make the decision easier...

Which decision? Bevel or symbol?

I doubt we will see any 3rd round wins on this map.
Version 15 (same as above) with 88's

Version 15 (same as above) with 888's CRAZY!!!

x A1 x seems best to me.

natty_dread wrote:x A1 x seems best to me.

so like D18 and H18

WidowMakers wrote:

natty_dread wrote:x A1 x seems best to me.

so like D18 and H18[/quote

yep

Your bevel settings are off. It looks like it is all choked out. I usually start with the opacity at around 60 or 70%, with 0 choke, 1 distance, and 0 size. Tentatively set your size to the kind of shadow you are looking for. in other words what kind of an edge you are after. Then go back and forth between the distance and size and opacity. The choke is only necessary in rare occasions when the layer's opacity is set low. I do not think that you will need to use it here.

porkenbeans wrote:Your bevel settings are off. It looks like it is all choked out. I usually start with the opacity at around 60 or 70%, with 0 choke, 1 distance, and 0 size. Tentatively set your size to the kind of shadow you are looking for. in other words what kind of an edge you are after. Then go back and forth between the distance and size and opacity. The choke is only necessary in rare occasions when the layer's opacity is set low. I do not think that you will need to use it here.

The kind of edge I was after was the settings I had from the beginning.

But to be fair I will look into what you are asking.

Then again.. perhaps something like solid black squares between the territory names would be even more clear than the x:s. This way you would see instantly where the marked territories are. Now, whichever symbol you use, you have to search for them...