Conquer Club

how about now?

DiM wrote:how about now?

I can still see it!!!

C.

yeti_c wrote:

DiM wrote:how about now?

I can still see it!!!

C.

you have hawk eyes.

i'll try again, later. right now i have some guests coming over my house.

so whats the word on this being 800x800? is that going to be a problem? id love to see bigger maps personally

mibi wrote:so whats the word on this being 800x800? is that going to be a problem? id love to see bigger maps personally

so far neither keyogi nor andy complained so i guess it's ok. i could take it down to around 750*750 but not more than that witout cluttering the whole map.

my opinion has been expressed many times. i need the space for the elaborate legend and even at 800*800 it is still under the world 2.1 size.

Yay, old factory. I like the map size, but if it becomes a problem for the site, I'd suggest losing or reducing the story (I know, there was a poll... I voted for this one... but it's long, and it's the only thing preventing you from moving islands closer together.) The bridge is currently really hideous, although I see your dilemma. I like this map.

Oh, and I voted for animated maps, but probably not for this one, with the old feel, and I know I wouldn't play animated much - it'd just be an interesting change for a bit now and then.

On size - I think it is completley justified...

If this map style takes off you could be the founder of a whole new sections of maps...

Once the 'people' know how to play "resource" maps then the instructions will become immaterial...

Much like the instructions for "continent" maps are these days (some maps have a name and number)...

Perhaps instead of a legend then an addition to the instructions of the site might be a plan (with a pointer to them on the map?)

Lack and Andy would have to co-ordinate on that though... - I guess it really depends on whether or not this type of map takes off...

C.

yeti_c wrote:On size - I think it is completley justified...

If this map style takes off you could be the founder of a whole new sections of maps...

Once the 'people' know how to play "resource" maps then the instructions will become immaterial...

Much like the instructions for "continent" maps are these days (some maps have a name and number)...

Perhaps instead of a legend then an addition to the instructions of the site might be a plan (with a pointer to them on the map?)

Lack and Andy would have to co-ordinate on that though... - I guess it really depends on whether or not this type of map takes off...

C.

exactly my point. if this gamestyle catches instructions won't be needed in the future. like for some maps that are now in production the's no legend to say that mountains are impassable, people already know that.

hopefully the next merchant maps won't have huge legends because people will know what they are about.

Nikolai wrote:Yay, old factory. I like the map size, but if it becomes a problem for the site, I'd suggest losing or reducing the story (I know, there was a poll... I voted for this one... but it's long, and it's the only thing preventing you from moving islands closer together.) The bridge is currently really hideous, although I see your dilemma. I like this map.

Oh, and I voted for animated maps, but probably not for this one, with the old feel, and I know I wouldn't play animated much - it'd just be an interesting change for a bit now and then.

old factory it is.
i agree animations would suit a more coloured map.

i'll toy around with the bridge tommorow.

old factory sucked!.... looked like a pile of junk... the newer factory was easier to recognize.

mibi wrote:old factory sucked!.... looked like a pile of junk... the newer factory was easier to recognize.

amen

mibi wrote:old factory sucked!.... looked like a pile of junk... the newer factory was easier to recognize.

easyer to recognize if you thought of a modern, state of the art factory. now i really don't think factories at around 16th century were anything like the current ones.

Something along these lines might be a good compromise between old and modern:

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/fullimage.asp?id=24887

you would have to make it more iconic though

DiM wrote:

mibi wrote:old factory sucked!.... looked like a pile of junk... the newer factory was easier to recognize.

easyer to recognize if you thought of a modern, state of the art factory. now i really don't think factories at around 16th century were anything like the current ones.

yeah i forgot about all those 16th century factories!

mibi wrote:

DiM wrote:

mibi wrote:old factory sucked!.... looked like a pile of junk... the newer factory was easier to recognize.

easyer to recognize if you thought of a modern, state of the art factory. now i really don't think factories at around 16th century were anything like the current ones.

yeah i forgot about all those 16th century factories!

factories existed long before the 16th century. the modern factory appeared in the late 18 century if i remember correctly but some form of factories existed in the roman empire. anyway in the 13th century (again if i remember corectly) anyway long before the industrial revolution factories rather close to what we consider them now were somewhat common in developed cities throughout europe, they were mainly associated with the wood industry, textile, metal works and ofcourse military.

this explanation was in case that whistling emoticon was used as sarcasm

dolemite wrote:Something along these lines might be a good compromise between old and modern:

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/fullimage.asp?id=24887

you would have to make it more iconic though

look at the legend i inserted it there. what does everybody think?

also changed the bridge a bit. thughts on this issue are welcome.

i think you should lose the bridge and just make the two connect at a small point. right now the bridge is just another icon on a map full of icons.

mibi wrote:i think you should lose the bridge and just make the two connect at a small point. right now the bridge is just another icon on a map full of icons.

initially the map was connected there but confussion appeared because the 2 bottom continents where on the same land mass and the transportation via harbours seemed awkward

DiM wrote:

mibi wrote:i think you should lose the bridge and just make the two connect at a small point. right now the bridge is just another icon on a map full of icons.

initially the map was connected there but confussion appeared because the 2 bottom continents where on the same land mass and the transportation via harbours seemed awkward

i agree with mibi. i think u could fix it so it didnt look akward. only connect like a cm at the bottom or sumthing.

Enigma wrote:

DiM wrote:

mibi wrote:i think you should lose the bridge and just make the two connect at a small point. right now the bridge is just another icon on a map full of icons.

initially the map was connected there but confussion appeared because the 2 bottom continents where on the same land mass and the transportation via harbours seemed awkward

i agree with mibi. i think u could fix it so it didnt look akward. only connect like a cm at the bottom or sumthing.

i guess it's doable but won't people start asking why do they have to also get the harbours to connect to the neighbouring continent when they belong to the same land mass?

again, the 2 continents at the bottom were initially connected. look back at the start of the thread. but confussion made me make the continents separate. i don't want to have the same confusion again.

DiM wrote:

Enigma wrote:

DiM wrote:

mibi wrote:i think you should lose the bridge and just make the two connect at a small point. right now the bridge is just another icon on a map full of icons.

initially the map was connected there but confussion appeared because the 2 bottom continents where on the same land mass and the transportation via harbours seemed awkward

i agree with mibi. i think u could fix it so it didnt look akward. only connect like a cm at the bottom or sumthing.

i guess it's doable but won't people start asking why do they have to also get the harbours to connect to the neighbouring continent when they belong to the same land mass?

again, the 2 continents at the bottom were initially connected. look back at the start of the thread. but confussion made me make the continents separate. i don't want to have the same confusion again.

i know they started seperate. i dont understand y thered be confusion. youd only be attaching zio and val de juro, achieving exactly the same thing as the bridge, only itd be a land bridge. y shouldnt there be 2 harbors on the same land mass? boston and new orleans send ships to each other (id assume lol).

You could always seperate it more and put a dotted line in?

C.

yeti_c has the best idea. i'll move them apart a bit more and do a conection just like the others. no more confussion about being on the same land mass, no more bridge icon, perfect.

here is yeti_c's idea

wiat, why are those dotted lines in there anyways? arnt the harbors supposed to connect land masses?