Page 4 of 13
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:13 am
by DiM
the armies are still hard to see. i really liked the first touchup with the very bright army shadows. it was perfectly readable.
now with each and every update we're moving closer and closer to the original map. probably in the next update we'll see some black army circles.
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:29 pm
by RjBeals
Looks great to me!
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:20 pm
by rebelman
DiM wrote:the armies are still hard to see. i really liked the first touchup with the very bright army shadows. it was perfectly readable.
now with each and every update we're moving closer and closer to the original map. probably in the next update we'll see some black army circles.
my thoughts exactly
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:57 pm
by Unit_2
Done and done!
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:13 pm
by WidowMakers
rebelman wrote:DiM wrote:the armies are still hard to see. i really liked the first touchup with the very bright army shadows. it was perfectly readable.
now with each and every update we're moving closer and closer to the original map. probably in the next update we'll see some black army circles.
my thoughts exactly
I also agree. the original revamp/touchup was very bright. Mostly due to the very white army circles and maybe the text as well.
BAsed on what has been posted earlier, the main purpose of this touch up was to:
1) Make the territory names readable
2) Make the numbers readable
SO........
1)The territory names readable
<CHECK>
2)Army numbers Readable
<NOT ENOUGH>
They are better than the current map but still hard to read.
Some people say they are good while others say they are not good.
So now what?
WM
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:16 pm
by DiM
WidowMakers wrote:rebelman wrote:DiM wrote:the armies are still hard to see. i really liked the first touchup with the very bright army shadows. it was perfectly readable.
now with each and every update we're moving closer and closer to the original map. probably in the next update we'll see some black army circles.
my thoughts exactly
I also agree. the original revamp/touchup was very bright. Mostly due to the very white army circles and maybe the text as well.
BAsed on what has been posted earlier, the main purpose of this touch up was to:
1) Make the territory names readable
2) Make the numbers readable
SO........
1)The territory names readable
<CHECK>2)Army numbers Readable
<NOT ENOUGH>
They are better than the current map but still hard to read.
Some people say they are good while others say they are not good.
So now what?
WM
it's quite simple actually, make the army circles brighter and tell all those that complain it's too bright to suck it up.
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:37 pm
by Ruben Cassar
Just noticed this thread.
For me Asia and Oceania are still a bit too close colour wise. Note that I am colour blind. Maybe the colour difference for these 2 continents could be accentuated?
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:38 pm
by wicked
I don't think it's the brightness or color of the circles necessarily, rather the transparency. for example congo on the small map, there appears to be a dark blotch between the two numbers. And actually when I look at the map with just the circles, all the circles seem to have a dark blotch in the center, like it's faded out in the middle or something? Why not try to make the circles equal in color/transp/etc.. all the way across instead of the fade effect. Lightening up the center will help readability IMO.
I like the difference in color between aussie and asia on the countries, but in the legend they're hard to distinguish still, mainly the small legend.
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:14 pm
by gimil
1 week poll on the following post:
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:20 pm
by rebelman
voted and so far the one i voted for is winning
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:22 pm
by rebelman
gimil can you please post with 3 digits as well please
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:23 pm
by gimil
rebelman wrote:gimil can you please post with 3 digits as well please
After the army circles issues is resolved we'll move onto triple digits
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:26 pm
by pepperonibread
rebelman wrote:voted and so far the one i voted for is winning
Tied... I voted too.
EDIT: Gar... no longer.
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:36 pm
by rebelman
gimil wrote:rebelman wrote:gimil can you please post with 3 digits as well please
After the army circles issues is resolved we'll move onto triple digits
i actually think a poll is the wrong way to decide this as those with inferior eyesight will always be in the minority
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:31 pm
by DiM
rebelman wrote:gimil wrote:rebelman wrote:gimil can you please post with 3 digits as well please
After the army circles issues is resolved we'll move onto triple digits
i actually think a poll is the wrong way to decide this as those with inferior eyesight will always be in the minority
rebel is right.
btw i voted 70 but it seems 50 is winning and it is wrong.
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:41 pm
by lanyards
On the small map, Western U.S. has a misplaced coordinate. It needs to be moved to the left one pixel. Great work by the way. And I voted 60% opacity.
--lanyards
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:45 am
by Wisse
i think its because the white is a bit flashy thats why most people voted 50% i voted 55% myself
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:34 pm
by AndyDufresne
I also voted for 55%.
--Andy
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:39 pm
by jako
50-60% is too dark for my eyes. i voted 65%. guess my bads eyes will have to get used to scrunching when i play this.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:47 pm
by FreeMan10
After my vote, there were 12 votes for 50% and edit: 15 for higher percents.
Even though 50% is winning by a wide margin, there's a majority that want it brighter than that. Maybe take that into consideration when the poll closes, then maybe revote with fewer choices.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:51 pm
by Wisse
FreeMan10 wrote:After my vote, there were 12 votes for 50% and edit: 15 for higher percents.
Even though 50% is winning by a wide margin, there's a majority that want it brighter than that. Maybe take that into consideration when the poll closes, then maybe revote with fewer choices.
you can better count all the % to one total and do this:
...% : total votes
and you get the percent that fits most oppinions
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:36 pm
by MrBenn
Currently 38% of people have voted for 50% opacity circles (the lowest option)... this means that 62% of people would prefer them at least slightly brighter - this is the point that I think freeman10 was making...
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:27 pm
by gimil
Which opacity circles do you prefer?
50% - 35% [ 15 ]
55% - 23% [ 10 ]
60% - 16% [ 7 ]
65% - 11% [ 5 ]
70% - 11% [ 5 ]
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:34 pm
by gimil
The first poll has shown a failry spread result, were going to run another poll for 5 days. with the following options:
50%
55%
60%
for the opactiy of the circles. The options will be on page 1
Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:14 pm
by whitestazn88
50%
i guess either way doesnt matter. but i like seeing as much of the map as possible
