Moderator: Cartographers
sully800 wrote:I agree that the yellow livened up the map a bit and it definitely made the Rte 66 territories stand out more. However visibility of the yellow armies on the yellow background is a real concern, and I think the yellow was a bit too strong judging by the general discontent of everyone posting.
Perhaps a compromise could be reached with white signs and a yellow glow or border to still distinguish them from the other territories?
sailorseal wrote:I agree, I don't like the white, it doesn't feel right
oaktown wrote:Alright, since you asked: I appreciate posts that add something - anything - to the discussion. The best posts are specific about what somebody identifies as a problem and suggests possible changes. For example...sully800 wrote:I agree that the yellow livened up the map a bit and it definitely made the Rte 66 territories stand out more. However visibility of the yellow armies on the yellow background is a real concern, and I think the yellow was a bit too strong judging by the general discontent of everyone posting.
Perhaps a compromise could be reached with white signs and a yellow glow or border to still distinguish them from the other territories?
Sully raises a specific visual concern, explains why this element negatively impacts the map, and suggests an alternative.
The absolute worst posts are the ones that just say "I like it," or "I don't like it," without in any way advancing the discussion. For example...sailorseal wrote:I agree, I don't like the white, it doesn't feel right
This post weakly parrots an opinion that has already been posted and is no use to me as a map maker.
Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack another user is not allowed.
sailorseal wrote:Now Oak, ah I am not even going to bother...
sailorseal wrote:Graphically it is kind of dark. The assault routes are kind of dull looking and at first glance I did not notice them. I like the colors and the mountains.The bridges should be changed. The line of text at the way bottom is very hard to read.
Nice map!

sailorseal wrote:Now Oak, ah I am not even going to bother...
oaktown wrote:The absolute worst posts are the ones that just say "I like it," or "I don't like it," without in any way advancing the discussion. For example...sailorseal wrote:I agree, I don't like the white, it doesn't feel right
This post weakly parrots an opinion that has already been posted and is no use to me as a map maker.
oaktown wrote:The absolute worst posts are the ones that just say "I like it," or "I don't like it," without in any way advancing the discussion. For example...sailorseal wrote:I agree, I don't like the white, it doesn't feel right
This post weakly parrots an opinion that has already been posted and is no use to me as a map maker.
Mapmaker: Can I get some feedback on the borders please guys?
User A-Pos: I like the borders, I think they contrast well with the territories
User B-Pos: Yeah the borders are good
User C-Pos: Map is looking good, nice borders
User D-Neg: The borders just don't do it for me at all. They are far too thick, the shading on them isn't right, it looks too dark, and it just isn't right. I can't see half the territory names because of them, if this got quenched I wouldn't play it, it would give me a headache looking at those borders. You should try a different brush, like the one used on XYZ map. The borders there look fantastic, and are much better than the borders on your map. Did you think these borders would be fine? They're holding the map back, and sorely need to be redone. If I was Foundry Assistant, I wouldn't give you the graphics stamp til you changed them.
User E-Pos: Borders are fine, don't need any more work IMO
User F-Pos: Nice map, I like the borders, they fit well and don't need re-doing
User G-Pos: Ditto