The Great Lakes -- [Quenched]

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:36 pm

KEYOGI wrote:I don't mind the flags now that they're more obvious, but I do feel you would need to perhaps add a glow or something to the text to make it stand out a little more.

ruthlessontogeny wrote:i agree that the map without the flags looks cleaner. the only flag that stands out to me is the union jack, the rest you can't really see unless you look for them. aesthetically it would certainly be nice to have them, but they may not be practical.

The newest poll will answer the question issue that has been with this map most of its life. If there is not a clear winner after several days, I will make the call. But what will I do. Flags? No Flags? Wouldn't you like to know?

pancakemix wrote:I'm sorry to be the nit-picking evil type, but my opinion on Harrisburg stands. As a resident of Pennsylvania, I feel the name given previously (Scranton) was better, not only that Harrisburg is in the mountain range, but it is much smaller than Scranton, as is my understanding. If Harrisburg is the popular view, I'll withdraw from my argument. But until then, I'm sticking with Scranton.

I will setup a poll after the current Flag/No Flag Poll. That will settle this debate. However I feel there are only a few people who really know (or care) which one it is. I am not saying it is not important but most people will not be able to tell the difference.

ruthlessontogeny wrote:i also agree with whomever said that the double legend is redundant. it seems that the reduced map with the continent values is sufficient for playability purposes. true, you then wouldn't have the names of the continents on there, but that just doesn't seem important to me from most perspectives.

The double legend stays. If you look at the first drafts of this map, the legend itself did not explain where the bonus areas were. Since I am from this area I have a good concept of the geography and understand it. But someone in China or Russia probably doesn't. The text is needed to distinguish the names and the mini map is needed to convey bonus. Done!

ruthlessontogeny wrote:finally, if you're concerned with clutter, especially in and around the lakes, you could take out the "lake" qualifier and label each of them simply "superior", "huron", "erie", etc. just a thought.

i love the map though. can we play this soon????

I did like this idea until I realized that Lake Michigan would be called Michigan. Very confusing. A lake and a bonus area named the same. Plus Lake Erie and Erie Pennsylvania is a problem. Now there are two Eries. The Lakes will stay.

NO FLAGS

FLAGS

dominationnation · Post by **dominationnation** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:55 pm

The flags add a nice exciting glow to the whole map. They make sure that this map looks different then the others and is easily recognizable I say keep the flags

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:57 pm

flags clutter the map because there's already the terrain in the background

t.e.c · Post by **t.e.c** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:55 pm

i say no flags, its too busy

wrightfan123 · Post by **wrightfan123** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:58 pm

I am totally pro-flag!

MR. Nate · Post by **MR. Nate** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:24 pm

Part of the reason I like geographical maps is the cleanliness of the look and feel. No skulls or seats or warp portals messing everything up. Just . . . a map.

I vote we kill the flags.

wiggybowler · Post by **wiggybowler** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:10 pm

I like both. The flags give it a different look, but no flags looks a lot cleaner and is easier on the eyes. I would have to go with no flags.

Unit_2 · Post by **Unit_2** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:19 pm

i'm going to make something for widow.

Flags:
Unit_2
dominationnation
wrightfan123
casper
Ninja-Town
haoala
Guiscard
Molacole
fluffybunnykins
Gozar

No Flags:
DiM
t.e.c
MR. Nate
wiggybowler
ruthlessontogeny
joeyjordison
luckywar
Gilligan

ruthlessontogeny · Post by **ruthlessontogeny** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:49 pm

Unit_2 wrote:i'm going to make something for widow.

i'm voting against flags. i'm afraid they will clutter up the map once armies are added in and everything else. perhaps if we're going to vote we could see a map with flags and the armies on there together (like on page 7, but with current flags)? i think this map is already one of the best looking maps around, and that the flags are a nice idea but detract rather than add to the look of it.

thanks for the responses to my other comments widow--no further comments needed!

casper · Post by **casper** » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:39 pm

with flags. and without imaginary rivers.

Ninja-Town · Post by **Ninja-Town** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:37 am

With Flags it gives this map uniqueness. Is that how you spell it??? blah.

haoala · Post by **haoala** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:30 am

im for the flags; they enhance the map aesthetically

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:37 am

I love the flags, it adds nice detail, but the Wisconsin flag needs to be looked at because at the moment it just makes that area look muddy. I don't know how it could be done, and its probably to do with the colours of the flag and cont respectively, but it does need looking at.

Molacole · Post by **Molacole** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:35 am

indiana and ontario look real nice with flags.

fluffybunnykins · Post by **fluffybunnykins** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:44 am

flags! How about little flags next to the names in the key, as well, maybe instead of the coloured background bars...

Gozar · Post by **Gozar** » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:46 am

Yay Flags!

MR. Nate · Post by **MR. Nate** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:36 am

fluffybunnykins wrote:flags! How about little flags next to the names in the key, as well, maybe instead of the coloured background bars...

Okay, now that's just obsessive.

joeyjordison · Post by **joeyjordison** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:41 pm

flags make the map look cluttered. i like it loads better without

luckywar · Post by **luckywar** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:49 pm

The flags are cool, but distracting. Too much going on with them. The map looks great w/o them.

Gilligan · Post by **Gilligan** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:17 pm

Flags are too distracting, there is too much to look at.

fluffybunnykins · Post by **fluffybunnykins** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:23 pm

MR. Nate wrote:
fluffybunnykins wrote:flags! How about little flags next to the names in the key, as well, maybe instead of the coloured background bars...

Okay, now that's just obsessive.

no... it isn't... IT ISN'T... NO NO! o.O where do you live? O.o Hmm? pretty flags...

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:24 pm

not trying to be a jerk, but let me restate what I said a few pages back that no one has said anything about. again maybe it's not a big deal, but I think it deserves discussion/explanation at the least.

edbeard wrote:1.
i'm counting 49 territories

minnesota 3, wisconsin 4, illinois 5, indiana 3, ohio 5, pennsylvania 4, new york 4, michigan 7, lakes 5, ontario 9

3 + 4 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 4 + 4 + 7 +5 + 9 = 49

I counted three times but I could be wrong!

Maybe you have reason for 49, maybe people don't think it's a huge deal. It's just nice to have no neutrals for 3, 4 and 6 player games.

I don't think it's a huge deal, but deserves discussion, and I didnt see any in previous pages. (maybe I missed it?)

Gilligan · Post by **Gilligan** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:35 pm

There is 50

Gilligan · Post by **Gilligan** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:38 pm

Or 49...

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:39 pm

here are the 8 maps Large and Small, with and without Flags.
The army pics are not from XML. I have not done that yet. They are just to show that the numbers will be centered and look OK.
LARGE
With Flags

Without Flags

SMALL
With Flags

Without Flags