Conquer Club

I like the new layout

I do not like the new attack lines . I think the general idea (having brown lines on the ground) is good, they're just not done right in this version. Maybe make them flatter and wider, more like dirt roads?

Also, the river in the northeast looks good, but the waterfall (is it a waterfall?) needs work. It looks too jagged and needs more of a gradient between the colors. Right now the sharp lines look odd. I also feel that the bank of the river in the south could use some work - I love the river itself, especially the reflections - but the banks, especially the southern one, look off, as if the land is flat and has a flat river on it, rather than the river being in a slight valley.

I like the map a lot but I do have one question. Why aren't the shadows under the flags consistent? I am mainly speaking for the back row of the attacker flags. All of the shadows there go off at weird angles like they each had a different light source.

LOVE the update!


only thing i have time to comment on right now tho, is that the water... looks.. wrong to me. If im correct, your having a waterfall up there. only thing is it looks like u can see right through it, and it doesnt look like its a waterfall. It looks like a twisted lake

Androidz wrote:laslo the 2 areas on the bottom with just 1 man should probbably be alot of armies as the others, also some armies on some other places on the map good work=)

I know this is one of the things i need to deal with. But first i need to decide if it is worth redoing the base model used to make the attacking army.

Androidz wrote:And add some windows at the castle it looks so emety. Or some paintings/who made the map just something.

The castle is planing to be split down into a few territories, so there is no need of windows on the front.

Androidz wrote:The attacklines on briges on wall need to be more ligher i dont see them at all almost.

I know, i will see what i can do to make them more obvious.

ZeakCytho wrote:I do not like the new attack lines . I think the general idea (having brown lines on the ground) is good, they're just not done right in this version. Maybe make them flatter and wider, more like dirt roads?

I will see what i can do, but making them wider will run the risk of making the map look too crowded

ZeakCytho wrote:Also, the river in the northeast looks good, but the waterfall (is it a waterfall?) needs work. It looks too jagged and needs more of a gradient between the colors. Right now the sharp lines look odd.

That was not meant to be a waterfall it was meant to look like the water was flowing down the mountain side, but for some reason it never looked right, though luckily the legend will be going over that bit, so it wont be visible.

ZeakCytho wrote:I also feel that the bank of the river in the south could use some work - I love the river itself, especially the reflections - but the banks, especially the southern one, look off, as if the land is flat and has a flat river on it, rather than the river being in a slight valley.

It is not flat, but there is really no way of showing that, because of the angle that i have rendered it at means that it will always look flat

Mr. Squirrel wrote:I like the map a lot but I do have one question. Why aren't the shadows under the flags consistent? I am mainly speaking for the back row of the attacker flags. All of the shadows there go off at weird angles like they each had a different light source.

I know, i realised that, and the reason for that stems from the fact i have 3 different files that all have to mesh together in order to give me the completed image, otherwise it slow my computer down too much. And the file with the attacking army in has still got the layout of the old rally points, meaning the shadows are wrong. This will be fixed.

telvannia

u're on to a good thing with this tasteful map, which does inspire a sense of siege.

Telvannia wrote:

ZeakCytho wrote:Also, the river in the northeast looks good, but the waterfall (is it a waterfall?) needs work. It looks too jagged and needs more of a gradient between the colors. Right now the sharp lines look odd.

That was not meant to be a waterfall it was meant to look like the water was flowing down the mountain side, but for some reason it never looked right, though luckily the legend will be going over that bit, so it wont be visible.

try putting some specks of white in the water, so that it looks as if it's moving. the shadows can also do with being a bit more wobbly. below are examples of what i mean, both by monet.

http://www.nga.gov.au/monetjapan/Detail ... rkID=W1094
http://www.masterpiece-paintings-galler ... epte-5.htm

Telvannia wrote:

ZeakCytho wrote:I also feel that the bank of the river in the south could use some work - I love the river itself, especially the reflections - but the banks, especially the southern one, look off, as if the land is flat and has a flat river on it, rather than the river being in a slight valley.

It is not flat, but there is really no way of showing that, because of the angle that i have rendered it at means that it will always look flat

maybe a narrow brown band of varying (sometimes zero) width, with areas of dark shadow (to represent vertical parts of the bank), between the far bank of the moat and the water, will help? at the moment, the moat looks full to the brim, so that attackers can easily climb out after swimming across.

Juan_Bottom wrote:I don't know what this means for your map, but I have AOL dail-up and your map killed it. I can't view the new map at all, and the old one took 7 minutes for the image to load.

can u save each image both as .png and as .jpg, then load only the .jpg version to this thread? this might make each page load more quickly.

the attacking army still looks robotic. i think this is because the soldiers are standing in dead-straight columns, instead of being slightly offset from the man in front.

i have concerns about how things will look on the small map. cairnswk, among others, normally does his initial work on a small map, since upsizing to a large map usually produces no readability or space issues (such as borders, names or attack lines being obscured by army counts), while this is not true for downsizing a large map to a small one. have u considered doing this? as a bonus, u might even be able to work on the small map image without splitting the file into three.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

Telvannia wrote:

ZeakCytho wrote:Also, the river in the northeast looks good, but the waterfall (is it a waterfall?) needs work. It looks too jagged and needs more of a gradient between the colors. Right now the sharp lines look odd.

That was not meant to be a waterfall it was meant to look like the water was flowing down the mountain side, but for some reason it never looked right, though luckily the legend will be going over that bit, so it wont be visible.

try putting some specks of white in the water, so that it looks as if it's moving. the shadows can also do with being a bit more wobbly. below are examples of what i mean, both by monet.

http://www.nga.gov.au/monetjapan/Detail ... rkID=W1094
http://www.masterpiece-paintings-galler ... epte-5.htm

I know the water will look very flat and still, there is a way of fixing this in my 3D file, so i might go and look into it.

iancanton wrote:

Telvannia wrote:

ZeakCytho wrote:I also feel that the bank of the river in the south could use some work - I love the river itself, especially the reflections - but the banks, especially the southern one, look off, as if the land is flat and has a flat river on it, rather than the river being in a slight valley.

It is not flat, but there is really no way of showing that, because of the angle that i have rendered it at means that it will always look flat

maybe a narrow brown band of varying (sometimes zero) width, with areas of dark shadow (to represent vertical parts of the bank), between the far bank of the moat and the water, will help? at the moment, the moat looks full to the brim, so that attackers can easily climb out after swimming across.

I see what you mean about easily climb out, i might go and lower the water level, perhaps that will help with the problems.

iancanton wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:I don't know what this means for your map, but I have AOL dail-up and your map killed it. I can't view the new map at all, and the old one took 7 minutes for the image to load.

can u save each image both as .png and as .jpg, then load only the .jpg version to this thread? this might make each page load more quickly.

Yeah, that could work, although it is not as nice to look at, i think it really depends on how many people have this problem, if it is only one person then it would seem pointless.

iancanton wrote:the attacking army still looks robotic. i think this is because the soldiers are standing in dead-straight columns, instead of being slightly offset from the man in front.

I know about this and im currently remaking the attacking armies.

iancanton wrote:i have concerns about how things will look on the small map. cairnswk, among others, normally does his initial work on a small map, since upsizing to a large map usually produces no readability or space issues (such as borders, names or attack lines being obscured by army counts), while this is not true for downsizing a large map to a small one. have u considered doing this? as a bonus, u might even be able to work on the small map image without splitting the file into three.

I have considered the problem of downsizing, i think what will happen is when i make the small one the scaling will all be lost, because the people will need to be large enough to be seen while the walls are not as important so will be left small. But i will cross that bridge when i come to it.
As for getting rid of the 3 files, making the small map will not do that. The problem is that the image is a rendering of a 3D mesh, and the mesh has over 5,000,000 faces, so it slow down my computer whatever i do. Though i do plan to get rid of 1 of the files which should deal with the shadow problems.

Is this map and idea not worthy of a stamp??

danfrank wrote:Is this map and idea not worthy of a stamp??

in my opinion this map is worthy of a stamp. Dont know about gimils tho...

bryguy wrote:

danfrank wrote:Is this map and idea not worthy of a stamp??

in my opinion this map is worthy of a stamp. Dont know about gimils tho...

I think it is to do with my slow updates, and the fact the draft is not usable

Telvannia wrote:

bryguy wrote:

danfrank wrote:Is this map and idea not worthy of a stamp??

in my opinion this map is worthy of a stamp. Dont know about gimils tho...

I think it is to do with my slow updates, and the fact the draft is not usable

hmm... that may be


considering its been a while since the last update... and as such people arent coming very often

bryguy wrote:

Telvannia wrote:

bryguy wrote:

danfrank wrote:Is this map and idea not worthy of a stamp??

in my opinion this map is worthy of a stamp. Dont know about gimils tho...

I think it is to do with my slow updates, and the fact the draft is not usable

hmm... that may be


considering its been a while since the last update... and as such people arent coming very often

Im working on another update. Just this one has taken a lot more time, because i have completely redone the attacking soldiers, hopefully to reduce the robticness, and make them look better

This map could work...
I'd play it
Is this map going to be one where you are preset with certain terits, or random placement?

Here is a bit of a big update. I have made a map that is 'playable', as in it has all the names and the legend. Somethings are still not finished though...

[bigimg]http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3002/siege42bj4.png[/bigimg]


I'm off on a 3 week holiday tomorrow and wont be around to answer any graphical queries, so might be worth keeping it all comments to gameplay for now.

Telvannia wrote:Here is a bit of a big update. I have made a map that is 'playable', as in it has all the names and the legend. Somethings are still not finished though...

[bigimg]http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3002/siege42bj4.png[/bigimg]


I'm off on a 3 week holiday tomorrow and wont be around to answer any graphical queries, so might be worth keeping it all comments to gameplay for now.

As for the gameplay the keep is a bit wierd. (Note this is both grapical and gameplay sug)

I would use 3 windows to set army numbers inside and you should call them: F1-F2-F3 (Floor 1, Floor 2. Floor 3. (or basement, first floor. Secound floor...)

Then i would add another terretorie on the topern tower on that map.

just a short comment from me on gameplay, as i have the gameplay stamp for castle battle after it moves out of the drafting room.

there are 42 non-neutral starting territories, just like classic, which is good. however, the +1 legion bonus can lead to an unfair game-winning advantage for the first player in 1v1 games. we can correct this by changing the bonus to +1 for each legion in excess of 5; in other words, +1 for holding 6 legions, +2 for 7 legions and so on.

ian.

two comments in the 3 week period i was away

As for the comments, iancanton will have to be dealt with by marv, and as for Androidz, the keep is not finished inside yet, it is not always going to be empty, im planning to add things inside it, but you idea might work better, as for the names, with 2 rooms per floor i cant call them floor 1, 2, 3 ect.

Now im interested on idea for the graphics, of the territory names and legend.

Hmm im not big fan of the C in Castle Battle.


Could you try give the letters a feel that their made of wood? Just for testing?

Any thing warish would be cool anyways

An outer gate without an inner gate? Is that a mistake in the name, or are you planning to add something in?

The Neon Peon wrote:An outer gate without an inner gate? Is that a mistake in the name, or are you planning to add something in?

Oops, i forgot to name the inner gate. It is the one that is to the right of the smithy.

Androidz wrote:Could you try give the letters a feel that their made of wood? Just for testing?

I can give it a try, i think i know what you mean.

One more thing which i belive would be cool as i just see the attackarmy which can attack k7. I would really like to see a door there so it looks like they goes in.

Androidz wrote:One more thing which i belive would be cool as i just see the attackarmy which can attack k7. I would really like to see a door there so it looks like they goes in.

There will be a door there, but i had not got time to put it on before i went away when marv asked for that extra attack route. I will put it in when i finish doing the inside of the keep.

Telvannia wrote:

Androidz wrote:One more thing which i belive would be cool as i just see the attackarmy which can attack k7. I would really like to see a door there so it looks like they goes in.

There will be a door there, but i had not got time to put it on before i went away when marv asked for that extra attack route. I will put it in when i finish doing the inside of the keep.

kk

cau u make the smithy a bit bigger, so that the S doesn't go round the corner?

ian.

Telvannia wrote:[bigimg]http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/3002/siege42bj4.png[/bigimg]

Please could you update the first post with your latest version (it took me a little while to find)

Anyway, I really like the look of this. You've done a good job while sticking to your original vision...

-I'm not convinced by the territory names/labels - although I think that is something you've said you're going to be working on?
-Are any of the territories going to start neutral? If so, could you make a note of them somewhere?
-The tower bombard routes may need to be made a bit clearer
-It would be nice to see a small version - even if it is just a shrunken-down one - to get an idea how that will work

The current image is getting there in terms of playability: [Advanced Draft]

I like it good work