Conquer Club

nagerous wrote:

TroyMcClure wrote:

matatonio wrote:Its Rancho del REy

I don't see this on the map. Can you tell me the web site you're looking at, please.

You called the territory rancho del ray, which is an error.

Oooo, OK. I was looking at the capital E on that. This is fixed now.

-fixed "ray" to "rey"
-cleaned up some graphics and fonts
-saved with higher quality.

Let me know what ya think.

also it should be MCAS Miramar not Miramar MCAS

magneticgoop wrote:also it should be MCAS Miramar not Miramar MCAS

OK, I changed it to "M.C.A.S. Miramar" on my copy. Will be updated on next map version.

Troy...you've done well so far...but i am still not liking the title nor the legend. IMHO. The yellow is very jaring on the eyes against that blue background.
I don't want to be overly critical, as i understand this is possibly your first map, but i wonder if you cannot push those creative boundaries a bit and try some new things in that region please.

cairnswk wrote:Troy...you've done well so far...but i am still not liking the title nor the legend. IMHO. The yellow is very jaring on the eyes against that blue background.
I don't want to be overly critical, as i understand this is possibly your first map, but i wonder if you cannot push those creative boundaries a bit and try some new things in that region please.

You're right, it did stick out. I tried some different effects and colors. Here's a darker and more metro look. The legend is now a silhouette of the actual city – squished together a bit. How's that look?

Thanks for the help!

Tijuana (no "a" after the i)

Good looking map... I think I see my house!

the attraction bonuses section is barely noticeable and needs to have dolder font and moved somewhere else

Make the army circles less transparent. They aren't useful as they are now. Also make the highway boundaries bolder.

Troy, the title is much better now that it doesn't stick ones eyes.

Can you determine how many fonts you are using on the map. 1, 2 or more.

Also if this is the small map, you can extend it's height to a max of 600 px to use the extra space for the legend. Think about trying it, if you like, it might give the viewer some space to take in the map and "loosen" up that area in the bottom where all the legend details are. Suggestion

Also, is your poll finsihed yet?

cairnswk wrote:
Also, is your poll finsihed yet?

YES. I'll work on above input in next few days.

wow only 14 people voted in 5 and a half months?

cairnswk wrote:Troy, the title is much better now that it doesn't stick ones eyes.

Can you determine how many fonts you are using on the map. 1, 2 or more.

Also if this is the small map, you can extend it's height to a max of 600 px to use the extra space for the legend. Think about trying it, if you like, it might give the viewer some space to take in the map and "loosen" up that area in the bottom where all the legend details are. Suggestion

Also, is your poll finsihed yet?

cairns, I'm using 3 fonts. this is the Large map.

-I added more room on the bottom with the city skyline and put the legend there.
-increased fonts on legend
-made army circles more transparent

Thank you!

LESS TRANSPARENT ARMY CIRCLES

unriggable wrote:LESS TRANSPARENT ARMY CIRCLES

This.

DiM wrote:wow only 14 people voted in 5 and a half months?

that was actually a hint

DiM wrote:

DiM wrote:wow only 14 people voted in 5 and a half months?

that was actually a hint

DiM...i don't want seem like a smart arse...but those who said Doodle Earth would go down didn't know what would happen in the active play.

The skyline is a definite inprovement to free up that legend space.

Troy...i'd like to see these colours with the army circles made less transparent i.e. more whiter perhaps about 45%. and on the circles, could you place an arrray of different coloured 88 test army numbers as though the map were starting off, please.
Let us see how that looks.

cairnswk wrote:

DiM wrote:

DiM wrote:wow only 14 people voted in 5 and a half months?

that was actually a hint

DiM...i don't want seem like a smart arse...but those who said Doodle Earth would go down didn't know what would happen in the active play.

I agree - however - Doodle Earth had huge community support too...

C.

yeti_c wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

DiM wrote:

DiM wrote:wow only 14 people voted in 5 and a half months?

that was actually a hint

DiM...i don't want seem like a smart arse...but those who said Doodle Earth would go down didn't know what would happen in the active play.

I agree - however - Doodle Earth had huge community support too...

C.

Fair comment yeti_c! But i think this map should be given a go.

cairnswk wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

DiM wrote:

DiM wrote:wow only 14 people voted in 5 and a half months?

that was actually a hint

DiM...i don't want seem like a smart arse...but those who said Doodle Earth would go down didn't know what would happen in the active play.

I agree - however - Doodle Earth had huge community support too...

C.

Fair comment yeti_c! But i think this map should be given a go.

i'm not saying this map should be canned but to get only so few replies in such a long time not to mention the interest in the voting proves this map doesn't quite have the support of the community. and from what i remember a KEY element in map making rules is support from the community.

you mentioned doodle earth but as yeti_c said doodle earth got a lot of feedback and had lots of support. while this one is almost a one man show.

maybe it needs a redesign or something to attract the crowds. the amount of people posting in a map thread is a fairly good indicator of how well the map will be played. just look at the last 10-15 quenched maps and how many games have been played on them. i'm sure you'll find that maps with low support in the foundry turned out to be played just a few times.


plus giving the green light to a map with not much support might create an unwanted precedent. somebody might come and work on a map with 2-3 people supporting it and not much else interest and before you know it it has to be quenched and then the map is played twice (by the author) and then forgotten.

DiM wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

DiM wrote:

DiM wrote:wow only 14 people voted in 5 and a half months?

that was actually a hint

DiM...i don't want seem like a smart arse...but those who said Doodle Earth would go down didn't know what would happen in the active play.

I agree - however - Doodle Earth had huge community support too...

C.

Fair comment yeti_c! But i think this map should be given a go.

i'm not saying this map should be canned but to get only so few replies in such a long time not to mention the interest in the voting proves this map doesn't quite have the support of the community. and from what i remember a KEY element in map making rules is support from the community.

you mentioned doodle earth but as yeti_c said doodle earth got a lot of feedback and had lots of support. while this one is almost a one man show.

maybe it needs a redesign or something to attract the crowds. the amount of people posting in a map thread is a fairly good indicator of how well the map will be played. just look at the last 10-15 quenched maps and how many games have been played on them. i'm sure you'll find that maps with low support in the foundry turned out to be played just a few times.


plus giving the green light to a map with not much support might create an unwanted precedent. somebody might come and work on a map with 2-3 people supporting it and not much else interest and before you know it it has to be quenched and then the map is played twice (by the author) and then forgotten.

point taken DiM...i guess mine are classic examples of this eh?

cairnswk wrote:

DiM wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

cairnswk wrote:

DiM wrote:

DiM wrote:wow only 14 people voted in 5 and a half months?

that was actually a hint

DiM...i don't want seem like a smart arse...but those who said Doodle Earth would go down didn't know what would happen in the active play.

I agree - however - Doodle Earth had huge community support too...

C.

Fair comment yeti_c! But i think this map should be given a go.

i'm not saying this map should be canned but to get only so few replies in such a long time not to mention the interest in the voting proves this map doesn't quite have the support of the community. and from what i remember a KEY element in map making rules is support from the community.

you mentioned doodle earth but as yeti_c said doodle earth got a lot of feedback and had lots of support. while this one is almost a one man show.

maybe it needs a redesign or something to attract the crowds. the amount of people posting in a map thread is a fairly good indicator of how well the map will be played. just look at the last 10-15 quenched maps and how many games have been played on them. i'm sure you'll find that maps with low support in the foundry turned out to be played just a few times.


plus giving the green light to a map with not much support might create an unwanted precedent. somebody might come and work on a map with 2-3 people supporting it and not much else interest and before you know it it has to be quenched and then the map is played twice (by the author) and then forgotten.

point taken DiM...i guess mine are classic examples of this eh?

not necessarily there are also other maps quenched with questionable support that aren't doing very well

DiM wrote:

DiM wrote:wow only 14 people voted in 5 and a half months?

that was actually a hint

The poll was for 14 days. Do you want me to put up another with no limit?

unriggable wrote:LESS TRANSPARENT ARMY CIRCLES

oops, will fix. What do you think about more transparent with a white outline.... I'll play around with it and put up some samples.