Conquer Club

edbeard wrote:hmm. I'd prefer if these roads were more like the grey in USA West and Southwest or the thinner lines and stronger stroke in Rockies.

these roads still stand out too much for me

edbeard wrote:these don't feel right either (but they are improved) maybe a bit more opacity because the glow stands out too much in quite a few places
seriously though I'm just trying to help you find something that doesn't stand out too much but is noticeable (since these are the attack routes after all).

I understand where you are coming from. Some places it stands out too much and if I adjust to those, the roads are hard to see other places. I really don't want to make the basic roads too big with a hard stroke. I want the interstates to have that special visual look.

I will see what I can do to make them stand out in both the dark abd light states but not too much.

Version 9
Changes:

-Lightened the Blue drop shadow color for 888 readability
-Smaller stroke on the roads
-Lighted the background picture
-Added more light blue to the background to help the lighter drop shadows stand out more.

these roads work quite well.

1. they don't stand out and dominate the image like before

2. they're still quite noticeable so people won't be like "where can I attack"

3. they make the highways stand out more which is good since those are bonus areas and they should stand out more.


good job

It's not perfect but you did find an acceptable solution. As I said before I don't think there can be a perfect solution.
So from my point of view everything is ready for GFX stamp, very good job .
I think it's resonable to ask for those stamps individually for each map.

edbeard wrote:these roads work quite well.

1. they don't stand out and dominate the image like before

2. they're still quite noticeable so people won't be like "where can I attack"

3. they make the highways stand out more which is good since those are bonus areas and they should stand out more.
good job

Thanks for the input and help.

pamoa wrote:It's not perfect but you did find an acceptable solution. As I said before I don't think there can be a perfect solution.
So from my point of view everything is ready for GFX stamp, very good job .
I think it's reasonable to ask for those stamps individually for each map.

Thank you too pamoa.

As far as getting a stamp for each I would personally rather wait. Once each map is done they can all get lined up side by side and compared. I am sure there will be little things that don't show up here that might show up on another. All I want is an agreement from a CA that these GFX are good ad that I can proceed with the other map knowing that the demands will not change.

Thanks everyone.

WM

Androidz wrote:WM i think those 3 bright red continents is to bright could you change that?Michigan, Iowa andWest Virgin

Well i guess Iowa is good enough. But the others 2, makes the legend a bit hard to read..or am i wrong could any1 pliss disscuss this?

Androidz wrote:WM i think those 3 bright red continents is to bright could you change that?Michigan, Iowa andWest Virgin
Well i guess Iowa is good enough. But the others 2, makes the legend a bit hard to read..or am i wrong could any1 pliss disscuss this?

VM it seems you put a 1 pixel red border around text in the legend of these two, you can maybe increase it by 1 pixel if it's not masking the icons... but I think it's a bit exagerated from androidz

pamoa wrote:

Androidz wrote:WM i think those 3 bright red continents is to bright could you change that?Michigan, Iowa andWest Virgin
Well i guess Iowa is good enough. But the others 2, makes the legend a bit hard to read..or am i wrong could any1 pliss disscuss this?

VM it seems you put a 1 pixel red border around text in the legend of these two, you can maybe increase it by 1 pixel if it's not masking the icons... but I think it's a bit exagerated from androidz

you understood what i said:P I treid to read my own post here and it didin't make sense:P

I just think their a bit bright, especially in the legend..
What you said might work and yeah im exagerateing:)

West
Large Version 1
[bigimg]http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9800/usawv010907lyh0.png[/bigimg]
Small Version 4
[bigimg]http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9448/usawestv040908sef6.png[/bigimg]

Great Lakes
Large Version 1
[bigimg]http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4986/usaglv010907lar6.png[/bigimg]
Small Version 9

FYI -The larges take about 15 minutes to make once the small is done. So the process can go rather quickly once we all agree on the small versions.

And since the theme and style of the maps has been discussed (888' issues, shadow colors, icons, state colors, etc) The other 4 maps will be easy to do.
And it is obvious that the other maps will be easier (except maybe rockies {so much BLUE}) due to the smaller number of states so the colors can be more easily distinguishable.

Any comments for the West? I will start working on the other ones too.

I have trouble telling the colors apart between I5 and I80, but I can figure out what's what by using common sense. Not sure if this is something worth changing or not.

Overall, I like the west map WAY better than the Great Lakes one.

WidowMakers wrote:Any comments for the West?

apart from a couple of spelling mistakes (san fransico and cresent city), the spacing between the letters in the small version is odd, for example red ding and v egas.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:Any comments for the West?

apart from a couple of spelling mistakes (san fransico and cresent city), the spacing between the letters in the small version is odd, for example red ding and v egas.

ian.

I agree. The font still needs some work. For since it is so small teh letters often shift oddly. I will look into other fonts.

ZeakCytho wrote:I have trouble telling the colors apart between I5 and I80, but I can figure out what's what by using common sense. Not sure if this is something worth changing or not.

Overall, I like the west map WAY better than the Great Lakes one.

You mean the red and green. Is this due to colorblind issues? I Can switch them up if it works better.
Red and Blue maybe


WM

WidowMakers wrote:

ZeakCytho wrote:I have trouble telling the colors apart between I5 and I80, but I can figure out what's what by using common sense. Not sure if this is something worth changing or not.

Overall, I like the west map WAY better than the Great Lakes one.

You mean the red and green. Is this due to colorblind issues? I Can switch them up if it works better.
Red and Blue maybe


WM

Yes, I'm red-green colorblind, and have trouble differentiating certain shades of red and green, blue and purple, green and brown, etc. Red and blue would work very nicely.

about west

maybe invert nevada and california in the bonus list, normal western reading direction is left to right, up to down
why did you put the icons in diagonal
contrast between icons and bg color should be a bit stronger
is that supposed to be grape in california ?

pamoa wrote:about west

1) maybe invert nevada and california in the bonus list, normal western reading direction is left to right, up to down
2) why did you put the icons in diagonal
3) contrast between icons and bg color should be a bit stronger
4) is that supposed to be grape in california ?

1) NP
2) Because it add a different touch. Some of the icons are tilted in GL too.
3) I was going to do that but forgot before I posted. Next update.
4) Yes. Hopefully the increase in contrast (see #3) will help

WM

NEW TEXT
What do you think?
[bigimg]http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/2973/usawtext10910lmq9.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7679/usawesttext10910sfo3.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7388/usagltext10910lwa4.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/284/usagltext110swp9.png[/bigimg]

If you like it smoother for big maps it's okay for me, but on small ones the previous version was better.
Some letters tend to blur and vertical leg to disappear with the smooth effect on such small letters.

I agree, it looks really good on the large map, but somewhat crammed on the small map (and I play on the small map). Perhaps increasing the font size by a point or two will help make it clearer.

pamoa wrote:If you like it smoother for big maps it's okay for me, but on small ones the previous version was better.
Some letters tend to blur and vertical leg to disappear with the smooth effect on such small letters.

Night Strike wrote:I agree, it looks really good on the large map, but somewhat crammed on the small map (and I play on the small map). Perhaps increasing the font size by a point or two will help make it clearer.

Well the problem is the anti aliasing of the text. If we want smooth small text, it looks like this. I can try to find another font but really small fonts are hard to get 100% clear.

And as far as both maps are concerned, I would like to keep the feel of the fonts similar on both. SO I want to find a font that works for both either sharp (versions on page 1) or smooth (like above).

Like I said, I will look for better smooth small fonts.

WM

whitestazn88 wrote:dc is not in maryland.... it is neither in virginia... make it a separate +1 autodeploy bonus?

that's a good point. if there's one place we don't want want to mess up for educational reasons, it's the capital city. let's try floating off dc as the capital of its own one-territory “state”, with starting neutrals and, in the legend, a bonus of 0. a +1 autodeploy doesn't fit with the gameplay on the five other maps, but dc can possibly rank equally with the state capitals for bonuses and be represented by a star-shaped army shadow.

with 13 randomly-allocated state capitals plus neutral-starting dc, the bonuses for holding 6 or 7 capitals must be eliminated because someone is extremely likely to start off with these numbers in 1v1 (a typical starting distribution might be 6 capitals for player 1 and 4 for player 2 with 3 random neutrals, plus neutral-starting dc).

whitestazn88 wrote:and i think a northern virginia would be better suited... maybe fairfax, because its the biggest county in NOVA

if dc is a neutral-starting territory then, to preserve the current number of randomly-allocated territories, we need one more. though i must admit that i don't know exactly where it is, fairfax is one to consider, to give ourselves a big state in the bottom right.

WidowMakers wrote:I actually like a couple of 2-terts bonus regions. I think I am going to keep them. They are 2 tert, 2 border for a bonus of 1. I really don't think it is a problem.

with 57 random-starting territories, each player in 1v1 will start with 19. that means player 1 normally starts with 6 armies to deploy, but this increases to 7 if he has delaware from the drop. this will happen about 10% of the time. the great lakes map might be sufficiently big to have enough other random things happening elsewhere to mask the effect of player 1 having 1 extra army to deploy.

on the other hand, the new england map is smaller and the proportionate difference in deployment (4 against 3, a 33% bonus) is massive, leaving player 2 with fewer chances for counterplay. again, this will happen about 10% of the time.

ian.

Putting radiation symbols on Illinois makes me think the entire region is irradiated and some sort of nuclear wasteland, which I don't think any Illinois'ans (however that's said) want to be known for their capacity to meltdown.

TaCktiX wrote:Putting radiation symbols on Illinois makes me think the entire region is irradiated and some sort of nuclear wasteland, which I don't think any Illinois'ans (however that's said) want to be known for their capacity to meltdown.

They were the first state in the USA to have a nuclear based electrical plant. That is why I used it. But once again, once the other main issues are worked out (colors and layout, text and roads) the icons will all get revisited.

WM

iancanton wrote:

whitestazn88 wrote:dc is not in maryland.... it is neither in virginia... make it a separate +1 autodeploy bonus?

that's a good point. if there's one place we don't want want to mess up for educational reasons, it's the capital city. let's try floating off dc as the capital of its own one-territory “state”, with starting neutrals and, in the legend, a bonus of 0. a +1 autodeploy doesn't fit with the gameplay on the five other maps, but dc can possibly rank equally with the state capitals for bonuses and be represented by a star-shaped army shadow.

with 13 randomly-allocated state capitals plus neutral-starting dc, the bonuses for holding 6 or 7 capitals must be eliminated because someone is extremely likely to start off with these numbers in 1v1 (a typical starting distribution might be 6 capitals for player 1 and 4 for player 2 with 3 random neutrals, plus neutral-starting dc).

whitestazn88 wrote:and i think a northern virginia would be better suited... maybe fairfax, because its the biggest county in NOVA

if dc is a neutral-starting territory then, to preserve the current number of randomly-allocated territories, we need one more. though i must admit that i don't know exactly where it is, fairfax is one to consider, to give ourselves a big state in the bottom right.

Version 10
Changes:

-Made D.C. its own autodeploy bonus
-Added 1 city to Maryland
-Removed bonuses for holding 6 and 7 capitals

I am going to keep this blocky style font for the small maps and the larger smoother font for the big maps.

http://www.stateanimals.com/
Maybe that could help you get some icons.