Conquer Club

The sub is fine, I don't think it'll confuse anyone.

A few things though... the stations could use territory labels. There's several stations that connect to multiple land areas, so people might get confused about their names.

Same thing with the bike routes.

The grey territory borders could maybe be slightly darker.

Also, the Nob hill <> Overlook bridge is still unclear. You should make it so that the bridge doesn't touch the Pearl territory. To do this you may need to fiddle with the borders of Pearl slightly.

natty_dread wrote:Also, the Nob hill <> Overlook bridge is still unclear. You should make it so that the bridge doesn't touch the Pearl territory. To do this you may need to fiddle with the borders of Pearl slightly.

What about arching the bridge so it goes up and over touching down in Nob Hill? Not sure if that'll look weird with the rest of the bridges though.

Here's my suggestion to make it clearer:



Don't know how hard it would be for you to do this or not. Or you could just redraw the Pearl Nob Hill border so that the border parallels the bottom side of the bridge.

natty_dread wrote:
A few things though... the stations could use territory labels. There's several stations that connect to multiple land areas, so people might get confused about their names.

Same thing with the bike routes.

The MAX stations are named by the neighborhoods they connect with:
Blue MAX - Beaverton
Red MAX - Hollywood/Laurelhurst
Yellow MAX - Overlook/Mississippi

The exception being Fareless Zone.

The bike paths will be named for their respective continents:
NW Bike Path
SE Bike Path

28th Draft
Redesigned bridges
Clarified The Pearl border
Darkened all borders
[bigimg]http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q102/lostatlimbo/Portland_new5-1.png[/bigimg]

Ok, the train stations will do, but the bike routes being named by the bonus areas seems really counter-intuitive to me... Especially when the SW bike route also borders Downtown territories.

Can you just add labels for the bike routes? You have plenty of space to do this, so it shouldn't be a problem.

why is the forest park bridge green? is it just for visual effect, with no gameplay significance?

ian.

Visual only - no gameplay change

St John's Bridge is green
http://relocationtoportland.com/files/2 ... rtland.jpg
http://rpsnw.com/web_images/st_johns_br ... t_2006.jpg

I added the names to Bike Paths. I think they are unnecessary and add clutter. Thoughts?

29th Draft
Added labels to Bike Paths
Added troop number examples
[bigimg]http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q102/lostatlimbo/Portland_small.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q102/lostatlimbo/Portland_new6.png[/bigimg]

This is looking better!

As for the bike path names, no they don't add clutter, they actually help to clarify what names they have. Can you switch the SW and SE names to the left side of the bike? This will be necessary on the small so the numbers don't obscure the territory name if and when you get the color code +888 on them. Also please put the 888's on every territory so we can make sure that they will fit (which I'm thinking they will, but would like to see). Without going through the whole thread, so please forgive me if you have already done it, can you also post the colorblind tests as well?

I checked the map with colourblind filters, and the only thing I can see a possible problem with is Downtown vs. NW - making the Downtown territory labels slightly darker would solve this.

[bigimg]http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/9374/portblind.png[/bigimg]

(this is deuteranopia, protanopia had no problems)

this map is looking really nice. A clean easy to follow flow, with a lot going on. My only suggestion would be to work on the shadows of the forest trees. They look blurred - espeically the ones on the right side.

natty_dread wrote:I checked the map with colourblind filters, and the only thing I can see a possible problem with is Downtown vs. NW - making the Downtown territory labels slightly darker would solve this.
(this is deuteranopia, protanopia had no problems)

Thanks for doing that. I will try to make this update (and others mentioned) this week.

(PS - Can't help but notice the roses look more like turds with that filter. Hope thats not really how they look to colorblind folk. :)

RjBeals wrote:this map is looking really nice. A clean easy to follow flow, with a lot going on. My only suggestion would be to work on the shadows of the forest trees. They look blurred - espeically the ones on the right side.

Will do. Thanks!

lostatlimbo wrote:(PS - Can't help but notice the roses look more like turds with that filter. Hope thats not really how they look to colorblind folk.

LOL! I'm sorry, but the filters are supposedly pretty accurate... take comfort in the fact that there's different types of colourblindness, and that image just shows one of them

Looks fun!

Though some of the max tracks boarding points are a little vague. For instance, the stop on the yellow line at the centre-top. Does that border Columbia Slough or not? The same applies to Mt. Tabor and Beaverton.

RjBeals wrote:this map is looking really nice. A clean easy to follow flow, with a lot going on. My only suggestion would be to work on the shadows of the forest trees. They look blurred - espeically the ones on the right side.

I looked at this more closely. I think what you are seeing is the underbrush. I removed it in the Mt Tabor area and toned down the shadow in Forest Park. Looks a bit cleaner to me.

ManBungalow wrote:Looks fun!

Though some of the max tracks boarding points are a little vague. For instance, the stop on the yellow line at the centre-top. Does that border Columbia Slough or not? The same applies to Mt. Tabor and Beaverton.

Well, the MAX track is listed as an impassable and most of them are clearly on one side of it, but I nudged these a bit to make that space a little clearer.

I focused on the tightest areas - if those fit, the rest should be fine. SW/Downtown area seems to be the tightest, but even with color codes & 3 digits, it seems to fit ok.

I was having trouble seeing the gray in NE areas, so I lightened those up. Seems better to me now.

The 3 digit+color code overhangs a little on the MAX stops, but that seems to be common on some maps. 3 digits alone seems just right.

Any other comments/concerns on these?

30th Draft
Some minor graphic tweaks to allow for better fit with troop numbers
[bigimg]http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q102/lostatlimbo/Portland_small7-2.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q102/lostatlimbo/Portland_new7.png[/bigimg]

Just so you know... if you center the numbers according to 88:s, then 888:s won't be centered, and vice versa...

Hmmm... I am seeing a problem with the MAX stops on the smaller map - especially Blue on the Black Max window.



Going to have to play around with those a bit.

Ok - I tweaked the MAX stops a bit so the numbers fit better.



I can still see some potential issues with the Old Town/Pioneer stop, but this is a 'worst case scenario' right? I mean, I think they work great, but for that one player with 100+ troops and the color code, they might have trouble seeing the last digit of their many troops if they happen to be blue and have that territory. But is that really an issue? "Oh no! I thought I had 168 troops, but its actually 163!!!"

Okay here are a couple of concerns I have:
1) I think the previous icons for the stations will work better with the numbers,
2) The Portland sign is taking some of the focal off the playing area, can you please reduce the opacity say be about 15%,
3) The background is also taking some of the focal off the playing area, reducing the opacity by about 25% should do the trick.

After you do these three things I'll take another look and then maybe we can get this bumped along!

As in california thread, I think you meant to say something else in place of "opacity"...

isaiah40 wrote:Okay here are a couple of concerns I have:
1) I think the previous icons for the stations will work better with the numbers,
2) The Portland sign is taking some of the focal off the playing area, can you please increase the opacity say be about 15%,
3) The background is also taking some of the focal off the playing area, increase the opacity by about 25% should do the trick.

After you do these three things I'll take another look and then maybe we can get this bumped along!

Try that