Baseball: King of Diamonds (v15 p.27)

[carlpgoodrich]

The ball numbers are still distractingly arbitrary. The order should be something like (in terms of what they are now) 1,2,8,4,3,5,6,7,9.

[Industrial Helix]

I agree with goodrich on the numbers.

This map is looking quite good. Though can you make the red in the stitching a little more saturated?

I like the mowing stripes in the field, but they could use some contrast to bring them out a little more. While you don't want them to dominate the image, they're near invisible.

...and OMG! WHAT'S UP WITH THAT FREAKISHLY GIANT BATTER!

Babe Ruth was actually 10 feet tall.

[natty dread]

Well the ball numbers currently go in a writing order (left to right, top to bottom). I feel it's the most logical way to arrange them. Is there a better alternative?

Stiches, sure. Lawn stripes... I don't know, they seem visible enough to me.

[carlpgoodrich]

Well the ball numbers currently go in a writing order (left to right, top to bottom). I feel it's the most logical way to arrange them. Is there a better alternative?

Yes, because the balls aren't placed on a line. Also, baseball is not a left to right, top to bottom, game. For example, ball 8 is in the outfield and belongs with balls 3 and 4, not 6 and 7 and 9. The order I gave keeps ball i close to ball (i+1) and follows a nice out to in spiral.

One other thing: when did the pitcher's mitts get flipped? Sandy and Lefty should have left-handed mitts, and everyone else should have right handed mitts.

Ok, one more : Can you move the army circle on the batter down a little bit? It is currently above the strike zone and Babe would probably not swing The standard strike zone is between the knees and 2 inches above the belt, so anywhere in there is good.

[Evil DIMwit]

Oh, my yes, the mitts did get flipped. Silly us.

[Victor Sullivan]

Oh, my yes, the mitts did get flipped. Silly us.

If the the mitt is in the right hand, it means you're throwing with your left. You have it right (pun intended).

[Evil DIMwit]

Right, so Sandy and Lefty should have mitts on their right hand, and the ones they have there would go on their left hand. Vice versa for the rest.

[Victor Sullivan]

Right, so Sandy and Lefty should have mitts on their right hand, and the ones they have there would go on their left hand. Vice versa for the rest.

Well I guess it depends if the gloves are palm-up or palm-down, I thought they were palm-down...

[natty dread]

The gloves are palm down... I thought it's obvious from the contours. So Sandy & Lefty have right hand gloves, the others have lefts.

Yes, because the balls aren't placed on a line. Also, baseball is not a left to right, top to bottom, game. For example, ball 8 is in the outfield and belongs with balls 3 and 4, not 6 and 7 and 9. The order I gave keeps ball i close to ball (i+1) and follows a nice out to in spiral.

Ok, we're talking about numbering of territories here. Baseball doesn't actually have 9 different balls on the field at a time, so the numbering of balls by definition doesn't have anything to do with the game. With that in mind, I feel it's the best to number the balls in such a way that is the easiest for players to find them.

See, if we do it your way, there might be 1 in 10 players who think "oh yeah, they follow the outfield-infield spiral, how clever." And 9 in 10 will think "f*ck this shit, it's hard to find the right balls, I keep misdeploying and shit, I hate this map. "

Anyway, that's how I feel about it... FFF.

The batter circle shall be moved.

[carlpgoodrich]

The gloves look palm up to me. It makes more sense for them to be palm up (whether or not they are now) because then the army circle is like a ball being held in the glove.

See, if we do it your way, there might be 1 in 10 players who think "oh yeah, they follow the outfield-infield spiral, how clever." And 9 in 10 will think "f*ck this shit, it's hard to find the right balls, I keep misdeploying and shit, I hate this map. "

I almost made this exact same argument yesterday, and so far two (I think) other people have expressed concerns about the numbering. I know its just numbering, and if you are absolutely set in stone then... well, your the mapmaker. But having ball 8 be in the outfield really makes no sense. You already use the concept of "groups" by making the second home run ball #2 to be with the first home run ball, so right now its not even consistent with your method. The reason I keep bring this up is that I legitimately could not figure out the pattern until you told me, and I get the sense I am not alone. Anyways, I've said my peace.

[natty dread]

The gloves look palm up to me. It makes more sense for them to be palm up (whether or not they are now) because then the army circle is like a ball being held in the glove.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they were palm up, they would be concave from the middle. If you look at the contours of the gloves, it's obvious that they are convex, not concave.

Yes, I considered making them palm up, for the very reason you mentioned. But then I thought that palm down would serve better as army circles, seeing as palm down they are lighter from the middle, which is more natural for troop numbers.

I know its just numbering, and if you are absolutely set in stone then... well, your the mapmaker. But having ball 8 be in the outfield really makes no sense. You already use the concept of "groups" by making the second home run ball #2 to be with the first home run ball, so right now its not even consistent with your method. The reason I keep bring this up is that I legitimately could not figure out the pattern until you told me, and I get the sense I am not alone. Anyways, I've said my peace.

So you are seriously suggesting that the order we read and write in is illogical to you?

Anyway, it's Evil dimwit's map, so he's going to say the final word on this. I'm good with whatever he decides.

[Evil DIMwit]

Mitts: Palm up makes more sense to me, as if they're holding the number in their glove. That's what I had in the original version.

Balls: Looks fine as it is, arranged in rows from top to bottom. I don't see how they can get any more organized.
Maybe the balls on the field should have labels like "single," "triple," etc.?

[natty dread]

Mitts: Palm up makes more sense to me, as if they're holding the number in their glove. That's what I had in the original version.

Fair enough, I'll redraw them.

Balls: Looks fine as it is, arranged in rows from top to bottom. I don't see how they can get any more organized.
Maybe the balls on the field should have labels like "single," "triple," etc.?

But labels like "single" etc wouldn't fit on the balls themselves... effectively it would clutter the field more. Or am I not getting what you're suggesting...?

[Army of GOD]

I think you should number the balls in the distance they are from home plate

[Evil DIMwit]

But labels like "single" etc wouldn't fit on the balls themselves... effectively it would clutter the field more. Or am I not getting what you're suggesting...?

Sorry, I meant in the XML.

[natty dread]

But labels like "single" etc wouldn't fit on the balls themselves... effectively it would clutter the field more. Or am I not getting what you're suggesting...?

Sorry, I meant in the XML.

Ok sure, that makes sense. I'll try to get the new pitcher mitts done today.

[Army of GOD]

Two points, both very nitpicky, so I apologize in advance if I come off as annoying:

1. Were you thinking about doing the CC-logo in the grass in the infield?
2. I feel like "King of The Diamond" fits better than "King of Diamonds". Idk...plural diamonds just doesn't sound right.

[natty dread]

#1 sounds like a neat idea actually.

[MarshalNey]

Ditto with Natty, I like idea #1 AOG, but I love the title as it stands and "King of the Diamond" has no sweet double-meaning (you know, the playing card as well as a baseball reference). In fact, with the latter name there seems no reason to even bother with mentioning Diamonds or Kings, just go back to the original title or something else entirely.

-- Marshal Ney

[Army of GOD]

Ditto with Natty, I like idea #1 AOG, but I love the title as it stands and "King of the Diamond" has no sweet double-meaning (you know, the playing card as well as a baseball reference). In fact, with the latter name there seems no reason to even bother with mentioning Diamonds or Kings, just go back to the original title or something else entirely.

-- Marshal Ney

But I mean, what's the point of the playing card reference? Idk...as a baseball player/fan, it just doesn't sit well with me. I'll get over it though. hahaha

[natty dread]

[bigimg]http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/1904/baseball10.png[/bigimg]

The CC star isn't very notable... I had to fade it down considerably, otherwise it would interfere with the territory borders, making it harder to see territory connections.

[Victor Sullivan]

I like it!

[Victor Sullivan]

Oh, mitt needs to match in the legend.

[carlpgoodrich]

I like the CC star. Can I suggest removing the stripes from either inside the diamond where the star is or at least inside the circle that contains the CC star? It would make it easier to see the star, and usually they don't mow two patterns on top of eachother.

[natty dread]

[bigimg]http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/1904/baseball10.png[/bigimg]