[Official] Middle East REVAMP [Quenched]

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:00 am

KEYOGI wrote:
spinwizard wrote:it looks amazing!

can u tell me how u did the mountains?

4 layers. I drew the outline of the mountains for the top layer. Then a light colour as the base. 2 middle layers of different shades to add depth.

so that's the secret :shock:

gotta try it. :roll:

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:02 am

Unit_2 wrote:dude. there is no color at all.... this is soo doll. it could put me to sleep.. you NEED some color...

Maybe you can go sin city style and only have a few colors here and there.

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:10 am

These map present some old period of history?
If these right then you have so many mistake in names, becouse you mix old and present name in these map.
Example(Bactria its a ancient Greek name for country in present Afganistan, and Turkey its not ancient name-Turkey not exist when Bactria been a country)

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:38 am

Qwert, guess you didn't read all the topic.

Just kidding.

Check out the first couple of pages, to see why the names are as they are.

--Andy

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:01 pm

AndyDufresne
I've been in contact with the original cartographer, spiegleprime, and he was enthusastic about having the graphics revamped. The only stipulations are....
No border changing

No name changing

Try to make it feel like an old world/antique parchment...as that was what he said he originally wanted to try to do

So I give you the go ahead, as long as you follow all of those guidelines!

Its look that first creator of these map have more power then all players in CC,including Andy. If hes demand to mixed names from all History of Midle East be in these map, but these its wrong and i belive that he will se too that these wrong.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:05 pm

qwert wrote:These map present some old period of history?
If these right then you have so many mistake in names, becouse you mix old and present name in these map.
Example(Bactria its a ancient Greek name for country in present Afganistan, and Turkey its not ancient name-Turkey not exist when Bactria been a country)

Read the rest of the topic before you post Qwert.

I've raised the issue of Bactria before, and he said it was Ok to suggest alternatives. The only thing I could come up with which truly fitted the area was Eastern Persia (which isn't brilliant).

If you've got any better suggestions lets hear em!

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:55 pm

absolutely beautiful legend.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:30 am

March 27
- Burnt/Torn edges added as requested

Comments
I'm going to have to say I prefer it without the burnt/torn edges to be honest. I feel it clashes with the rest of the map and will likely cause problems with the small version. Perhaps this would be better suited to another map that can be designed with these edges in mind from the beginning.

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:34 am

i don't like that effect, on the north it looks like the white is higher than the map, and on the south it looks like the map is higher than the background
i also think that its to dark

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:07 am

Wisse wrote:i don't like that effect, on the north it looks like the white is higher than the map, and on the south it looks like the map is higher than the background
i also think that its to dark

I understand what you mean. I think it's mainly because I put a drop-shadow underneath it.

Either way, I prefer the standard clean edges over these burnt/torn ones.

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:34 am

I know that the original map maker said that we should not change the names but I cannot understand why people are putting all this effort to fix a map visually when the geography is all wrong.

Keyogi don't get me wrong, I don't mean to show disrespect towards your work because you know how much I appreciate you as a person and I also know that you have very good map making skills which I am sure will make this a better looking map.

But seeing Armenia and Georgia as part of Turkey just hurts. I cannot stomach this. Armenia has an ongoing dispute with Turkey because over a million Armenians were killed by the Turks in a genocide during the First World War. I am sure that any Armenian would be very offended to see his country form part of Turkey.

I would have preferred to see a totally new map of the region since the map cannot be fixed which is plain stupid and while we are at it I ask the original map maker why he doesn't want the names to be fixed???

I know that many people will not agree with me because all they care is how the map looks or how good it plays but since we are depicting a geographical part of the world that really exists the geography should be right. Sorry guys but I had to take that off my chest.

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:40 am

Ruben Cassar wrote:I know that the original map maker said that we should not change the names but I cannot understand why people are putting all this effort to fix a map visually when the geography is all wrong.

Keyogi don't get me wrong, I don't mean to show disrespect towards your work because you know how much I appreciate you as a person and I also know that you have very good map making skills which I am sure will make this a better looking map.

But seeing Armenia and Georgia as part of Turkey just hurts. I cannot stomach this. Armenia has an ongoing dispute with Turkey because over a million Armenians were killed by the Turks in a genocide during the First World War. I am sure that any Armenian would be very offended to see his country form part of Turkey.

I would have preferred to see a totally new map of the region since the map cannot be fixed which is plain stupid and while we are at it I ask the original map maker why he doesn't want the names to be fixed???

I know that many people will not agree with me because all they care is how the map looks or how good it plays but since we are depicting a geographical part of the world that really exists the geography should be right. Sorry guys but I had to take that off my chest.

I actually agree with that.

And if the original map maker actually let you change names, what would you call the area that is now Turkey? What would replace it?

Teya · Post by **Teya** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:46 am

and the original map maker has already said no name changes. PM him if its such an issue for you guys. Keyogi seems happy enough to leave them as is and just play with the graphics.

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:46 am

Well offhand I think the best solution for that area would be to create a new continent called Caucasus and add Armenia, Azebaijan, Georgia and the territory currently called Caucasia (which could probably be named something else) but perhaps some more research should be put into this.

Anyway it's useless discussing this unless the original map maker gives the go ahead.

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:48 am

Teya wrote:and the original map maker has already said no name changes. PM him if its such an issue for you guys. Keyogi seems happy enough to leave them as is and just play with the graphics.

I am already aware of that Teya. I just wanted to post that comment because I felt I had to. Maybe if the original map maker sees it he will respond himself but I don't intend to chase him with private messages.

Teya · Post by **Teya** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:49 am

I dont think he has paid much attention to the thread.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:43 am

I think the main problem with opening up the option for name changes is that this thing would never get completed. Everyone would argue about it for months while the map sat there unchanged. Creating new continents would definately be out of the equation because it would have a major impact on gameplay.

SkyCaptain · Post by **SkyCaptain** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:34 am

Just a thought. Maybe you could write, "Graphics by Keyogi" instead of revamped. I like that better, and it makes it clearer that you drew it, and he came up with the concept.

SkyCaptain · Post by **SkyCaptain** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:36 am

I know it was partially my idea to put in the burnt, but the problem is that it's intruding into the map. If we want to keep it, it needs to be softer and closer to the edges.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:42 am

Wisse wrote:i don't like that effect, on the north it looks like the white is higher than the map, and on the south it looks like the map is higher than the background
i also think that its to dark

yea- i think the edges cut too much off, and that they are too dark. i still like the idea, but they need to blend better.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:06 am

March 28
- Large XML done

Comments
While waiting for more feedback on the edges I've worked on the XML. I'm just focusing on the large version for the moment until the final design is set so I'm not making major updates to two versions of the map.

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:18 am

I think the burnt edges looked very good to a degree, but they were a bit too much. As others said, perhaps they were just too dark. However think the biggest problem was that it was an even black border all the way around the whole map.

If it was actually an old map, maybe some edges would be burnt and torn as much as you showed. However others would be in better shape, maybe just a bit tattered. Going for such an effect would prevent the appearance of it simply being a black border, and I think it would make everything look better. I do love the little burnt holes you added in, and I think that system has a lot of potential.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:25 am

I expiremented for quite some time on the best way to do the edges. First thing I felt was that the edge needed to go all the way around and it needed to be consistent. It looked very strange having some very worn parts and some cleaner edges. I guess I'll aim for somewhere in the middle. :wink:

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:31 am

KEYOGI wrote:I expiremented for quite some time on the best way to do the edges. First thing I felt was that the edge needed to go all the way around and it needed to be consistent. It looked very strange having some very worn parts and some cleaner edges. I guess I'll aim for somewhere in the middle.

Maybe if the map was laying on a table. That way the paper would have something to lay on and the drop shadow could be on the table too. The perspective would be better i think. Just a suggestion.

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:33 am

I think it tattered edges can go all the way around, its just the even-ness of the burns that looks strange I think.

Heres some examples I just looked up quickly-

I think the general discoloration and transition between light and dark areas it what stands apart from the burned edges you made and actual burnt/worn paper. Don't get me wrong though, I'm still amazed by how realistic your burned edges look!