Conquer Club

Also - to point out - you're missing NZ - but have managed to get Hawaii in?!

C.

yeti_c wrote:Also - to point out - you're missing NZ - but have managed to get Hawaii in?!

C.

not only that, but it looks like one of the globes is covering Easter Island !
This is TERRIBLE!!!

how did this ever get to final forge in this horrid state? jk

yeti_c wrote:Also - to point out - you're missing NZ - but have managed to get Hawaii in?!

C.

Part of New Zealand was being cur off, and the general opinion was that it was better not to have it at all.

Keep the 'Anchorage and Magadan' line in, it may look slightly out of place, but it still looks fine. If the intention is for this map to be the flagship map of the site, making it softly beginner-friendly on the eyes is good.

I'd prefer NZ to be visible, but if making it visible has already been tried, and no good solution was found, then so be it.

Everything else looks fine to me.

yeti_c wrote:remove the "Anchorage and Magadan are connected" bit at the top - because it's completely out of place...

ALSO - seriously - DO WE NEED IT?

Yes, actually I'd say we do. Or, more precisely, we don't, but some people do. This is supposed to be(come) the flagship map, the #1 map that all new players are drawn to. As such the rules and gameplay of the map should be crystal clear to anyone.

natty_dread wrote:

yeti_c wrote:remove the "Anchorage and Magadan are connected" bit at the top - because it's completely out of place...

ALSO - seriously - DO WE NEED IT?

Yes, actually I'd say we do. Or, more precisely, we don't, but some people do. This is supposed to be(come) the flagship map, the #1 map that all new players are drawn to. As such the rules and gameplay of the map should be crystal clear to anyone.

If you MUST have it - then at least move it away from above the title...

It looks like a subtext where it is...

In my eyes it completely spoils the look of the entire map - because it's the only text on there other than names...

I'd rather have some arrows - or "To Madagan" on the arrow.

C.

yeti_c wrote:I'd rather have some arrows - or "To Madagan" on the arrow.

C.

Right, similar to what is on World 2.1?


--Andy

We started with notes on the lines back when the connection was between NY and London. The problem is space on the side of the map, especially on the Anchorage side. I can move the note somewhere else, but I think the top left is the most fitting (bottom center has some room but it would look odd there). And I also think that like the continent lables the note is not really necessary. BUT we want to make sure thta this map is easy to figure out, even if someone has never played the game before so it should be as self explanatory as possible.

MrBenn wrote:Bumping the latest image:

[bigimg]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/4912/classic9l.jpg[/bigimg]

Robinette wrote:okay... here's a list of tiny details if you want to bother with making some tweeks...

* Dakar, Cairo & Dubai circles all appear way brighter, and a few others to a lesser degree... i know it's due to the background desert, but it would be nice to see that tweeked a bit...

I agree with legs.

maybe you can do something with the lighting so the background doesn't affect the circle brightness. I'm not sure. Either way, I think it's a good idea to get the circles to decide the brightness so any/every number combination on top of the circle will look good and consistent throughout the map


edit: btw, if it's not possible to do the above, I would say it's not absurd of me to suggest they be done manually since this is a "flagship" map. So I suggest that. I also suggest better sentence structure on my part

edbeard wrote:I also suggest better sentence structure on my part

And better punctuation, too?

sully800 wrote:We started with notes on the lines back when the connection was between NY and London. The problem is space on the side of the map, especially on the Anchorage side. I can move the note somewhere else, but I think the top left is the most fitting (bottom center has some room but it would look odd there). And I also think that like the continent lables the note is not really necessary. BUT we want to make sure thta this map is easy to figure out, even if someone has never played the game before so it should be as self explanatory as possible.

I say remove it then.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

yeti_c wrote:remove the "Anchorage and Magadan are connected" bit at the top - because it's completely out of place...

ALSO - seriously - DO WE NEED IT?

Yes, actually I'd say we do. Or, more precisely, we don't, but some people do. This is supposed to be(come) the flagship map, the #1 map that all new players are drawn to. As such the rules and gameplay of the map should be crystal clear to anyone.

If you MUST have it - then at least move it away from above the title...

It looks like a subtext where it is...

In my eyes it completely spoils the look of the entire map - because it's the only text on there other than names...

I'd rather have some arrows - or "To Madagan" on the arrow.

C.

yeap, i don't like the text either.

How about getting rid of the text and simply having a little opaque mig fighter off the coast of Russia and a little F15 fighter off the coast of North America. Each tiny 'cloud-like', arrow shaped aircraft facing toward the opposing territory.

jiminski wrote:How about getting rid of the text and simply having a little opaque mig fighter off the coast of Russia and a little F15 fighter off the coast of North America. Each tiny 'cloud-like', arrow shaped aircraft facing toward the opposing territory.

That could work.

C>

PS - Hey Jim - good to see ya round these parts - I thought you'd left?

I think the text is just fine as is. It took quite a while for anyone to join in your side, yeti_c, so I think you and jiminski are in a small minority. And frankly, I think tiny fighter planes would really spoil the map.

ender516 wrote:I think the text is just fine as is. It took quite a while for anyone to join in your side, yeti_c, so I think you and jiminski are in a small minority. And frankly, I think tiny fighter planes would really spoil the map.

We've been talking about the distracting and non-organic nature of that text for a while now End, have a look back through. And remember that even one person with a compelling argument still has a compelling argument.

It may help if you try to consider the little fighters as more like clouds formed in the jet stream. They would need to be subtle and not much more than an extension of the battle line; just enough to indicate that there is a two way attack between Mag. and Anch.

This may seem minor but it is important, the map has become something so much more than when i first saw it and that tiny little nuance detracts and distracts.


P.S. Hello Yeti, i just do the odd hit and run in this thread once in a while, i'm just a little ghost monki

jiminski wrote:

ender516 wrote:I think the text is just fine as is. It took quite a while for anyone to join in your side, yeti_c, so I think you and jiminski are in a small minority. And frankly, I think tiny fighter planes would really spoil the map.

We've been talking about the distracting and non-organic nature of that text for a while now End, have a look back through. And remember that even one person with a compelling argument still has a compelling argument.

It may help if you try to consider the little fighters as more like clouds formed in the jet stream. They would need to be subtle and not much more than an extension of the battle line; just enough to indicate that there is a two way attack between Mag. and Anch.

This may seem minor but it is important, the map has become something so much more than when i first saw it and that tiny little nuance detracts and distracts.

P.S. Hello Yeti, i just do the odd hit and run in this thread once in a while, i'm just a little ghost monki

Well, I have been following the development of this map since well back into the World Cities phase, and I don't recall much discussion of that text recently. I don't find the text distracting. Since the connection is near the top of the map, I think the explanation should be there as well. If, and I do mean IF, the text were to be removed, then ordinary arrowheads would be a suitable replacement. That way, there can be little confusion: "Oh I saw those lines go into a cloud bank and I didn't know that they connected." I really don't think this map needs a particularly militaristic flavour added to it. I prefer to think of taking over the cities with hordes of tourists and migrant workers who peacefully overwhelm the municipal resources.

Besides, doesn't everyone know the world is round?
Maybe the lines could just be enough, even for beginners. This is different from non-geographical maps where everything needs a proper explanation.

I have one more thing to add on a totally different topic, though I might be wrong.
Shouldn't the lines Montreal - Reykjavik and Sao Paulo - Dakar bend the other way? And for that matter, Magadan - Anchorage aswell?
They represent flight routes (or sort of). When planes cover large distances length-wise (as in E-W, not N-S), they fly along circles of latitude - or close to them. With the earth's 3D to 2D projection used for this map, those routes would be bent away from the equator.
Or in other words, if you draw a straight longitudinal line on a 2D map, you don't have the shortest flight route, as you'd approach the equator in the middle of your flight, where the earth's circumference is larger.
The lines on this map even approach the equator in 2D - thus you're covering a much larger distance than necessary in 3D. I don't know if this choice was made in relation to design. I don't think it would matter between Sao Paolo and Dakar, maybe it would between Reykjavik and Montreal.

But it's something to consider.

On a completely differnt note, it seems to me that the Lagos 88 isnt quite central in the circle and maybe needs to be shifted up a bit.

yeti_c wrote:

natty_dread wrote:

yeti_c wrote:remove the "Anchorage and Magadan are connected" bit at the top - because it's completely out of place...

ALSO - seriously - DO WE NEED IT?

Yes, actually I'd say we do. Or, more precisely, we don't, but some people do. This is supposed to be(come) the flagship map, the #1 map that all new players are drawn to. As such the rules and gameplay of the map should be crystal clear to anyone.

If you MUST have it - then at least move it away from above the title...

It looks like a subtext where it is...

In my eyes it completely spoils the look of the entire map - because it's the only text on there other than names...

I'd rather have some arrows - or "To Madagan" on the arrow.

C.

I entirely second yeti.

Hellooooo! Here's the long awaited but simple update. Most of the time was spent on the Large XML - after uploading the images I realized I forgot most of the intended changes.

I added notes "To Anchorage" and "To Magadan". It's a tight fit, but I think it's less obtrusive and more helpful than the old note. Let me know if it needs to be tweaked (I think the Magadan on the Large needs to be nudged to the right)

To do: Uncover New Zealand, bump over the Johannesburg army circle

[bigimg]http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/5019/classic10l.jpg[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6138/picture9q.png[/bigimg]

sully800 wrote:Hellooooo! Here's the long awaited but simple update. Most of the time was spent on the Large XML - after uploading the images I realized I forgot most of the intended changes.

I added notes "To Anchorage" and "To Magadan". It's a tight fit, but I think it's less obtrusive and more helpful than the old note. Let me know if it needs to be tweaked (I think the Magadan on the Large needs to be nudged to the right)

To do: Uncover New Zealand, bump over the Johannesburg army circle

[bigimg]http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/5019/classic10l.jpg[/bigimg]

[bigimg]http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6138/picture9q.png[/bigimg]

I think the "to xxx" statements should be right side up (not tilted or curved), maybe with an arrow. I'm not a fan of the black stroke on "CLASSIC" either. And I prefer the more saturated version. This is awesome! Let's get this in play before the fourth anniversary.

I think the black on the title is just fine, and I think the difference in saturation has to do with the process of running the troop number tests and capturing that image.

ender516 wrote:I think the black on the title is just fine, and I think the difference in saturation has to do with the process of running the troop number tests and capturing that image.

Yes. But I also see no real difference in saturation, so either my eyes or bad or different monitors have different views. Probably the latter, which reminds me of the 'black' territories on the Germany revamp where I and many others could read the map text with no problem, yet some people were posting that it looked like black on black and they couldn't read a thing.

Anyway, the version that will be sent to lack will be a jpeg like the first one, so that is probably the kind of saturation we'll be going with. After I use the XML tool to place the army numbers I take a screenshot and then upload that png file for the second pic, so any difference in saturation is based on hosting the image capturing and then hosting in a different format.

I want a Classic map revamp for Christmas.
Only a Classic map revamp will dooooo.

Well, okay, I suppose if forced to decide, I'd take a hippopotamus over a classic map revamp. But only barely.

no thoughts on the idea to make sure all the army circles are the same in terms of brightness/colour?

It doesn't matter what's underneath as there's always going to be army numbers over them