Conquer Club

Frankly, I thought it was fine as it was, but I don't mind adjusting the XML coordinates if that's what The Bison King decides he wants. I just want to make sure this is what everyone wants before I go about making XML changes at every graphical edit. Can we get a CA in here for some finality on the matter?

-Sully

no solution is ever optimal
but this one will be easier to play

anyway the graphics are great
so go with it

let's play

Like Pamoa said the current version is easier to play, I don't have problems with the current graphics.
Btw, just in case you're going to change only the coords,the current xml is missing some borders:
- Missing border between Oakland and San Francisco
- Missing border between Burbank and Central

We noticed that you have also some bonuses in the xml that are not used on the map (from 6 cities to 9 cities), there's a reason to have them into the file?

Nobodies

Fixed the borders and continents. Will work on coordinates soon enough.

-Sully

natty_dread wrote:The slanted inset just doesn't look right.

How so? Simply because it's not a perfect square or rectangle?

Looks great!

ironsij0287 wrote:

natty_dread wrote:The slanted inset just doesn't look right.

How so? Simply because it's not a perfect square or rectangle?

Because there's the other inset that is square, the upper inset just looks clipped, like someone took scissors to it. It just looks unnatural, it gives the map a feel like all the elements don't fit in properly, so the maker had to do some duct-tape fixes on it... in a word, it look shoddy.

Kinda like when a kid tries to write his name but forgets a letter in between, then writes the forgotten letter with a little arrow pointing where the letter is supposed to be...

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

natty_dread wrote:

ironsij0287 wrote:

natty_dread wrote:The slanted inset just doesn't look right.

How so? Simply because it's not a perfect square or rectangle?

Because there's the other inset that is square, the upper inset just looks clipped, like someone took scissors to it. It just looks unnatural, it gives the map a feel like all the elements don't fit in properly, so the maker had to do some duct-tape fixes on it... in a word, it look shoddy.

Kinda like when a kid tries to write his name but forgets a letter in between, then writes the forgotten letter with a little arrow pointing where the letter is supposed to be...

But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

I disagree. I think it's a savvy and streamlined use of white space on the map. It doesn't degrade the area shown within the inset and by having a full border all the way around still offers uniformity with the other inset albeit not by shape. Forcing the Bay Area to be a square area would be more unnatural and make the overall flow more cumbersome to look at.

Also, let's not forget - let's *not* forget, Dude - that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either.

ironsij0287 wrote:I disagree. I think it's a savvy and streamlined use of white space on the map. It doesn't degrade the area shown within the inset and by having a full border all the way around still offers uniformity with the other inset albeit not by shape. Forcing the Bay Area to be a square area would be more unnatural and make the overall flow more cumbersome to look at.

No, that's a strawman argument. Making the inset square would only be cumbersome on the way the map is currently arranged.

I think it's silly to clip and cut the primary elements of the map (playable areas, title, legend) just to get the secondary elements (seals of state, bears, etc. that have no gameplay purpose) fit better. It's like, priorities are forgotten here.

What I suggest is making the insets square, moving the main map a bit to the right, then re-arranging all the other elements so that they fit optimally around the map and if you can't fit some of the elements comfortably, then just get rid of them or resize them - apart from the title and legend, none of the other elements are strictly necessary for the map, and thus they should not be the deciding factor for the layout design. And even the title & legend can still be resized and played around with.

The main point is, function must come before form, and not the other way around.

natty_dread wrote:

ironsij0287 wrote:I disagree. I think it's a savvy and streamlined use of white space on the map. It doesn't degrade the area shown within the inset and by having a full border all the way around still offers uniformity with the other inset albeit not by shape. Forcing the Bay Area to be a square area would be more unnatural and make the overall flow more cumbersome to look at.

No, that's a strawman argument. Making the inset square would only be cumbersome on the way the map is currently arranged.

I think it's silly to clip and cut the primary elements of the map (playable areas, title, legend) just to get the secondary elements (seals of state, bears, etc. that have no gameplay purpose) fit better. It's like, priorities are forgotten here.

What I suggest is making the insets square, moving the main map a bit to the right, then re-arranging all the other elements so that they fit optimally around the map and if you can't fit some of the elements comfortably, then just get rid of them or resize them - apart from the title and legend, none of the other elements are strictly necessary for the map, and thus they should not be the deciding factor for the layout design. And even the title & legend can still be resized and played around with.

The main point is, function must come before form, and not the other way around.

The area in the inset that was cut out was rather inconsequential to the map itself. Had the inset been greatly scaled back and altered to accomodate secondary elements then yes I would see an issue. But other than some minimal cropping in one corner it didn't effect any of the primary elements much at all and allowed better placement of the secondary elements.

This isn't 'Nam Smokey. There are rules.

ironsij0287 wrote:The area in the inset that was cut out was rather inconsequential to the map itself. Had the inset been greatly scaled back and altered to accomodate secondary elements then yes I would see an issue. But other than some minimal cropping in one corner it didn't effect any of the primary elements much at all and allowed better placement of the secondary elements.

The point is, clipping the inset looks ugly. It makes the map look shoddy, like the mapmaker just ran out of space and squeezed that inset in at the last minute. The insets, main map, title & legend should be the elements with higher priority. When the only reason to make one of the insets look bad is to give more room for other, less important elements, then priorities are not being followed.

But I'm done arguing about this, I've made my opinion clear. TBK will either take my advice or not, it's up to him.

natty_dread wrote:But I'm done arguing about this, I've made my opinion clear.

You mean you don't want to keep arguing in circles over this?

Really I just want California (and others) to hit Beta so we get some new maps to play.

Some interesting points from both of you guys, but I think I'm going to proceed with the current version. I think it is the most efficient use of the space, and I like the rhythm it generates by paralleling the diagonal shape of California itself.

Honestly, I'm with natty on this one, but I respect your decision as mapmaker, TBK. I'll get the XML a-cookin' soon.

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:Honestly, I'm with natty on this one, but I respect your decision as mapmaker, TBK. I'll get the XML a-cookin' soon.

-Sully

Thanks, Cadet! I look forward to seeing it.


Which reminds me, are we going to have to re-submit the XML or simply update the old post?

The Bison King wrote:....are we going to have to re-submit the XML or simply update the old post?

If you want to use the old link please remember to send me a PM.

thenobodies80 wrote:

The Bison King wrote:....are we going to have to re-submit the XML or simply update the old post?

If you want to use the old link please remember to send me a PM.

K

Love the Map ... and California, I too also would like to move there.

The Bison King wrote:Some interesting points from both of you guys, but I think I'm going to proceed with the current version. I think it is the most efficient use of the space, and I like the rhythm it generates by paralleling the diagonal shape of California itself.

Yes .. The inset angle paralleling the Nevada border is right on..

My girlfriend was talking to me about living in California and naming off places... my only resource for knowing where any of these places are was the mental image of this map. You've made a lasting impression

Let's hope we can play it soon!

Industrial Helix wrote:My girlfriend was talking to me about living in California and naming off places... my only resource for knowing where any of these places are was the mental image of this map. You've made a lasting impression

Let's hope we can play it soon!

Nice! that's awesome!

Also you should do it, maybe I'll join you out there in a couple years. Not that there's anything wrong with Ohio! but, I mean... yeah... California.

Last time I checked, IH moved away from the United States; why would he go back for California? I mean, JAPAN?? Dude. Just, dude.

Anywho, XML update! http://www.fileden.com/files/2010/12/18 ... ornia7.xml


-Sully

Yup, I've already checked it and everything looks good to me. Here are the sample images:

[bigimg]http://img806.imageshack.us/img806/5273/picture1os.png[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/1934/picture2cq.png[/bigimg]

Oh, I haven't looked at this in a while, but it looks great! Well done!

I actually like the clipped inset... it would be nice if the diagonal line ran parallel to California's coast, but no biggie really.