SIEGE! - PSD available - [Quenched]

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:50 am

For the record i had a dig at Teya because of the way she/he/it speaks to people...A little more manners wouldnt hurt im sure. Espically after a person spends countless hours working on a map

Im sure she/he/it wouldnt appreciate being spoken to in that manner. Thats the only reason i was a little upset. Every thread i have ever checked same thing apart from yours keyogi (are you related?)

- sully800 in a earlier thread did mention the graphics where perfect.
- unriggable was i believe takin the piss ( i think he is english..will check later)
and as for dim here is his qoute:

i was the other one Wink
but since you implemented the perspective bridges near the tent camp i does not bother me that much.

So i believe its just Keyogi and Teya who want he changes. 2 or 3 people out of a whole thread. Because im sure if it wasnt working alot more people would speak up as they have done in other maps...What do you think.

Anyway this discussion is boring me now.

I repeat the only reason i had a "dig" at Teya is because of the way she speaks to other map makers and posts etc.....

Spockers · Post by **Spockers** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:01 am

I agree that the trees are out of perspective.

An easy fix would be just to flip the map around.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:34 am

Okay, here's a quick 2 minute hack job to show how dramatically the map is improved with the right perspective. Obviously, with the original layered image it would be easy enough to come up with a proper example of what I just showed.

hulmey wrote:Im sure she/he/it wouldnt appreciate being spoken to in that manner. Thats the only reason i was a little upset. Every thread i have ever checked same thing apart from yours keyogi (are you related?)

We know each other. My maps get plenty of constructive critisism from Teya without it being posted in the foundry.

I've also seen Teya offer plenty of friendly advice in other threads as well. Now lets stop bickering in mibi's thread and get back on topic.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:45 am

sorry dont like it...but the wood camp looks better

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:55 am

hulmey wrote:sorry dont like it...but the wood camp looks better

Which part don't you like? The fact that it has been rotated?

I don't think the map will ever look right because it's a mix of 3D and 2D.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:04 am

coz the tunnels look weird now....it could work though...

If mibi would like to try it!!!!

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:36 am

hulmey wrote:coz the tunnels look weird now....it could work though...

If mibi would like to try it!!!!

Kind of looks like a mine shaft when it has been rotated.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:41 am

*looks at KEYOGI's map*

*Takes off his glasses*

My God...

EDIT: Okay, now that I've had time to collect my thoughts. I don't think that is going to work... The main problem with it for me is if the castle is on the bottom I'm not going to feel like I'm laying siege to the castle, I feel like I'm defending it.

The reason is probably psychological. When the castle was on top it was easy to envision myself attacking it from the bottom. Now that the castle is on the bottom it feels more like I'm already at the castle and I'm trying to keep all those nasty outside people out.

I'm going to get out of the perspective is wrong camp, nobody thought I was in it anyway judging by the list earlier. Playability wise the map was much more logical as a siege map the way it was before this whole discussion started.

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:51 am

Coleman wrote:Okay, now that I've had time to collect my thoughts. I don't think that is going to work... The main problem with it for me is if the castle is on the bottom I'm not going to feel like I'm laying siege to the castle, I feel like I'm defending it.

I understand what you mean, it is a seige map rather than a castle map afterall.

I'm still sticking with my opinion that the mix of 3D and 2D looks weird though.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:27 am

KEYOGI wrote:Okay, here's a quick 2 minute hack job to show how dramatically the map is improved with the right perspective. Obviously, with the original layered image it would be easy enough to come up with a proper example of what I just showed.

hulmey wrote:Im sure she/he/it wouldnt appreciate being spoken to in that manner. Thats the only reason i was a little upset. Every thread i have ever checked same thing apart from yours keyogi (are you related?)
We know each other. My maps get plenty of constructive critisism from Teya without it being posted in the foundry.

I've also seen Teya offer plenty of friendly advice in other threads as well. Now lets stop bickering in mibi's thread and get back on topic.

Actually I wouldn't mind seeing a version like this...

I did understand what you were trying to do, Mibi, but I was under the impression that it would be the castle that would be made 3d, not such a simple alteration as turning the map upside down. I really think Keyogi's suggestion looks 100% better.

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:35 am

I'll have to agree with Coleman though, when you use Keyogi's perspective the idea of a siege is not there. It's psychological as he said but in every siege painting that you see the castle is in the upper part of the picture.

Keyogi's version seems more like a castle map than a siege map and the tunnel does look kind of odd in it too. To use that perspective it would have to be completely redesigned.

Guiscard · Post by **Guiscard** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:16 am

Do you not think it looks more like defending a siege than attacking?

Why not stick a few siege engines in some of the more empty areas like the plains...

Ruben Cassar · Post by **Ruben Cassar** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:36 am

Guiscard wrote:Do you not think it looks more like defending a siege than attacking?

Why not stick a few siege engines in some of the more empty areas like the plains...

Agreed. What I meant is that when Keyogi's perspective is used it looks even more like defending a castle.

I think the original perspective should be used and some siege engines put into the map. Should they be used as eye candy or as a playable area though?

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:11 am

here's how i'd really want a siege map to look like. i don't think it's really that hard to add perspective to the whole map.

PS: i'm bored.

No Risk No Fun · Post by **No Risk No Fun** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:58 pm

Coleman wrote:*looks at KEYOGI's map*

*Takes off his glasses*

My God...

EDIT: Okay, now that I've had time to collect my thoughts. I don't think that is going to work... The main problem with it for me is if the castle is on the bottom I'm not going to feel like I'm laying siege to the castle, I feel like I'm defending it.

The reason is probably psychological. When the castle was on top it was easy to envision myself attacking it from the bottom. Now that the castle is on the bottom it feels more like I'm already at the castle and I'm trying to keep all those nasty outside people out.

I'm going to get out of the perspective is wrong camp, nobody thought I was in it anyway judging by the list earlier. Playability wise the map was much more logical as a siege map the way it was before this whole discussion started.

i agree, but i'd also like to add that after seeing this map with the castle on top, it is kind of weird looking at it the other way and it just doesn't feel right.

Qwert · Post by **Qwert** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:36 am

Mibi, i have sugestion how to finish these perspective problem, just put vote pool with question do you like these perspective map, i belive that mayor population agree with these perspective.

Kaleidoscopio · Post by **Kaleidoscopio** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:21 am

I believe this to be a beautifull map.
The textures are great and the perspective is right.
If you had gone full 3D, it would be confusing.
2D makes it easier to play.

The only 3D I see is the "decor", which doesn't affect the game in any way.

This whole perspective issue seems a bit void to me.
Putting the map upside down, his also a bad idea, as some of you already pointed out, it makes more sense to have the castle at the "top" of the map.

Good work, looking forward to see this map in action.

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:41 am

Kaleidoscopio wrote:I believe this to be a beautifull map.
The textures are great and the perspective is right.
If you had gone full 3D, it would be confusing.
2D makes it easier to play.

The only 3D I see is the "decor", which doesn't affect the game in any way.

This whole perspective issue seems a bit void to me.
Putting the map upside down, his also a bad idea, as some of you already pointed out, it makes more sense to have the castle at the "top" of the map.

Good work, looking forward to see this map in action.

The perspective is certainly not right.

You can say that it doesn't matter to you, but to many others it makes everything look 'off'. As KEYOGI has pointed out, to keep the castle 2D and have the perspective be correct, it would require the castle being at the bottom of the map, and then as you look into the distance objects (the trees etc) appear more and more three dimensional.

I don't really see why having the castle at the top or the bottom makes people feel like they are attacking it or defending it (or why that difference matters). Once you are playing the game and you have your own armies on the map you will either be attacking or defending based on whether your armies are inside or outside of the castle.

After all, the fact that its called a seige simply implies that the castle is being attacked. In any game someone will be attacking and someone defending (and a great mix of the two) so I would definitely like to see a version with the castle at the bottom. It will make all the perspective issues look much better IMO.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:12 pm

i think best thing to do would make a vote as well..Because its going to require alot of work and i think the majority of people dont want to see the map at the bottom of the map

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:13 pm

Colored shields or grey shields?

Colored
36% [ 14 ]
Grey
63% [ 24 ]

Total Votes : 38

--Andy

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:40 pm

hulmey wrote:i think best thing to do would make a vote as well..Because its going to require alot of work and i think the majority of people dont want to see the map at the bottom of the map

For it to be a poll that reflects anything of value I think you would need to create to other version first so they can be compared side by side. Without seeing the actual image first how are people going to know which one they like better?

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 11:58 pm

sully800 wrote:For it to be a poll that reflects anything of value I think you would need to create to other version first so they can be compared side by side. Without seeing the actual image first how are people going to know which one they like better?

I couldn't agree more. I think there has been enough discussion on the issue to at least warrant a look at an alternative.

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:43 am

I'd rather just make all the elements flat than flip the whole map which as others have said, changes the psychology of the map. When the fortress is on the bottom, forward movement appears to be from the fortress outward. Which would be cool if the map were about sieging the outlying lands from the fortress, but its not. When I get back, I will try to make the 3D elements flat, but it seems altogether silly to start flipping the whole map around just to satisfy some peoples perspective hangups.

Sorry, I'm not feeling the upside down map.

sully800 · Post by **sully800** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:46 am

mibi wrote:I'd rather just make all the elements flat than flip the whole map which as others have said, changes the psychology of the map. When the fortress is on the bottom, forward movement appears to be from the fortress outward. Which would be cool if the map were about sieging the outlying lands from the fortress, but its not. When I get back, I will try to make the 3D elements flat, but it seems altogether silly to start flipping the whole map around just to satisfy some peoples perspective hangups.

Sorry, I'm not feeling the upside down map.

I guess I just don't understand why up seems to be the direction people think they are travelling. If the castle is at the top you are attacking upward against it but if the castle is at the bottom you are attacking upward out of it?

I just don't get that feeling. I think you will be attacking in whatever direction your armies are actually attacking. It doesn't matter if the castle is at the top, bottom left right or center. Some people will be seiging the castle and others will be defending it.

Anyway, I would be happy to see a version with a complete aerial view because I think it will solve the perspective issues as well. However I don't think it will look as good as the effect you currently have, and it will probably be as much or more work then switching the castle location.

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:05 pm

sully800 wrote: I guess I just don't understand why up seems to be the direction people think they are travelling. If the castle is at the top you are attacking upward against it but if the castle is at the bottom you are attacking upward out of it?[

I just don't get that feeling. I think you will be attacking in whatever direction your armies are actually attacking. It doesn't matter if the castle is at the top, bottom left right or center. Some people will be seiging the castle and others will be defending it.

That is just the way the brain works. If you ever watch a movie and person is moving from left to right then it is generally assumed they are going forward, if they are moving from right to left then they are going backwards, psychologically, not physically. I think it has to do with out brains, reading left to right.