[Official] Canada REVAMP [Quenched]

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:52 pm

WM....are you able to do anything that will replace army circles on this map?

It might solve a lot of issues for the sight-impaired.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:42 pm

Can i get an answer as to why no one was complaining about the old map please? The new maps colors are actually lighter then the old one. Why the big deal now?

The Fuzzy Pengui · Post by **The Fuzzy Pengui** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:56 pm

I love the new map....no reason to complain about the old because it isn't around anymore....great job WM!

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:58 pm

The Fuzzy Pengui wrote:I love the new map....no reason to complain about the old because it isn't around anymore....great job WM!

I don't care if people don't like it. I just don't understand how it is harder to read than the old map. That is what i want explained. Why rebelman did not complain about this for the last year.

Here is the old map with all blue

And the new one

WM

Tisha · Post by **Tisha** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:01 pm

there was the poll...if people want to have a say on the maps and revamps, they just need to pay attention to what is going on in here. i don't think i would like complete army circles, maybe just a glow behind the armies.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:04 pm

WidowMakers wrote:Can i get an answer as to why no one was complaining about the old map please? The new maps colors are actually lighter then the old one. Why the big deal now?

I can't speak for anyone else but I have never had any trouble reading army numbers on the old canada map (or any other map I have played) whereas I have a huge problem reading them on the new one. I have experienced this problem other places in the past but since I joined cc the closest I have to experiencing this problem was the red numbering in d day but is was nowhere near as difficult to read as this one is. In its current format to me as good as it looks this map is totally unplayable for me anyway (and I assume others like me).

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:06 pm

Tisha wrote:there was the poll...if people want to have a say on the maps and revamps, they just need to pay attention to what is going on in here. i don't think i would like complete army circles, maybe just a glow behind the armies.

I don't want to have circles either. The issue with the glow is that it would need to be big enough to show "88". Thus it would turn out to be an army circle.

WM

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:08 pm

rebelman wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:Can i get an answer as to why no one was complaining about the old map please? The new maps colors are actually lighter then the old one. Why the big deal now?
I can't speak for anyone else but I have never had any trouble reading army numbers on the old canada map (or any other map I have played) whereas I have a huge problem reading them on the new one. I have experienced this problem other places in the past but since I joined cc the closest I have to experiencing this problem was the red numbering in d day but is was nowhere near as difficult to read as this one is. In its current format to me as good as it looks this map is totally unplayable for me anyway (and I assume others like me).

You still have not answered my question. WHY IS IT HARDER TO READ?

The maps have the same colors. The new map is actually lighter in areas. How are the numbers harder to read on the new map in the red and blue areas? Please tell me that. I find it hard to believe that the old map with blue numbers (the one I posted) is easier to read then the new one.

WM

Gold Knight · Post by **Gold Knight** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:15 pm

I realize that a lot of hard work went into this, and I applaud your efforts WM, but Im not a fan of the map either. It looks way too highlighted now, and I for one liked the way the old map looked. Im probably not going to play that map anymore.

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:16 pm

Gold Knight wrote:I realize that a lot of hard work went into this, and I applaud your efforts WM, but Im not a fan of the map either. It looks way too highlighted now, and I for one liked the way the old map looked. Im probably not going to play that map anymore.

Thats fine. Just please someone tell me how the OLD map is HARDER to READ than the NEW map!

WM

Gold Knight · Post by **Gold Knight** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:21 pm

WidowMakers wrote:
Gold Knight wrote:I realize that a lot of hard work went into this, and I applaud your efforts WM, but Im not a fan of the map either. It looks way too highlighted now, and I for one liked the way the old map looked. Im probably not going to play that map anymore.
Thats fine. Just please someone tell me how the OLD map is HARDER to READ than the NEW map!

WM

See, I really dont think that is fine. If you revamp a map that was liked and now people dont want to play it anymore, Id say thats a problem. But thats just me...

0ojakeo0 · Post by **0ojakeo0** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:22 pm

i love the new one

Herakilla · Post by **Herakilla** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:22 pm

WM dont let it get to you if people hate it, all they hate is change and this is a good change

WidowMakers · Post by **WidowMakers** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:24 pm

Gold Knight wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:
Gold Knight wrote:I realize that a lot of hard work went into this, and I applaud your efforts WM, but Im not a fan of the map either. It looks way too highlighted now, and I for one liked the way the old map looked. Im probably not going to play that map anymore.
Thats fine. Just please someone tell me how the OLD map is HARDER to READ than the NEW map!

WM
See, I really dont think that is fine. If you revamp a map that was liked and now people dont want to play it anymore, Id say thats a problem. But thats just me...

It is fine because you can't please everyone. If you don't like it then FINE. I just want an explanation as to why you can't read the armies but never complained about the old map which clearly has the same (if not worse) issue.

Herakilla wrote:WM dont let it get to you if people hate it, all they hate is change and this is a good change

I am not letting it get to me. That is why I said it is fine if other people don't like it. I just don't want hem saying it is bad because of an issue that has been around since the old map and was never brought up.

WM

Gold Knight · Post by **Gold Knight** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:24 pm

Herakilla wrote:WM dont let it get to you if people hate it, all they hate is change and this is a good change

But the thing is, Ive liked all the other revamps that have come out so far. As I said, it shows he put in the time and effort to make it look better, but I dont think it looks better. Just an opinion, no need to think its anything personal, just doesnt appeal to me.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:32 pm

WidowMakers wrote:[
The maps have the same colors. The new map is actually lighter in areas. How are the numbers harder to read on the new map in the red and blue areas? Please tell me that. I find it hard to believe that the old map with blue numbers (the one I posted) is easier to read then the new one.

WM

outside of leting you look through my eyes i can't give you a simple answer - I suspect it is because of this lighter coloring that they blend together more - I sent a pm to cairns with the specific areas that I am having a problem with if you like I can PM you too. I am being totally honest when I say I never had a problem with reading the old canada map and I played it multiple times. If it was almost impossible to read like v2 I would never have played it again after my first visit.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:44 pm

can i add my 2 cents?

i have good eyes i would say perfect but perfection doesn't exist. but i can spot a fly from 100 yards (not really) and i can even see the back of my head (with 2 mirrors) so you can imagine i have no trouble reading the army numbers on wm's map. i don't have a problem on the original map either. BUT i agree they aren't the easiest maps to read. if i look at montreal or saguenay i realize the blue armies might cause problems for people that don't have good eyes. the thing i don't understand is how can people say the old map was more readable? in fact i believe the new version is easier to read. not by much and it can certainly be improved but it's still more readable.

after reading through various threads on this topic (including in flame forums) i think the readability is not the only issue here it's also about the style of the map. while some people seem to be quickly captured by the eye candy others seem to think all this google earth type revamp has destroyed the board game style of the original map that they loved.

i said this during the poll but nobody cared so i'll say it again. this style is bad. yes it looks good for a poster to hang on a wall and admire but i sure as hell wouldn't want to have this on my table and play with my friends on it.

regardless of these thoughts WM has worked hard to produce this map, he has provided updates and took care of the feedback he received (i'm still not happy about the purple instead of white). the maps stayed in production for more than a month. the foundry is an open forum free for all to visit. everybody had a chance to say something. if all the people that started complaining now would have voted on the revamp poll perhaps the results would have been different or perhaps not. the point is complaining now is useless. for all those that complain perhaps this should be a lesson, be more aware of what goes on in the foundry and you'll be able to give feedback when it is needed.

the visibility issue can simply be solved by a few army circles. wm can handle that with ease.

but it still remains the issue of the style. and the only solution to this matter is to have the option of choosing between the original map and the revamped map. that's easy to code. wm you have a close relation with lack, why don't you talk to him and convince him to do this?

Gold Knight · Post by **Gold Knight** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:54 pm

I agree with DiM, it was my fault for not going in here during in its production and giving my thoughts, which is why i realize not a whole lot can be done. But what about the people that come here to play and dont come on the forums? Not saying that its their fault for not checking the forums on occaision, but some come just to play, not to chat.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:57 pm

Gold Knight wrote:I agree with DiM, it was my fault for not going in here during in its production and giving my thoughts, which is why i realize not a whole lot can be done. But what about the people that come here to play and dont come on the forums? Not saying that its their fault for not checking the forums on occaision, but some come just to play, not to chat.

well for those people i suggest making both the revamp and the original available.

oaktown · Post by **oaktown** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:00 pm

Oakie the colorblind mapmaker here... I never played the original Canada so i can't speak to it, but I can see the blue numbers on the blue backgrounds on the new map pretty well. I do think that this may have been a good candidate for army shadows - or at least more haziness where the army counts go - because of both the colors and the fact that some locations have a busy background, eg. Resolute.

As I noted above, I never played the original Canada... since the look wasn't very polished I never bothered to see if the game play was polished. The new look may not be for everyone - I like it but i can see why others may not - but I bet in the long run it increases the popularity of what was a very dull-looking map.

Gold Knight · Post by **Gold Knight** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:01 pm

DiM wrote:
Gold Knight wrote:I agree with DiM, it was my fault for not going in here during in its production and giving my thoughts, which is why i realize not a whole lot can be done. But what about the people that come here to play and dont come on the forums? Not saying that its their fault for not checking the forums on occaision, but some come just to play, not to chat.
well for those people i suggest making both the revamp and the original available.

completely agree, but its enough trouble for Lack to run this site, without having multiples of each map available. I just think there should be a testing time for each map. If it receives mainly bad reviews, it can be scraped or improved upon. Im not saying the the majority dislike this map, but so far on the forums there has been a lot of hate on the map.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:03 pm

Gold Knight wrote:
DiM wrote:
Gold Knight wrote:I agree with DiM, it was my fault for not going in here during in its production and giving my thoughts, which is why i realize not a whole lot can be done. But what about the people that come here to play and dont come on the forums? Not saying that its their fault for not checking the forums on occaision, but some come just to play, not to chat.
well for those people i suggest making both the revamp and the original available.
completely agree, but its enough trouble for Lack to run this site, without having multiples of each map available. I just think there should be a testing time for each map. If it receives mainly bad reviews, it can be scraped or improved upon. Im not saying the the majority dislike this map, but so far on the forums there has been a lot of hate on the map.

i believe a testing facility for maps in production would be much harder to implement and supervise than allowing a map to have 2 versions

Gold Knight · Post by **Gold Knight** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:06 pm

DiM wrote:
Gold Knight wrote:
DiM wrote:
Gold Knight wrote:I agree with DiM, it was my fault for not going in here during in its production and giving my thoughts, which is why i realize not a whole lot can be done. But what about the people that come here to play and dont come on the forums? Not saying that its their fault for not checking the forums on occaision, but some come just to play, not to chat.
well for those people i suggest making both the revamp and the original available.
completely agree, but its enough trouble for Lack to run this site, without having multiples of each map available. I just think there should be a testing time for each map. If it receives mainly bad reviews, it can be scraped or improved upon. Im not saying the the majority dislike this map, but so far on the forums there has been a lot of hate on the map.
i believe a testing facility for maps in production would be much harder to implement and supervise than allowing a map to have 2 versions

I sort of agree, but i think you took my testing example the wrong way. Just leave the map as it is now, then set up a poll somewhere in the foundry whether others enjoy it or dislike it. It really wouldnt be that hard i dont think, and i think it would make for better maps if mapmakers could see it "constructively criticized" in actual gameplay.

rebelman · Post by **rebelman** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 8:35 pm

DiM wrote:the maps stayed in production for more than a month. the foundry is an open forum free for all to visit. everybody had a chance to say something. if all the people that started complaining now would have voted on the revamp poll perhaps the results would have been different or perhaps not. the point is complaining now is useless. for all those that complain perhaps this should be a lesson, be more aware of what goes on in the foundry and you'll be able to give feedback when it is needed.

i did not comment on this issue previously for one reason I thought this map was part of a competion in here, I never realised this map was going to be quenched to be played like the other maps I simply thought it was part of a design competion between cartographers - I would have raised the issue before it was ever quenched if I realised this was going to be a playable map. This was caused partly by my reading of the first post which only talks about a competition and secondly from my belief that the existing Canada map did not need replacing.

After the red armies issue I offered to look at all maps for such clashes prior to quenching (2 cartographers contacted me about this offer and i looked at their maps) that offer is still valid.

i have tried to give input around here but it is sometimes extremely difficult to do so. That said I will over the next few days go through all the maps in final forge and post my detailed observations so at least I will have raised my concerns prior to quenching.

Night Strike · Post by **Night Strike** » Mon Nov 05, 2007 11:02 pm

Night Strike wrote:I found a difference between the XML and map text. "Gaspes" on the right side of the map is listed as "Gaspe" in the XML. (Game 1121217)

It looks like this needs to be bumped up since it's an issue regardless of the colors. (And because I like WM missed it.)