Moderator: Cartographers
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong

I like them, and i think they fits just fine, they different from the boring small dots like everyone else does, and they are not to be mistakennatty_dread wrote:Those sea routes... make the dots smaller. They don't seem to fit the map as they are now...
Nope, they look awful. Sorry but they do.Flapcake wrote:I like them, and i think they fits just fine, they different from the boring small dots like everyone else does, and they are not to be mistakennatty_dread wrote:Those sea routes... make the dots smaller. They don't seem to fit the map as they are now...

I gladly receive constructive criticism, but criticism just for criticism, no thanks, you do not come with some better and different solutions than just "small dots" like all the other maps on CC, it's not going to happen sorry.natty_dread wrote:Nope, they look awful. Sorry but they do.Flapcake wrote:I like them, and i think they fits just fine, they different from the boring small dots like everyone else does, and they are not to be mistakennatty_dread wrote:Those sea routes... make the dots smaller. They don't seem to fit the map as they are now...
You shouldn't do things "different from everyone else" just for the sake of being different. Many times, people do things a certain way because it works. You are still new and looking for your own personal style... but don't force it, don't try too hard to be "different" - it will come out eventually.
The large dots give the map a juvenile look, they clash with the clean, solid style of your land, territories & sea... they simply do not look good on the map. They also make the map look more cluttered.
I think natty is being constructive. I agree that the river dots don't look very nice. I don't have a solution as of yet (other than smaller dots). Let me think aboit it.Flapcake wrote:I gladly receive constructive criticism, but criticism just for criticism, no thanks, you do not come with some better and different solutions than just "small dots" like all the other maps on CC, it's not going to happen sorry.natty_dread wrote:Nope, they look awful. Sorry but they do.Flapcake wrote:I like them, and i think they fits just fine, they different from the boring small dots like everyone else does, and they are not to be mistakennatty_dread wrote:Those sea routes... make the dots smaller. They don't seem to fit the map as they are now...
You shouldn't do things "different from everyone else" just for the sake of being different. Many times, people do things a certain way because it works. You are still new and looking for your own personal style... but don't force it, don't try too hard to be "different" - it will come out eventually.
The large dots give the map a juvenile look, they clash with the clean, solid style of your land, territories & sea... they simply do not look good on the map. They also make the map look more cluttered.
Flapcake
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
I was a newmapmaker once too, you know. I know what it's like... You have a vision for your map, and you think all your ideas are new and awesome...Flapcake wrote:I gladly receive constructive criticism, but criticism just for criticism, no thanks, you do not come with some better and different solutions than just "small dots" like all the other maps on CC, it's not going to happen sorry.natty_dread wrote: Nope, they look awful. Sorry but they do.
You shouldn't do things "different from everyone else" just for the sake of being different. Many times, people do things a certain way because it works. You are still new and looking for your own personal style... but don't force it, don't try too hard to be "different" - it will come out eventually.
The large dots give the map a juvenile look, they clash with the clean, solid style of your land, territories & sea... they simply do not look good on the map. They also make the map look more cluttered.
Flapcake


Cairns, show me where I have bullied anyone or forced anyone to do anything. I'm giving advice from my own experience, and I think you're reading things in my posts that aren't there. All I'm saying is, that as a new mapmaker, one should not try too hard to be "original" or to do things "differently" just for the sake of being different. More often than not, when everyone is doing a thing a certain way, there's a good reason for it.cairnswk wrote:And Natty, i've got to say i really think you are coming on too strong on your soapbox

Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Onya gimil.gimil wrote:I am going to ask that cairnswk and natty_dread take their issues to PM, before this thread spirals into something we don't want to see. I don't really see any bullying in this situation. Just a strong show of opinion. Natty_dread is making some reasonable points that should be reasonable addressed.
Now lets keep this map on track.
Cheers,
gimil


bridges, they are of different lengths, and the short does not look good with bridge pillars. the strokes are made quickly, they will be refined when I know Presis how they should looknatty_dread wrote:The others look good, but why does the one between Djursland/Holbaek have a weird extra curve? Looks like spaghetti...
Also, the length of the dashes doesn't seem to be even... it looks like you drew solid lines and then cut out the dashes with the eraser manually. I think you should ask someone who knows photoshop how to draw evenly spaced dashed lines. GIMP has a tool for stroking paths that lets you stroke them with dashed lines, I'm sure Photoshop has something similar...
Also, why are there two different types of bridges?
Bring all of your smaller bridges like this and make the longer ones with sea routes as you have them now (but niceTaCktiX wrote:I will say that I prefer the look of the bridges in the north and southeast of the map. They're simple, matching the style of the map. The others seem overly detailed, not fitting in as a result.

I also agree with this.TaCktiX wrote:I will say that I prefer the look of the bridges in the north and southeast of the map. They're simple, matching the style of the map. The others seem overly detailed, not fitting in as a result.
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
I also agree with this. Although those bridges should also be redrawn, the lines on them seem a bit chunky.gimil wrote:I also agree with this.TaCktiX wrote:I will say that I prefer the look of the bridges in the north and southeast of the map. They're simple, matching the style of the map. The others seem overly detailed, not fitting in as a result.


TaCktiX wrote:Much better, supports the clean map rather nicely! I still think that having exclamation points for most explanation is overkill! It's as if we're exceptionally excited about conquering Denmark! And killing those who would possibly stop us! And blood! And glory! And stuff! (that's how the exclamations come across to me, but I might be the only one)
