An Ancient Greek Revamp

[koontz1973]

Mr. K, send a PM to thenobodies80 and ask him what the procedure is not for revamps. The last few had to go through the main foundry process and beta again to make sure the new map had no problems.

koontz

[tkr4lf]

Why would this have to go through the foundry process though?

The gameplay is exactly the same, it's just updated graphics.

I think we can all agree that it looks a lot better than what we have now, so why all the extra bs?

[koontz1973]

Because people will spot mistakes that the map maker may not. The last few went through are

Nordic Counties
Drug Wars
Portugal
North America (and that was a competition winner)

Just because it is a revamp of an existing map, it needs to go through graphics, xml and beta testing again to make sure their are no problems with the new graphics.

[Mr. K]

>I think we can all agree that it looks a lot better than what we have now, so why all the extra bs?

Lol i've been wondering this for 4 years now.

Everything is exactly the same as the map that is being played on now and has been played since 2006 I believe. The coordinates of the borders, territory names, troop number locations are all the same. It's just pretty, new (well ...), graphics.

Still I understand that there is a beta process so I have no problem with this going through that as it only makes sense, as long as it's understood that if somehow there was a problem, there isn't much I can do graphically to fix it.

[koontz1973]

>I think we can all agree that it looks a lot better than what we have now, so why all the extra bs?-

It looks better and no one is disputing that. As for the extra BS, why should other map makers go through a process while you get a pass?

as long as it's understood that if somehow there was a problem, there isn't much I can do graphically to fix it.

[Arama86n]

I hope your doing this because YOU want to Mr.K, not because of pressure from others.
Ancient Greece is one my favourites, and has a distinctive and slightly unusual graphic style which I'm sure many have come to love. In my opinion (and hell I'm colour-blind) The map is very easy to read, the borders between bonuses clearly defined. I see no reason for a change.

As for the actual new version; the only suggestion I have is to make the dots that make up the sea routes darker. It is the kind of thing people easily miss on new maps.

Btw, while I'm here writing to you; thanks for a great map that I've enjoyed for many an hour. . I suppose I'll go start a game or two on it, enjoy the old classic graphics while I still can

[thenobodies80]

After reading the thread, it seems to me that your current attempt is just to add new/nicer graphics to the current map with no gameplay changes.

Usually, if a map comes back into production we (CAs) check the gameplay. But in this case you have good starting numbers and like you said the map has spent lot of time online without any particular issue. If one of the gameplay guys has no personal (they must be really valid) concerns on the current gameplay, I don't see why we should touch it.

Now, althought it's clear that the version of the map you posted is more pleasing than the current one we have on the site, the foundry has its procedures. These procedures are there to ensure that all maps are up to the CC standards. The fact your map was up to the standards when it was quenched the first time doesn't mean it is up to them nowdays; the standards are subject to changes through the time and, actually, our standards are higher than in past.
So, i think that the map should pass, at least for the graphical part, under a period of public review before to replace the current version.
I know it's your map, but here we're not talking about a small fix. It's more a general overhaul from a graphical perspective.

Like koontz has said you can miss some things other can see.
For example, more time I spend looking at the map and more things I see on it that you can improve:

(posting the image here to comment)

Click image to enlarge.

You said that you have lost the old files, so to draw the above image you have created a new image on the old one. But this doesn't mean that now you can't change the map anymore. You need only to work on the new file/layers.

Now, let me stop a second. I don't want to seems an evil man that find funny to ask you to waste time. I clearly see what you have already done, let me say that the current version is much much better than the map that is online. This is my personal point of view, but it's not an objective review of the map.

From a objective point of view, the sea could have some more love...it's not bad but I think you can do better.
I see borders are more clear now, but i think you can improve some sea connnections (e.g. andros/tinos is almost invisible)
Personally I would go with more trasparency on the army circles.
Redraw this mountain...it's terrible!


I would suggest also to try to center the small temple (the one with the title) on the rectangle of the legend. I think you can easily move the rectangle to left and have the bonus numbers more close to their respective names. Also the signature can be moved to left to compensate the empty space. Or make the rectangle smaller, if you prefer.

Btw, since we're talking about the legend....I've always wondered why on the map the bonus name is Peloponesos. Afaik it should be Peloponnesos, but maybe I'm wrong.
i think also that some circles/names can be moved a bit, but I leave this job to the graphics guys.

So, considering this is a ONLY graphics revamp, I move it to the main foundry to the graphics stage for a "not so long" review period, as soon as we're sure that everything is in the right place the map can be replaced. I'll edit your first post to add a note, a tag and add the dot.

[Moved] to the graphics stage.

Again, nice revamp continnue to work on it, there's no so much to do!
Nobodies

[koontz1973]

Mr. K. now that nobodies has moved this to the foundry proper for a graphics overhaul, good luck and I do hope you follow through with it. I like this new version but I do have a certain fondness for the old version. Here are some initial thoughts for now.

Army circles, remove or reduce opacity. They are very ugly at the moment and detract from the nice new map.
Sea routes, all of these could do with some love. Some are hard to see (Andros-Tinos), some look badly drawn (Argolis-Kyklades) and others could do with a single line and not three pasted together (Kyklades-Krete).
Names, why are some bigger than others? Get them all the aem size as the larger names do not have any game play importance. Reduce the glow around them. Some could be moved into the territ proper (Phrygia).
I love the mountains but the one nobodies pointed out needs some love. Also, blend them into the map some more.

I do have a few more things but do not want to scare you away right now with a huge amount of work.

[Mr. K]

The reason I say I can't do much here is because I don't have the original files. I can't change, for example, how opaque the army circles are because all I have is the flattened, 1 layer image. I don't have that kind of control over the image anymore.

It looks better and no one is disputing that. As for the extra BS, why should other map makers go through a process while you get a pass?

I was quoting the other guy's post here, sorry for the confusion I didn't use the correct syntax for making a quotation. In response to your response to the second thing I said - I have pointed out the reasons why I can't fix in other places - but will also do so in this post - so read on

You said that you have lost the old files, so to draw the above image you have created a new image on the old one. But this doesn't mean that now you can't change the map anymore. You need only to work on the new file/layers.

There may be a misunderstanding. I lost layered files for this edition of the map (as well as the old one). Yes, to make this edition, I traced the old one - but then four years passed and hard drives crashed and now all that's left of this version of the map is what I posted here.

Sure, as I've said there are still some things that I can do, but many very basic things which I cannot.

Now, althought it's clear that the version of the map you posted is more pleasing than the current one we have on the site, the foundry has its procedures. These procedures are there to ensure that all maps are up to the CC standards. The fact your map was up to the standards when it was quenched the first time doesn't mean it is up to them nowdays; the standards are subject to changes through the time and, actually, our standards are higher than in past.

I understand that completely, and if I were starting from scratch there are a lot of things I would do a lot different, but I don't have the time for something like that. I agree that the original map's graphics wouldn't and shouldn't hold up to the standards you have now - that's exactly why I did this revamp 4 years ago. Perhaps what I ended up with still didn't doesn't meet the standards of today, but as i've said there is very little I can do to fix that. As i'm sure most people know, when you have a layered file, changing the width of borders or the boldness of a certain graphic is a completely trivial problem - doing that to a flat image is basically impossible and would require starting from scratch. So what i'm saying is that - for the most part (and again I acknowledge there are some things I can do) - what you see is what you get, and since the standards are much higher for graphics now than they were in 2006 when the original map went live, and "what you see" is according to most much better than what we have, why not swap? For me, it's not about me "getting a pass" on the rules as koontz says, it doesn't do me any good to get away with something here. I just think it would be better for the site and it would make people happy if one of the maps was better than it is. Ideally I would start over and make it even better, and with community help and the high standards that you all have, it would be really excellent - but I do not have the time for a project like that.. at all. So it's not about trying to skirt the rules, I just think it's a shame that one of the earliest (and one of the uglier) maps we have has been largely re-done by its author and it's just sitting on the shelf for four years now.

With all of that said, let me respond to the specifics:

1. From a objective point of view, the sea could have some more love...it's not bad but I think you can do better.
2. I see borders are more clear now, but i think you can improve some sea connnections (e.g. andros/tinos is almost invisible)
3. Personally I would go with more trasparency on the army circles.
4. Redraw this mountain...it's terrible!

1. What do you mean? Keep in mind the restrictions I have - for example I can add another graphic, but I can't remove anything, or tone down the effects or colors or anything like that. Like I was saying before, many seemingly trivial things are basically impossible for me to change.

2. This is something I may be able to do something about. I won't be able to change the paths' shapes or the style but I can try to add some effect to make it a little bolder.

3. As I mentioned this is something I definitely cannot fix.

4. Good eye - that's an easy fix (as the mountains are part of a new layer).

I would suggest also to try to center the small temple (the one with the title) on the rectangle of the legend. I think you can easily move the rectangle to left and have the bonus numbers more close to their respective names. Also the signature can be moved to left to compensate the empty space. Or make the rectangle smaller, if you prefer.

Just to be clear - when I say I can't change something - it doesn't necessarily mean I disagree, just that I really have no power to.

In this case I have no power to change any of those things. If it was a layered image, I could alter the temple's dimensions, shape, position, etc., without effecting what is around/behind it. As is, I can't do anything like that.

Koontz, thanks for the input! Let me try and address your thoughts:

1. Army circles, remove or reduce opacity. They are very ugly at the moment and detract from the nice new map.
2. Sea routes, all of these could do with some love. Some are hard to see (Andros-Tinos), some look badly drawn (Argolis-Kyklades) and others could do with a single line and not three pasted together (Kyklades-Krete).
3. Names, why are some bigger than others? Get them all the aem size as the larger names do not have any game play importance. Reduce the glow around them. Some could be moved into the territ proper (Phrygia).
4. I love the mountains but the one nobodies pointed out needs some love. Also, blend them into the map some more.

1. As I said in response to thenobodies who had the same concern - I really can't do that :\

2. See my response to thenobodies note about this as well

3. At the time I was trying to use the space where I had it, and make the names in the "roomier" territories larger. I can see why that's annoying but this is going to be one of those completely unfixable problems :\

4. That little mountain shouldn't be a problem to fix - i'll see what I can do about making the rest of them feel more blended.


I appreciate the feedback guys - I'm sorry that I can't do this the "right" way. If I had the time I would rather just start from scratch (though honestly if I had the time I'd probably use it to make a brand new one.. :p Maybe "The Macedonian Question" showing the pre-WW1 struggle for power in the region?), but since this thing exists I feel like it would be nice to do what I can do to get it used. Just, as I said before, it should be noted that "what I can do" is almost nothing.

[Mr. K]

How is this effect for the water paths? Like I was saying I can't just make the existing lines bolder so i'm having to redraw them on top of the existing ones - so before I finish - is this even working for you guys?

The ones that are changed are on the left, the originals are on the right.

Mountain is fixed.

[koontz1973]

The reason I say I can't do much here is because I don't have the original files. I can't change, for example, how opaque the army circles are because all I have is the flattened, 1 layer image. I don't have that kind of control over the image anymore.

So what you are saying is that we can either has this, or not?

How long would it take you to get this back up and running with new files and would you be willing to do that?

[Mr. K]

So what you are saying is that we can either has this, or not?

Basically, yes. As i've said there are some things I can do, but I have a relatively small range of possibilities.

How long would it take you to get this back up and running with new files and would you be willing to do that?

It would mean starting all over again, which due to work and other dominant interests in my life, is not a project within the scope of what I can or am willing to do. If I were to do that I would trash what we have here, redraw the borders and go from there. It would be completely disconnected with the map which has already been developed in this thread.


So in an attempt to clarify once and for all that which may have been vague up to now:

The map you see here was made with the help of community suggestions in 2008 as a graphics only revamp of the original Ancient Greece map, made in 2006. It was in the finishing phase when I got bogged down with work and was unable to continue. In 2010 I remembered this project and felt it a shame that it was basically complete but just sitting on the shelf all this time. Unfortunately had lost all the files required to play around with finishing touches. Feeling that it was still much better than what was already being used, I asked if the community would consider taking it as is - but apparently it was unwilling and requested some adjustments, which I agreed to do but haven't actually found the time/motivation to do until now, in 2012. So now I am attempting to do what I can - though what I can do is extremely limited in scope due to the lack of source files (I only have the last jpeg file I posted in 2008 to work from as a source file, nothing else) to address any final concerns the community has about this map in its current form. So i'm not strictly saying "take it or leave it," but what I am saying is pretty close. I think that "taking it," faults and all, is still a huge improvement over the map which I made previously and is currently being played and has been played on since 2006 and therefore possibly making some concessions in whatever the standard procedure is (it's been a while and things have changed a lot, I'm sure). If I'm wrong in this opinion, and there is no justifying a such concessions for the purpose of improving a map with an already existing (though maybe imperfect) alternative, then I won't argue any more as I've made my case several times and spent far too much time, energy, and words, now and in 2010 trying to justify this opinion. BUT if that is the case, please tell me now so that I may finally and forever throw this project in the trash and stop wasting my time and thoughts on the subject.

[Mr. K]

So, now that that's clear, should I take the silence to mean "abandon this ship and never return" ?

[ManBungalow]

As you say, this is almost ready to run. Just pay attention to the next few meticulous suggestions to satisfy the stamp people and you'll be done. I don't completely agree with putting it through the foundry process again, but it should still have some external input.

Some parts of the image could be glossed over by using the clone tool, blurring, redrawing, or just copy/paste if there's a problem which can't be solved by painting over it.

It would have some way to go, but if it looks snappy and people support it along the way, bananas up!


--Andy

Back in the days when Andy's inappropriate innuendos were very obvious..

[Mr. K]

As you say, this is almost ready to run. Just pay attention to the next few meticulous suggestions to satisfy the stamp people and you'll be done. I don't completely agree with putting it through the foundry process again, but it should still have some external input.

Some parts of the image could be glossed over by using the clone tool, blurring, redrawing, or just copy/paste if there's a problem which can't be solved by painting over it.

Sounds great, thanks for the input!

I'll wait for some input on the sea routes to see if what I started to do is at all pleasing.

[isaiah40]

So, now that that's clear, should I take the silence to mean "abandon this ship and never return" ?

Nope. thenobodies80 should be contacting you via pm sometime soon.

[thenobodies80]

Yeah, I'll contact you as soon as I can draw a black line on some items on my to-do list. Be patient, it's just matter of few days.

[Mr. K]

Yeah, I'll contact you as soon as I can draw a black line on some items on my to-do list. Be patient, it's just matter of few days.

Great Take all the time you need, as you can probably tell by the time elapsed since I started this project, i'm in no hurry.

[MrBenn]

I'm a fan of the original map - sure it could do with a revamp, but it might be worth having some kind of public vote to see which version people would rather play on?

[DoomYoshi]

I vote for the new one. I don't like the water paths, since it makes it seem like Krete only connects to one of the Kyklades Islands.

[Dukasaur]

I prefer the old version, with its deep, rich colours.

These faded pastels on the new version do nothing for me.

Ancient Greece was one of the first four maps I played when I joined CC two years ago, and the beauty of those colours was a major reason why I picked it.

[thenobodies80]

Hello,

first of all sorry for leaving you to wait for so long for an answer.
There was a bit of discussion behind the scenes, and unfortunately we don't have good news for you.
While discussing it was brought a good point:
Even if we accept to upload the map without pass through the foundry process (and we won't), there're some things that must be fixed in any case.

For example the map is a nightmare for colorblid people and it can't be uploaded as it is now.
So, considering that your option were "take it as it is now" or "drop it"...I'm sad to say we need to drop it.

It's a shame you don't want to work on the map and, apart offer to help you , there's nothing i can do to solve the colorblind issue and the other issues we found.
I hope you will find the time to work on this revamp again in the future.

Nobodies

btw, in case people wonder, this is how it looks for colorblind people....strange it has passed unnoticed in past.

Click image to enlarge.

[pamoa]

btw, in case people wonder, this is how it looks for colorblind people....strange it has passed unnoticed in past.

in those times nobody cares about such issue
sorry for all the work it was putted in

[AndyDufresne]

I don't think back in 2006, we even did a check for this, since we didn't even have a color blind feature to make us think about those types of users. But it was so long ago.


--Andy

[Funkyterrance]

I like this revamp but I have terrible luck on this map, dicewise.