Conquer Club

Night2 wrote:

DiM wrote:just 1 mega??

my large map alone is 1 mega. what quality do your jpgs have?

lol, that's important!? I use 10 in quality in photoshop (form 1-12) ...


Also Another Interesting Thing: Look at topic number, this topic is 20080th topic in forums!
REALLY LOL

yeah it is important. i recommend submitting 100% quality jpgs or even pngs.
having a lower quality makes some areas look strange.

Hmm...I think the images have enough quality. I like the look of this map.

Well done Night2, looking forward to play on this one!

I use around 60-70 compression for my jpgs. Nice looking map though.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
quench /kwɛntʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kwench] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to slake, satisfy, or allay (thirst, desires, passion, etc.).
2. to put out or extinguish (fire, flames, etc.).
3. to cool suddenly by plunging into a liquid, as in tempering steel by immersion in water.
4. to subdue or destroy; overcome; quell: to quench an uprising.
5. Electronics. to terminate (the flow of electrons in a vacuum tube) by application of a voltage.

You get the idea.

unriggable wrote:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
quench /kwɛntʃ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kwench] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to slake, satisfy, or allay (thirst, desires, passion, etc.).
2. to put out or extinguish (fire, flames, etc.).
3. to cool suddenly by plunging into a liquid, as in tempering steel by immersion in water.
4. to subdue or destroy; overcome; quell: to quench an uprising.
5. Electronics. to terminate (the flow of electrons in a vacuum tube) by application of a voltage.

You get the idea.

Can you explain what's that!? I cann't understand!

I think it means you have to satisfy our thirst for maximum quality jpg:s..

or explain why you dont want to use higher quality?


Personally I think it looks ok now... but you have to satisfy as many as possible to get the map quenched.

snufkin wrote:I think it means you have to satisfy our thirst for maximum quality jpg:s..

or explain why you dont want to use higher quality?


Personally I think it looks ok now... but you have to satisfy as many as possible to get the map quenched.

Because as you and others said it's now good! also I tested and the only different between 12 and 10 is in size and the view have no different!

The word being described is quench.

the quality between compressions is really visible. it all depends on how you analyze the image and what equipment you have.
on a large (at least 21'') TFT screen the abnormalities are best observed.

take a jpg at 5 one at 7 one at 10 and one at 12.

pick a difficult area (somewhere where gradients and shades meet with a crisp text) and zoom at 200% you'll notice the differences immediately.


the differences are smaller and smaller as you increase the quality. for example the difference from 5 to 7 is bigger than the one from 10 to 12. and also the size of the file increases exponentially. for the common use images in the thread a 10 quality is ok. but when you submit the final links for quenching i recommend having 12 quality.

DiM wrote:the quality between compressions is really visible. it all depends on how you analyze the image and what equipment you have.
on a large (at least 21'') TFT screen the abnormalities are best observed.

take a jpg at 5 one at 7 one at 10 and one at 12.

pick a difficult area (somewhere where gradients and shades meet with a crisp text) and zoom at 200% you'll notice the differences immediately.


the differences are smaller and smaller as you increase the quality. for example the difference from 5 to 7 is bigger than the one from 10 to 12. and also the size of the file increases exponentially. for the common use images in the thread a 10 quality is ok. but when you submit the final links for quenching i recommend having 12 quality.

1. there is different even between 9 and 10 ... but not 10 to 12!
2. We don't want play with 200 % ... want!!?

of course we don't play at 200%. i was just pointing out at 200% the differences are easier to see.

SIGH

Compression looks fine to me

But if we have to be picky - and you know we must....

On my monitor, It's hard to tell if Cyprus is Red-Orange (Sadis) or Orange (Sidon). The army shadow covers most of the solid land color - I'm pretty sure it's part of Sardus (Red-Orange) based on the +1 bonus for holding Sidon. Have you experimented with moving the circle slightly off the land so the color is more visable? No biggie though. If nobody else comments on this (and I haven't read all previous posts), I wouldn't worry about it.



I especially like all the bonus territories! I should be able to hold something here. Great map.

RjBeals wrote:Compression looks fine to me

But if we have to be picky - and you know we must....

On my monitor, It's hard to tell if Cyprus is Red-Orange (Sadis) or Orange (Sidon). The army shadow covers most of the solid land color - I'm pretty sure it's part of Sardus (Red-Orange) based on the +1 bonus for holding Sidon. Have you experimented with moving the circle slightly off the land so the color is more visable? No biggie though. If nobody else comments on this (and I haven't read all previous posts), I wouldn't worry about it.



I especially like all the bonus territories! I should be able to hold something here. Great map.

You are right ... I will make it correct tonight!

I think you should put the bridges in the map, like "Only enter through bridges" or something.

LAST UPDATE
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE LAST PACKAGE WITH XML AND ALL IMAGES



And @Gilligan, I don't think the bridges should change ... I like them, anyway if there be some other feedback about it I will do something ...

I no longer have any problems with the map

You shouldn't make people have to download and then unzip a map. I'm not going to - I'm at work. Please post the img so I can see the final. Thanks.

I just wanted all them be in one package!


here are the big and small images:

Night2 wrote:LAST UPDATE
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE LAST PACKAGE WITH XML AND ALL IMAGES



And @Gilligan, I don't think the bridges should change ... I like them, anyway if there be some other feedback about it I will do something ...

I did not mean to change the bridges. I just think you should add the bridges to the key/legend.

Right now this map is way too linear, you need more long distance trails from say Egypt to mesopotamia for example.

I can't even find Mesopotamia

Gilligan wrote:I can't even find Mesopotamia

That's about Babylonia (That's not a country, that's an area in real maps!)

unriggable wrote:Right now this map is way too linear, you need more long distance trails from say Egypt to mesopotamia for example.

But I can't change real map and add contries for more ways, can!?
also I think in every map, some easy continnent to get make game interesting! like Australia and Sout America in Classic map!

Gilligan wrote:]I did not mean to change the bridges. I just think you should add the bridges to the key/legend.

If you see the first pages (2-5, I think) you will see that was before there ...

then there was some feedbacks and I changed the leggend to Impossible Borders!

This is before the greeks started calling it mesopotamia.

This could become the most ancient map on CC so far (if the trojan or egyptian map isn´t finished first.)

snufkin wrote:This is before the greeks started calling it mesopotamia.

This could become the most ancient map on CC so far (if the trojan or egyptian map isn´t finished first.)

What about the world map?