Conquer Club

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! [echo]

Neilhouse wrote:Classic, USA and Canada don't even have titles just to name a few. They play fine. Why is this such a big issue with this map?

It doesn't need a title. Brilliant. It shall be removed.

"Desert and mountains are impassable" can be moved to the top right.

Contrickster wrote: It doesn't need a title. Brilliant. It shall be removed.

Perfect.

It will need to be called something on the Start Your Own Game screen.

But you're welcome.

Also, I can see why Con would not want to use your image, mibi (although I do like it). If I were making a map I would want it be 100% artistically responsible for it. Despite our help and suggestions, it's his creation.

No, it's not that, it looks like a super-raspberry.

But mostly it looks too flashy and thereby out of place on this map which isn't flashy at all. It's too good for my map.

It's an impressive graphic, no issue with the graphic, just hilariously nonononono, doesn't look good on this map.


Ed: Neilhouse you define the name in the XML. I've called this Jewel of the Empire.

Title removed. Desert and mountains note removed - not necessary. It's obvious you can't attack through those barriers. (There are many maps without this kind of text).

I'm sorry I've changed the background colour again! It's darker but I've rammed up the background image so that it is more visible, even while the colour remains dark.

Finally elephant moved. Think the elephant ought to have a name by now. I'll call it "Bud."

I find it weird how you call it an ocean passage when there is no ocean. Also a title is drastically needed. the legend text seems slightly blured too. I would sharpen that up a bit.

PimpCaneYoAss wrote:I find it weird how you call it an ocean passage when there is no ocean. Also a title is drastically needed. the legend text seems slightly blured too. I would sharpen that up a bit.

If a cartographer needs good reason to not implement the change suggested to him/her then a suggester should also have a good reason why he/she is suggesting what they do.

I understand the ocean passage comment, but why does this map drastically need a title? Expand some, please?

[Official] How to Make a Map thread:

Height is flexible, but it is recommended that you do not exceed 350 px on small maps and 600 px on large maps so that users will not need to scroll down to attack.

Your small map is one pixel shy in height of the recommended limit for the large map. Is there any reason why you've made the map so big? It's not as if you have an abundance of small territories that would be hard to see, so I'd suggest using the small map as your large and make a new small map.

this probably sounds bad but the title is the only part I REALLY liked.

KEYOGI wrote:[Official] How to Make a Map thread:

Height is flexible, but it is recommended that you do not exceed 350 px on small maps and 600 px on large maps so that users will not need to scroll down to attack.

Your small map is one pixel shy in height of the recommended limit for the large map. Is there any reason why you've made the map so big? It's not as if you have an abundance of small territories that would be hard to see, so I'd suggest using the small map as your large and make a new small map.

if he does that his small map would be a tiny thing 286*350 px.
while modifications to the font and the army circles could be easily made to make everything more clear. i think it would still look like crap. i don't even feel like attacking on a tiny map like this:

DiM wrote:if he does that his small map would be a tiny thing 286*350 px.

I think around 450px high would be okay, maybe 500 at the most. I just really see no need for the maps to be so big.

KEYOGI wrote:

DiM wrote:if he does that his small map would be a tiny thing 286*350 px.

I think around 450px high would be okay, maybe 500 at the most. I just really see no need for the maps to be so big.

at 450-500 it would be ok. by quoting the thingy from the sticky i thought you wanted something strictly inside those measures


i like big maps. not all of us have good eyes you know.

PimpCaneYoAss wrote:I find it weird how you call it an ocean passage when there is no ocean. Also a title is drastically needed. the legend text seems slightly blured too. I would sharpen that up a bit.

Indian Ocean?

Title not needed.

Legend was blurred around the edges. That was deliberate, looks better blurred than unblurred.

KEYOGI wrote: Your small map is one pixel shy in height of the recommended limit for the large map. Is there any reason why you've made the map so big?

(Just a guess.)

"Big" is 58% size of the original map as made in Fireworks/GIMP. Small is 48%. It won't be a problem to reduce the size. However small map is a bit small for big - 55%?

reverend_kyle wrote:this probably sounds bad but the title is the only part I REALLY liked.

That sounds bad and really it doesn't make sense either. What specifically do you object to?

Large 510/624 (50% original)



Small 459/562 (45% original)

KEYOGI - are you happy with the above sizes? I know the largest one is 10 pixels above your "max" but if I made it 49% that would skew the original image. It would be nice to have the 50% one; plus there is the argument we do not want maps to be too small for people to read.

It's been brought to my attention that I've quoted the width. KEYOGI actually means the maximum HEIGHT should be 510, whereas mine is 624 (and even that is on the small side).

This is the revised size 500 max height in line with KEYOGI's suggestion for the LARGE version of Jewel of the Empire.



Umm... Clearly the shape of my map requires it to be taller than it is wide... KEYOGI?

Ed: Sorry for the triple post.

*bump*

Any new comments?

Any specific suggestions?

Anything not already addressed?


What do you like most? What do you like least?

maybe take down the bonus of the himalyas to 2? it has just 2 frontiers and bengal has 3 but just a 2 bonus... frontiers is more important than number of teritories

Spritzking wrote:maybe take down the bonus of the himalyas to 2? it has just 2 frontiers and bengal has 3 but just a 2 bonus... frontiers is more important than number of teritories

Don't understand the call for Himalayas to be 2. It's not a straight calculation of three borders, four territories. If that was the case you might make it 2. It's obvious to me it needs to be 3 in the wider scheme of the game.

Himalayas is flanked by 2, 3 territory 2 bonus continent. This should ensure Himalayas is contested territory in the early stages of the game. So worries that Himalayas will be always be got first and dictate the game should be unfounded. Bengal and Sikhs will be got first and rival powers there will contest Himalayas.

Himalayas also needs to be rewarded with 3 bonus armies both to balance Mughals and Sikh power (+6) - this means the strategy "get Punjab, Mughals and Sikhs first" will face resistance from Himalayas - and to provide somewhere for Mughals and Sikh power to develop, because options for development from the NW are otherwise weak.

Hindus (7) + Deccan (4) = 11
Mughals (4) + Sikhs (2) + Himalayas (3) + Bengal (2) = 11

Without the extra bonus army the southern half of the map will be over powered. Deccan, Colonialists and Hindus will always be dominant. With the extra bonus for the Himalayas gameplay should be more balanced and depend on good strategy. Sometimes North will win. Sometimes the south.

Himalayas also enables balanced 3/4 player action - Mughals + Sikhs = 6
Himalayas + Bengal = 5
Colonialists = 5
Deccan or Hindus = 7/4

However the clinching argument really is what I said about Himalayas being flanked by 2 territories that will be got first. Plus border on Colonialists.

KEYOGI are you going to respond?

You have been online & posted elsewhere. It seems strange, in your position as cartographic help, that you would ask for the image size to be reduced then ignore the thread once it has been reduced. All it takes is a yes or no. Until I get a yes or no I don't know whether I should change the coordinates or not.

I'm trying to add value to this site... my work is for free. Remember that.

Contrickster wrote:KEYOGI are you going to respond?

You have been online & posted elsewhere. It seems strange, in your position as cartographic help, that you would ask for the image size to be reduced then ignore the thread once it has been reduced. All it takes is a yes or no. Until I get a yes or no I don't know whether I should change the coordinates or not.

I'm trying to add value to this site... my work is for free. Remember that.

be cool.

Contrickster wrote:KEYOGI are you going to respond?

You have been online & posted elsewhere. It seems strange, in your position as cartographic help, that you would ask for the image size to be reduced then ignore the thread once it has been reduced. All it takes is a yes or no. Until I get a yes or no I don't know whether I should change the coordinates or not.

I'm trying to add value to this site... my work is for free. Remember that.

His work is for free as well...

Chill out a bit. Why would he be deliberately ignoring your post? He's obviously got a lot on his plate at the moment, as has Andy. Just give it time and stop being so hasty.

Contrickster wrote:KEYOGI are you going to respond?

You have been online & posted elsewhere. It seems strange, in your position as cartographic help, that you would ask for the image size to be reduced then ignore the thread once it has been reduced. All it takes is a yes or no. Until I get a yes or no I don't know whether I should change the coordinates or not.

I'm trying to add value to this site... my work is for free. Remember that.

Keyogi works for free, just like Andy and any other cartographer for that matter. Everyone in the foundry tries to add value to the site. Relax man.

For some strange reason I find myself straining my eyes whenever I look at this map.

I think you should start afresh, redesign the map maybe and change the colour schemes because they just do not work as they are right now...

Cheers

Sorry, the last week or so has been very frustrating for the fact I've done no work at all. I've done virtually nothing on the map. Except take away the title, of course!

I know the poll says 80%+ want me to continue with the map (thanks for your encouragement! ) but the presentation is nowhere near as good as Senate, Middle East or Mongels map, to name three. It's better than some published maps but the fact is the presentation can still be improved. I don't really know how to do that though and more importantly I'm not interested in doing that. I didn't want to do this because I'm a graphic artist but because I play the game.

More to the point, after the Fireworks trial runs out, changes would have to be done in GIMP, in which case I'm not sure the map can be finished if major changes were needed. The difference in quality between GIMP and Fireworks is noticable.

I suppose it was asking too much to get all the major issues settled in a month.

Ruben Cassar wrote: I think you should start afresh, redesign the map maybe and change the colour schemes because they just do not work as they are right now...

I can change the colours (what do you suggest?) but redesign the map? Can you elaborate on what you mean by "redesign"?