[Abandoned] Research & Conquer

[DiM]

a few thoughts on graphics:

1. in a few places the borders don't go all the way to the edge. for example:


2. some terit names overlap the legend border


3. some portions of text from the legend have their glow overlapping the border


4. the land seems to have a shadow and be a bit higher than the river which is ok. but the bridges should also have a shadow.

5. the map is too bland. you have a river and 3 mountains but everything else is flat and smooth. no colour variation, no depth, nothing.

6. the river doesn't fit with the mountains. the river is a realistic looking one with raised banks, with shadows and depth while the mountains are 2d perfectly flat drawings. alone they look good but together they don't fit. you could either keep the mountains and design a parchment where the whole map is drawn flat. or keep the rivers and make some 3d mountains.

7. the legend is too strong. the whole grungy very dark feel contrasts too much with the playable portion of the map and in my opinion overpowers it. normally the payable area should catch the eye, not the legend. perhaps this is also a side effect of the smooth terrain. changing that might also change how the legend is perceived.

8. the O in OliverFA looks weird. perhaps make it like a nut or the head of a screw. that should fit well with the theme. or a little cog (even though you have plenty of cogs in the title)

9. tacktix is barely visible. i honestly can't read it and i only assume it says tacktix

[OliverFA]

I agree about 8 and 9. About 1 to 7, I am not a graphic expert (meaning I know almost nothing about graphics), so I prefer not to comment.

Buy I hope that even if there will be changes to bring small corrections to the graphics, that won't stop the Beta.

[TaCktiX]

1, 2 and 3. I can fix with some switches in layering. Text is currently higher than the "piping" of the map, as is the river higher than territories (the river has the brown bevel effect on it).

4. Fixable.

5 and 7. are deliberate stylistic choices. The main attraction of the map is the research, which is in the eye-catching and dominant part of the map. The conquer section is just as standard as any other map, and thus deliberately does not catch the eye. Also, the map is intended to be stylistic in the sort that some sort of steampunk-driven early TV would render. At one point I was going to create a line-blur effect, but due to the crowdedness of the conquer section and the need for understandability, I axed that (though if you have suggestions for how to render it more like an old-time and/or Fallout 3 TV without making the map harder to read, I'm all for it).

6. The river looked terrible flat. I never released a flat river, so you'll have to trust me on that. As noted above, I'm going for a slight anachronism stew, with a mix between hand-rendered objects (mountains) and more accurate depictions that are more within the realms of proto-technology. So unless more people have issues with the mountain/river difference, I'm not going to be changing it.

8. That's some lines that are in an overlay, to simulate one of Oliver's old avatars (that had a jolly fellow wearing a monocle in it). I can kill the lines and it should still look fine.

9. Deliberate again. If you really want to know who made it you can look deeper, but Oliver was the main guy for the idea, the gameplay, and the XML. I just put a graphical overlay on all of his hard work.

[DiM]

i had no idea you wanted to go for an old display feel. and i'm afraid there's nothing to suggest me that.
first of all if the terits appear on a display then that display needs a margin of some sort. on the right side it just stops with no border or anything.
second, that display would have a clearly defined rectangular or rounded form not what you have now with protrusions.
so to give the feel of a display first you must fix the above.
however i have a graphic vision of what you should do.

imagine a wooden surface with an old crt display inside. and on the side you have pieces of metal riveted on the wood. and on those pieces of metal you have the legend.

i'll try and post a crude mock-up in a few minutes because an image would better reflect my idea.

[TaCktiX]

I'm just going to have to say a flat "no" to that mockup. It took me a LOT of work to make all of the territories fit, as well as all the instructions for a map right up there with AoR for complexity, and this map was figured through within the old 600x600 requirements. I'll make a few edits to "box" the display in more (likely extending the right side 10-15px), but to clarify further the legend (and research) is "overlaid" on top of the map, hence the shadow effect.

I'll make some adjustments, but I'm making no guarantees for an overhaul. I presently have to use my netbook and its 1.6GHz single-core processor and 2GB of RAM...on a source file 1707 layers in size and saved under the expectation that I'd have my 3.46GHz hexcore, 12GB of RAM behemoth of a computer. Do not have that luxury at present.

EDIT: Put the XML-pass request on hold for the time being. I've got 5 days coming up that should be relatively open in the evenings for me to fix up a map. We shall see.

[natty dread]

I have to say I like Dim's mock-up... although I can understand if you don't want to rehaul the map at this point.

[OliverFA]

I have to say I like Dim's mock-up... although I can understand if you don't want to rehaul the map at this point.

I think that we should go to the beta with the current map. The beta it's needed to balance all the tech values, so the sooner we start the better. I don't have time right now to move all the coordenates for all the territories. I can do it for the definitive version. But right now I have no time.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

While I like a couple elements of DiM's mock up, I personally like TaCKtiX's version better. Another consideration is that DiM's version would never have any hope of fitting all of the technologies and instructions in the space provided.

[DiM]

While I like a couple elements of DiM's mock up, I personally like TaCKtiX's version better. Another consideration is that DiM's version would never have any hope of fitting all of the technologies and instructions in the space provided.

actually the mock-up i did is only 480px tall. so there's an extra space of 630*120px where additional info can be included and still remain within the 630*600 rule.
plus i believe a supersize to 700*700 is very reasonable and it would be easily granted as the map has so many things going on. in fact i'm actually surprised this wasn't supersized as the small map is very cramped.

[TaCktiX]

The map went through all of its current stamps before supersize regulations existed. Version 10 (the most recent one before the two I just did) released in late February, less than a month after supersize was possible. But since the small map DOES work, and is only cramped under the edge case of everybody building on everything (which by structure should be impossible with this map; have you ever heard of a game of Civilization stalemating?), I'm not going to demand to increase the map's dimension by 100 pixels in each direction.

Instead, I'm going to make the small improvements you've asked (with an overhaul of the terrain). This should not affect any army coordinates at all, thus keeping the XML valid no matter what graphically I put out.

[TaCktiX]

This took less time than I was expecting...

Version 13

Updates:
- Tinkered with the signatures and the title
- Added a border to the right, extending the map by either 10 or 12 pixels (small/large)
- Added shadows underneath the bridges
- Reordered some layers so that text glow doesn't obscure borders
- Fixed some territory border lines on the large
- Removed the excess contour on the river
- Added a "cloudy" effect to the conquer portion of the map

Small

Click image to enlarge.

Large

Click image to enlarge.

[carlpgoodrich]

Beautiful, TaCktiX. I always liked the "plain" terrain, but I have to say the new terrain is very nice. Bravo!

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Beautiful, TaCktiX. I always liked the "plain" terrain, but I have to say the new terrain is very nice. Bravo!

I also agree that the terrain effect is a nice upgrade. I always thought that the terrain was a little too plain, but could never figure out what to suggest to add something small that wouldn't affect it too much. The cloud effect really seems to do the trick nicely

Any idea how long until we hear if the petition was successful?

[DiM]

i like the idea of having clouds but the "cloudy" effect you made looks more like a weird and unnatural glow or something. if you wouldn't have said they're clouds i would have never thought it just by looking at the image.

why don't you try making some realistic looking clouds with shape and volume and shadow?
i've made them in various degrees of intensity to see what exactly would benefit the map both artistically as well as practically (legibility)
like this:

Click image to enlarge.

[TaCktiX]

The overall cloudiness is deliberate, as the "clouds" are supposed to create the look of an image projected in a white gas. It's at the intensity it is for readability reasons. Hence, it looks cloudy without being actual in the sky clouds.

[DiM]

so basically aside from adding a line to the right you don't want to make any improvements on the map.

having a bland map of the teritories is a "deliberate stylistic choice" and apparently so is having an overpowering legend with a texture so strong it make everything hard to see.
you claim you want a "steampunk driven early tv" but readability stood in your way so your didn't do that either.

you have flat hand drawn mountains that don't fit at all with the 3d rivers and bridges but apparently that's called "slight anachronism stew"

now you made clouds that don't even remotely resemble clouds and "it looks cloudy without being actual in the sky clouds". and it was supposed to be "an overhaul of the terrain".

should i even bother to mention that you have shadows in all directions? or that some borders are simply wrong? or that weird copyright in the bottom right of the map? or that triple digits (88+colour code) won't fit in many terits on the small map?
i'd better not because basically your attitude towards any kind of improvement that requires more than 30 seconds of work is summed up very well here:

I'm just going to have to say a flat "no"

if every map maker behaved like this we'd probably have only hideous maps on account of personal stylistic choice and artistic vision.

i honestly expected more seeing how you're a CA and all that. but that's ok, i can always look on the bright side of things. if you get away with stylistic and artistic excuses so can everybody else. so next time i don't feel like working on my map or i simply don't like a comment i'll have a way to refuse it.


PS: the reason i'm so vocal about this is that i think the idea of the map is bloody great but the gfx don't even begin to match up to that. and i'm afraid that this map will sit at the bottom getting very few plays because of that. which will be a shame.
a classic map can get away with poor graphics because the gameplay is simple and people will know right away if it plays well or not.
with a weird gameplay you need top notch graphics to even stand a chance because nobody is willing to spend a lot of time looking at an ugly image while trying to decipher the gameplay. they'll just give up and leave so you need great graphics to hook them with something until they realise the true potential of the gameplay.

edit// i think this looked much better: http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/ll234/t--o--m/researchopt4.png

[TaCktiX]

While you have valid concerns that I intend to fix (the aether clouds need to be a little more convincing, the terrain burn needs to be slightly stronger, the smudgework in the bottom right is supposed to actually say something intelligible, chiefly), I believe you and I have fundamental differences in how this map should look.

having a bland map of the teritories is a "deliberate stylistic choice" and apparently so is having an overpowering legend with a texture so strong it make everything hard to see.
you claim you want a "steampunk driven early tv" but readability stood in your way so your didn't do that either.

- I don't see the basis for the legend texture being overpowering to the point of being unreadable. Everything is obviously color-different from the background, especially the text. I have never had anyone else complain about readability of the legend at any point.
- I went with a different idea for "steampunk TV," being a plausible use (by steampunk standards) of some aetheric gas with some coloring. The effect could use some strengthening, but I have to temper it against making the map disappear. As stated in the gameplay guidelines, any graphical glitz cannot be at the expense of gameplay understandability.

you have flat hand drawn mountains that don't fit at all with the 3d rivers and bridges but apparently that's called "slight anachronism stew"

- I un-depthed the river, only maintaining its border. The reason it looks so similar is that there really isn't much difference effect-wise. It IS a 2D river now.

should i even bother to mention that you have shadows in all directions?

- I deliberately moved the bridge shadows to be advantageous for each direction. I tried one universal direction to start, and on 2/3 the bridges it wasn't possible to tell there was a shadow at all. I could always switch the bridge shadow 180 degrees so that they all are getting reflected from a light in the center. (Actually, I think I'll do that).

or that triple digits (88+colour code) won't fit in many terits on the small map?

- The 888's do obscure borders, but they do not obscure WHAT the border is with, nor any other 888, game symbol, or territory name. This has been known and passed off on by everybody for quite some time. I realize it's an edge case, but I'd prefer to maintain the current territory density until we find out in the requisite beta testing (totally new concept, we have no idea if it's actually balanced) that it's too much gameplay-wise. I would rather have too much and need to remove some, than too little and have to figure out how to put more in.

or that some borders are simply wrong?

- Which borders are wrong? It's a quick fix if they're around, but I don't see any.

i'd better not because basically your attitude towards any kind of improvement that requires more than 30 seconds of work is summed up very well here:

- There's a difference between work to support what I've already done and improve it for the better (which is what I am doing), and revamping the entire thing to suit a totally different graphical style. I am not going to do a total revamp because one person in the entire development of this map has had severe issues with it. That's why I said flat "no," and I'm fairly certain I'm justified in saying that.

PS: the reason i'm so vocal about this is that i think the idea of the map is bloody great but the gfx don't even begin to match up to that. and i'm afraid that this map will sit at the bottom getting very few plays because of that. which will be a shame.
a classic map can get away with poor graphics because the gameplay is simple and people will know right away if it plays well or not.
with a weird gameplay you need top notch graphics to even stand a chance because nobody is willing to spend a lot of time looking at an ugly image while trying to decipher the gameplay. they'll just give up and leave so you need great graphics to hook them with something until they realise the true potential of the gameplay.

- We have different approaches to this map. A lot of other people have said it looks beautiful, understandable, and a really good theme. While I respect your opinion, I'm going to have to kindly disagree with you.

For everyone else, expect an update later today.

[DiM]

PS: the reason i'm so vocal about this is that i think the idea of the map is bloody great but the gfx don't even begin to match up to that. and i'm afraid that this map will sit at the bottom getting very few plays because of that. which will be a shame.
a classic map can get away with poor graphics because the gameplay is simple and people will know right away if it plays well or not.
with a weird gameplay you need top notch graphics to even stand a chance because nobody is willing to spend a lot of time looking at an ugly image while trying to decipher the gameplay. they'll just give up and leave so you need great graphics to hook them with something until they realise the true potential of the gameplay.

- We have different approaches to this map. A lot of other people have said it looks beautiful, understandable, and a really good theme. While I respect your opinion, I'm going to have to kindly disagree with you.

well, only time will tell. i honestly hope i'll be wrong about this but i don't think so.

[OliverFA]

I usually stay out of graphics-related discussions because that's not my strong point. But I feel that I have to step in and give my opinion about it. That post would be easier if I was not blue, but I feel I have to do it. I have to say that, despite I have tried to be respectful when writing it, I could not have achieved my goal. For this reason I want to say that it's the mapmaker talking here and not the cartography assistant.

DiM, I apreciate all your feedback. But I suppose you can't be serious when you suggest a completely revamp of a map that is already waiting to get into beta. Your image from the post on 07 Aug 2011, 15:38 is a cool image, but it means completely changing the theme of the map. I am sure you understand that this just can't happen. We can't be changing everything all the time. If we became overperfectionist, nothing would ever be done.

On the other hand, the concept that you propose, despite being pretty and nice, it's no better or worse than the one TaCktiX has choosen for the map. Some people will like his theme more, some people will like yours more. It's a question of preferences. What would happen if someone else threw in a new concept after we changed it to fit the one you propose? Would we change it again just to appeal that new poster? We can't be doing that all the time. Specially when the new proposed version is not better (neither worse), just different.

Of course, if we discover a big flaw in the map, it should be fixed. Even more, it has to be fixed. But you can't possible throw a ton of nitpicks and say that the map is bland if they are not fixed. Even someone so bad at graphics like me can see that TaCktiX's image is not as bad as you pretend to make it look. Your first comments were very good ones. They point things that if fixed will make the map better. But they don't point things that need to be fixed or are big terrible mistakes. For this reason I appreciate your feedback, but I don't appreciate the way in which you imply that TaCktiX has made a bad map. I also don't appreciate the way in which you seem to imply he is not receptive of feedback. You just are asking a lot of things from him, almost as if you were looking for him to say "no".

Last, what I completely oppose is to do anything that changes territories coordinates. I spent a lot of time placing those coordinates in the XML. We have almost 200 territories. Placing their coordiantes is not trivial work, and I won't redo it just because someone likes a different version of the map. Again, that's not my final word. I will redo the work if there is a good reason, but not because someone likes a different setting more.

[DiM]

But I suppose you can't be serious when you suggest a completely revamp of a map that is already waiting to get into beta.

i'm dead serious. if i think a map looks bad i'm gonna say it and ask for a change regardless if it's in the main foundry or one day away from quenching.

also i did not suggest a complete change i just wanted the current version to be improved. a better and more diverse landscape can be done without even touching the borders, changing the size or altering the coordinates. so no need for any xml changes.
improving the legend texture and side artwork can be done with minimal fuss.
this whole map can be overhauled without even touching the xml.

but i've already received my answer regarding this change and even if i do not agree with it i'll move on.
i would have really wanted to play this map but as it stands i'm afraid i won't. hopefully i'll be the only one thinking like this.

[Gillipig]

I realize you've spent a lot of time on this map and want to get done with it soon (most people would probably have abandoned it after so many years so kudos to you for the endurance) but I have to agree with DiM! The map could need some large graphical changes! It doesn't stand out! It's not up to par graphic wise with the other maps at the same stage! The clouds DiM proposed definitely looks better than the current ones so that's a change I'd have to endorse! Also the frame could be a little bit more creative. Don't change the color but maybe make it look a bit more decorative!!

[TaCktiX]

I need to give an apology for the lack of an update. I got one ready yesterday, but after thinking about it I wasn't satisfied fully with it, so I'm not releasing it. I'll be busy for the next few days, so it'll be a little bit before I can get the changes made so that I'm satisfied with it.

[DogAlmighty]

The map looks more than fine as it is and I look forward to trying it out. I like the style of it. It's alot better looking then the popular Fuedal map which is just a characterless green blob. And thankfully you didn't go the route of the AOR maps with over-decoration and shiny colours which frankly makes them look tacky and unplayable for me.

[Gillipig]

The map looks more than fine as it is and I look forward to trying it out. I like the style of it. It's alot better looking then the popular Fuedal map which is just a characterless green blob. And thankfully you didn't go the route of the AOR maps with over-decoration and shiny colours which frankly makes them look tacky and unplayable for me.

The AoR maps and Feudal War are some of the most popular maps so looking like them is not necessarily a bad thing. Although I think this map shouldn't try to look like some other map!

[DiM]

i just realised one problem of the map. there's limited description (graphic/text) on how the attacks are made.

let me explain.
1. in the legend it says a lab assaults its own basic research, tsf and the doomsday device. i assume it means that the first lab from the left can attack the first basic mining from the left, but it can't attack any other basic mining because those belong to other labs. i think this is the right answer because that's how i would design it but i have no idea if that's what you did.

2. then it says in the legend you can only get research bonuses once. what's that? if i take the basic mining i'll get the +2 just for one turn?

3. tsf can bombard all it's homeland's researches. what does this mean? how do i know which tsf belongs to what homeland?

4. a basic research assaults its advanced one. what? can i go from the first basic mining square and attack the 4th deep mining square?

5. in the lower left portion of the legend you have a line that connects the 6th tsf with the first open conscription. is that an attack route? is it both ways? shouldn't the other tsfs and conscriptions be connected too?

6. the sixth deep mining has a line that connects to the line from #5. does that mean that it connects to the 6th tsf and the 1st conscription? is that an attack route? is it both ways? shouldn't the other deep minings be connected too?

7. except for the laboratories none of the research terits have names on the map. i assume they'll be called something like Standing Army 1, Standing Army 2 etc. or something like that. but i really do think having names on the map is a must. at least some shortened names like SA1 SA2 and so on. in fact i'm pretty sure i've seen some CAs requesting that all names be placed on the map. not sure how this slipped through.