Moderator: Cartographers
wicked wrote:How about making the ferry lines dashed so they'd be less instrusive? I dont' like the idea of all ferry terminals attacking all ferry terminals though, as that's not realistic, besides we already have that on other maps.
Also you can't tell the shape of Mt. Rainier. Why is the box there, is it going to be a "country"? Can you make the mountain more 3D-like if it's a country?
You might want to show bridges/connections over the rivers in the south there too.
wicked wrote:ok then, how about making the border actually border the pic of Mt Rainier? Right now they look like 2 separate entities. And I don't think the opacity is the problem, rather the pic. I'll see what I can find...
wicked wrote:I like the dashed better. How would one less on the bolding of them look? Also, would it look better to make bremerton extend further east, so cutting off the bottom of silverdale and a little more of the tip of port orchard. The bigger Brem. country would then be easier to stick a number on as well.
edbeard wrote:I really hate the ferry routes. They are worse than before. The blue underneath the red with the gaps looks very strange. Especially so in the middle of the map with the darker blue. You should change the style of them. At the least a new colour is needed. Red is not a good choice. Try white, grey or black. But, honestly try out a new style. To put it very lightly, they are distracting to the eye. That's something you don't want.
I'm not sure why there's a killer whale there. I'm assuming they're native to the area, but still you don't want something popping out at you like that. I'd get rid of it altogether, but at the least move it away from the land a bit and reduce the opacity (make it more transparent). Just remove it. It doesn't add anything to the map.
The mountain in the lower right. Why is there a box? Is it really important to the area to have it as a territory? It just seems weird that it's the only mountain there. Is that geographically correct, or are you just placing this one in there? Right now when people see it they won't know if it's part of a continent or not. That's a problem.
I still don't understand why you have 2 different coloured fonts. I don't think you'd even be able to convince me that different continents need either black or white, but some continents have both white and black font. It makes the map look very odd. I'd pick one (black or white) and find out which looks best on everything. Or, play around with it a bit. Try out different styled fonts, with both colours. Maybe add a glow or a shadow to them.
The title being in the middle. I don't think it'll work there. Again it just quite odd. I don't think a title needs to be fancy schmancy, but when you put it in the middle there, you force it to be simple and blend in and I don't think that's good. It should stand out as the title, but not distract from the map. Put it at the top so people see it and say, "Ok this map is called Puget Sound" and then they look at the map. I just think the title and legend should be out of the way of the map itself and not in the middle of everything else.
edbeard wrote:this version is much better.
you could try small dots instead of dashed lines? I like the black better as it doesn't stand out too much. Now it blends in if you're not looking for them, but you can see them if that's where you're looking. And, that's exactly how it should be for water routes like that. (I hope that clogged wordy rambling made sense)
You might be able to add a bit to the top of the map. Then you can fit the title easier. Or, better yet, just move the text for Granite falls down a bit and put the title there in the top right hand corner.
Oh in the future would you mind posting the latest version into the post where you mention the update as well as the 1st post? It just makes it easier to follow for me. thanks.
Gnome wrote:I like your map...but there are some things that I don't like that much...
-some borders are to straight...as for edmonds and shoreline its ok...but the border between Mason co. and Kitsap Co. looks so unnatural...Can't you just make it like the rest? I think that would look way better...
-You also forgot to draw some black borders, the border between lakewood and Tacoma, you have a river there....you started a border at lakewood but you didn't finished it...maybe it's better to stop it at the river mouth...
-And I don't agree with some bonuses, how did you calculate them?
King Co has 7 borders and has a bonus of 7 (agree)
Snohomish has 3 borders but has a bonus of 4 (disagree)
Pierce Co has 4 borders and has a bonus of 4 (agree)
Thurston CO has 2 borders and has a bonus of 2 (agree)
Mason CO has 4 borders and has a bonus of 4 (agree, although its hard to hold explanation at Kitsap Co)
Jefferson CO has 2 borders and a bonus of 2 (agree)
Kitsap Co has 6 borders and has a bonus of 7 (disagree much...When you hold Kitsap Co you get a bonus of 7 which is a lot because you can defend Kitsap with only 5 borders...
When you take Allyn and Seattle you can easely prevent some1 to take Masson co because Tahuya can only be fortified along Allyn...and you can afford to put your defense from Bremerton and Bainbridge into 1 territory (Seattle)
I think this makes the gameplay really hard...
wicked wrote:the Lakewood to Vashon route, can you move that to the right a bit to make it longer and more visible? And maybe do something to make the title stand out a bit more? different color/texture maybe? and you need to sign it somewhere eventually!
It's looking good. Is Mercer Island necessary? And any ideas on bridges?
p.s... update the title of the thread to let people know what page the latest map is on.
jako wrote:Gnome wrote:I like your map...but there are some things that I don't like that much...
-some borders are to straight...as for edmonds and shoreline its ok...but the border between Mason co. and Kitsap Co. looks so unnatural...Can't you just make it like the rest? I think that would look way better...
-You also forgot to draw some black borders, the border between lakewood and Tacoma, you have a river there....you started a border at lakewood but you didn't finished it...maybe it's better to stop it at the river mouth...
-And I don't agree with some bonuses, how did you calculate them?
King Co has 7 borders and has a bonus of 7 (agree)
Snohomish has 3 borders but has a bonus of 4 (disagree)
Pierce Co has 4 borders and has a bonus of 4 (agree)
Thurston CO has 2 borders and has a bonus of 2 (agree)
Mason CO has 4 borders and has a bonus of 4 (agree, although its hard to hold explanation at Kitsap Co)
Jefferson CO has 2 borders and a bonus of 2 (agree)
Kitsap Co has 6 borders and has a bonus of 7 (disagree much...When you hold Kitsap Co you get a bonus of 7 which is a lot because you can defend Kitsap with only 5 borders...
When you take Allyn and Seattle you can easely prevent some1 to take Masson co because Tahuya can only be fortified along Allyn...and you can afford to put your defense from Bremerton and Bainbridge into 1 territory (Seattle)
I think this makes the gameplay really hard...
actually i disagree with ur bonus comments, i think her bonus values are fine, u have to also take into account how many terrs it contains that u have to control in order to get the bonus, and in this case, the amount of terrs to entry points suits the bonus values.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users