Moderator: Cartographers
porkenbeans wrote:The map is very inaccurate. Rivers and mountains are in the wrong places. My revamp will try to fix this flaw. I will keep the same territs, but the connections will need to be altered.
I suggest that the old coding be scrapped. In my opinion it is better to just let this revamp do its job to fix this turd. Sorry if I offend anyone, but why should we polish up a piece of crap ?
Lets just revamp it to fix all of the mistakes. There is nothing worth trying to salvage from this attempted revamp. So, just toss the code in the trash along with the horrible graphics.
My graphics are close to being complete, I think it is much more accurate, and I think that it will please those that have been complaining about this last revamp.
MrBenn wrote:The general layout should be as close to the current map as possible; the idea is to make the transition between maps as easy as possible this time around, and in an ideal world we would want to keep the XML (technical description of the map) unchanged - although some flexibility will be allowed where necessary.the.killing.44 wrote:porkenbeans wrote:The map is very inaccurate. Rivers and mountains are in the wrong places. My revamp will try to fix this flaw. I will keep the same territs, but the connections will need to be altered.
I suggest that the old coding be scrapped. In my opinion it is better to just let this revamp do its job to fix this turd. Sorry if I offend anyone, but why should we polish up a piece of crap ?
Lets just revamp it to fix all of the mistakes. There is nothing worth trying to salvage from this attempted revamp. So, just toss the code in the trash along with the horrible graphics.
My graphics are close to being complete, I think it is much more accurate, and I think that it will please those that have been complaining about this last revamp.
I'll just let you know right now that your map will be ineligible for the competition. Read the title, thanks.
porkenbeans wrote:MrBenn wrote:The general layout should be as close to the current map as possible; the idea is to make the transition between maps as easy as possible this time around, and in an ideal world we would want to keep the XML (technical description of the map) unchanged - although some flexibility will be allowed where necessary.the.killing.44 wrote:porkenbeans wrote:The map is very inaccurate. Rivers and mountains are in the wrong places. My revamp will try to fix this flaw. I will keep the same territs, but the connections will need to be altered.
I suggest that the old coding be scrapped. In my opinion it is better to just let this revamp do its job to fix this turd. Sorry if I offend anyone, but why should we polish up a piece of crap ?
Lets just revamp it to fix all of the mistakes. There is nothing worth trying to salvage from this attempted revamp. So, just toss the code in the trash along with the horrible graphics.
My graphics are close to being complete, I think it is much more accurate, and I think that it will please those that have been complaining about this last revamp.
I'll just let you know right now that your map will be ineligible for the competition. Read the title, thanks.
I know how to read 44. It clearly says that there is leeway. Like I said, I have kept the same territs and bonus areas the same, but in order to bring the map in to line with the proper geography, some things will have to change. Take a close look at a real map of Germany. You will see that this map is utterly void of reality. My revamp WILL be geographically correct. The mountains will be where they are supposed to be, and the same goes for the rivers. This map is in need of a revamp not just because it is butt-ugly, but also because it is "fantasy-land". My revamp will be a map of GERMANY, ...thank you very much.
MrBenn wrote:Competition Rules:
2. The competition is for a graphical revamp only: territory names and border connections must be unchanged from the current live version of the Germany Map.
porkenbeans wrote:MrBenn wrote:The general layout should be as close to the current map as possible; the idea is to make the transition between maps as easy as possible this time around, and in an ideal world we would want to keep the XML (technical description of the map) unchanged - although some flexibility will be allowed where necessary.
Well, I am confused. Mrbenn says very clearly that "flexibility" WILL be allowed.
WHICH IS IT ?????
I wish you guys would get your act together. How can anyone be expected to work on these projects, when this kind of crap is going on ?
Why don't you guys figure it out, and then with a single voice, Lay out the requirements, instead of these BS contradictory rules.
The geography on the maps that you have mentioned did not need to be corrected.the.killing.44 wrote:porkenbeans wrote:MrBenn wrote:The general layout should be as close to the current map as possible; the idea is to make the transition between maps as easy as possible this time around, and in an ideal world we would want to keep the XML (technical description of the map) unchanged - although some flexibility will be allowed where necessary.
Well, I am confused. Mrbenn says very clearly that "flexibility" WILL be allowed.
WHICH IS IT ?????
I wish you guys would get your act together. How can anyone be expected to work on these projects, when this kind of crap is going on ?
Why don't you guys figure it out, and then with a single voice, Lay out the requirements, instead of these BS contradictory rules.
What REVAMP so far has ever changed the gameplay? Circus Maximus, Indochina, Montreal, Midgard, British Isles, Brazil, even pep's Germany?
What I mean is, there are impassable mountains where none exist. There are impassable rivers where none exist. There are mountains where rivers should be and visa-versa.edbeard wrote:Mr. Benn is talking about moving army circles and the physical location of borders.
People think you are saying changing the actual gameplay (eg: you make Berlin and Dresden connect when currently they do not)
I'm unsure as to what you mean.
porkenbeans wrote:What I mean is, there are impassable mountains where none exist. There are impassable rivers where none exist. There are mountains where rivers should be and visa-versa.edbeard wrote:Mr. Benn is talking about moving army circles and the physical location of borders.
People think you are saying changing the actual gameplay (eg: you make Berlin and Dresden connect when currently they do not)
I'm unsure as to what you mean.
porkenbeans wrote:What I mean is, there are impassable mountains where none exist. There are impassable rivers where none exist. There are mountains where rivers should be and visa-versa.
Incandenza wrote:porkenbeans wrote:What I mean is, there are impassable mountains where none exist. There are impassable rivers where none exist. There are mountains where rivers should be and visa-versa.
Yes, because pepperonibread had to fit his revamped image to fit the exact gameplay of the old Germany map. All Revamps have had to follow the same template: absolutely no gameplay changes. When MrB was talking about "flexibility", he was referring to XML coordinates and the precise drawing of terits, NOT flexibility on gameplay.
The "no changed gameplay" rule has always been the case, with this and other revamps. While that's not necessarily the ideal situation in this case, that's the way it is. This is not policy set by the foundry, but rather by lackattack, so if you'd like to protest, don't blame the foundry, address all comments to the big turtle.
porkenbeans wrote:Incandenza wrote:porkenbeans wrote:What I mean is, there are impassable mountains where none exist. There are impassable rivers where none exist. There are mountains where rivers should be and visa-versa.
Yes, because pepperonibread had to fit his revamped image to fit the exact gameplay of the old Germany map. All Revamps have had to follow the same template: absolutely no gameplay changes. When MrB was talking about "flexibility", he was referring to XML coordinates and the precise drawing of terits, NOT flexibility on gameplay.
The "no changed gameplay" rule has always been the case, with this and other revamps. While that's not necessarily the ideal situation in this case, that's the way it is. This is not policy set by the foundry, but rather by lackattack, so if you'd like to protest, don't blame the foundry, address all comments to the big turtle.
Thank you for spelling it out so that it is more clear.
Let me pose a scenario, and then tell me what the Foundry's position would be.
Lets say someone produced a Germany map, that is unique in both game play, and geography, from this current map in question.
Would there be room for 2 Germany maps ?
It's just that the map that I have made is an accurate representation of Germany. I am now finding it very hard to bring myself to ruin it, by making rivers and mountains where none exist, for the sake of keeping to an inaccurate map. I am not from Germany, but I would think that the German CCers, would appreciate a map that shows an accurate representation of their country.
MrBenn wrote:3. The general layout should be as close to the current map as possible; the idea is to make the transition between maps as easy as possible this time around, and in an ideal world we would want to keep the XML (technical description of the map) unchanged - although some flexibility will be allowed where necessary.
porkenbeans wrote:It's just that the map that I have made is an accurate representation of Germany. I am now finding it very hard to bring myself to ruin it, by making rivers and mountains where none exist, for the sake of keeping to an inaccurate map. I am not from Germany, but I would think that the German CCers, would appreciate a map that shows an accurate representation of their country.
Industrial Helix wrote:What about France 1989 and the France map?
They're reasonably similar and both are available, though 1789 purports to have a historical theme which it really doesn't.
Industrial Helix wrote:Yeah, I think that they're different as well, but only in terms of how the territories are laid out. Does that, should that, qualify a map as "unique"?
natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
Yeah, me too.gimil wrote:Industrial Helix wrote:Yeah, I think that they're different as well, but only in terms of how the territories are laid out. Does that, should that, qualify a map as "unique"?
I don't think that is a discussion for this thread.
Is anyone else as excited as me for this competition? A good competition always gets me going!
porkenbeans wrote:Yeah, me too.gimil wrote:Industrial Helix wrote:Yeah, I think that they're different as well, but only in terms of how the territories are laid out. Does that, should that, qualify a map as "unique"?
I don't think that is a discussion for this thread.
Is anyone else as excited as me for this competition? A good competition always gets me going!
Does anyone know just how the voting is going to take place ?
Is it going to be held in a Foundry "poll thread" ? Where the regular hand full of Elites get to decide for everyone, or Is it going to be more widespread, and seek to poll from the larger CC community ?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users