Moderator: Cartographers
bryguy wrote:1) I dont really care for the mountains. Don't get me wrong, their great, but if I look at them straight on they look like canyons.
sailorseal wrote:bryguy wrote:1) I dont really care for the mountains. Don't get me wrong, their great, but if I look at them straight on they look like canyons.
I agree they just give me this weird feeling. The way they ripple makes it look like a wound stitched up. They give me the creeps but I do not think they should be Oak's top priority.
bryguy wrote:sailorseal wrote:bryguy wrote:1) I dont really care for the mountains. Don't get me wrong, their great, but if I look at them straight on they look like canyons.
I agree they just give me this weird feeling. The way they ripple makes it look like a wound stitched up. They give me the creeps but I do not think they should be Oak's top priority.
Agreed. If needed, they could probably be fixed in FF.
I just put it first cause it was the first thing I noticed.
ZeakCytho wrote:your mountains look like veins
samuelc812 wrote:The mountains do look like veins but it's suits the map IMO.
MrBenn wrote:The mountains...
bryguy wrote:I dont really care for the mountains. Don't get me wrong, their great, but if I look at them straight on they look like canyons.
sailorseal wrote:The way they ripple makes it look like a wound stitched up. They give me the creeps but I do not think they should be Oak's top priority.
WidowMakers wrote:First off the mountains are an important distinguishing feature that really helps the map out but at the same time I do not like how they look. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the purpose of them and I think that mountains need to be used but the implementation of them just does not feel right. Some of them just look like scars laid over the land (Eastern Russia and Australia). The mountains around China are very nice. I think they look good because they go from mountains to hills to flat land. The colors blend well and the entire image is integrated. The mountains I mentioned above just seen stuff on top of flat land. The ones in eastern Russia look good until the reddish bases don’t blend into the brown base of the map image. Same goes for the AU mountains too. I really think those should just be removed (I posted on that much earlier in the map development)
I would suggest that you take all names and colors and borders off of the map and try to make the mountains look integrated into the base image. Then once they look seamlessly integrated into the look, turn back on your other layers. That way colors and borders will not affect your mountain style.
Also it was mentioned earlier that there is no legend info explaining the mountains are impassable. I think that is needed as well.
lostatlimbo wrote:Also - the mountains..
oaktown wrote:Explicitly stating that mountains are impassables. Haven't we all played enough CC maps to know that mountains are impassable borders?
oaktown wrote:....
Explicitly stating that mountains are impassables. Haven't we all played enough CC maps to know that mountains are impassable borders?
cairnswk wrote:You see without the notation, any mountain range could be regarded as simply that....a geographical feature of the map and thus it might be considered simply as a border, and not as impassable.
That is why it is Foundry Standard.
sailorseal wrote:So now that you have made these changes can the jury re-vote?
sailorseal wrote:sailorseal wrote:So now that you have made these changes can the jury re-vote?
is anyone going to answer?
oaktown wrote:... Maybe we need to come up with a graphic for this - a third of a map stamp?
cairnswk wrote:oaktown wrote:... Maybe we need to come up with a graphic for this - a third of a map stamp?
oaktown...speaking about the map stamp....this is becoming bureaucratic BS...why make more work for yourself when there already exists a tidy process? just forge the map or have someone do it for you.
sailorseal wrote:sailorseal wrote:So now that you have made these changes can the jury re-vote?
is anyone going to answer?
oaktown wrote:it will now be up to me to make it clear that they are, in fact, mountains and not tree roots.
yeti_c wrote:oaktown wrote:it will now be up to me to make it clear that they are, in fact, mountains and not tree roots.
Look like Mountains to me.
C.
oaktown wrote:...it will now be up to me to make it clear that they are, in fact, mountains and not tree roots.
WidowMakers wrote:First off the mountains are an important distinguishing feature that really helps the map out but at the same time I do not like how they look. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the purpose of them and I think that mountains need to be used but the implementation of them just does not feel right. Some of them just look like scars laid over the land (Eastern Russia and Australia). The mountains around China are very nice. I think they look good because they go from mountains to hills to flat land. The colors blend well and the entire image is integrated. The mountains I mentioned above just seen stuff on top of flat land. The ones in eastern Russia look good until the reddish bases don’t blend into the brown base of the map image. Same goes for the AU mountains too. I really think those should just be removed (I posted on that much earlier in the map development)
I would suggest that you take all names and colors and borders off of the map and try to make the mountains look integrated into the base image. Then once they look seamlessly integrated into the look, turn back on your other layers. That way colors and borders will not affect your mountain style.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users