WWII Pearl Harbor - [Quenched]

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:56 pm

cairnswk wrote:
hulmey wrote:Yes it is a tactical option but i feel it does not fit in with the overall graphics and looks odd. You already have the oil drums which are what the photographs show.....The oil tap would have run underground as well and would have been seen by the enemy, who would have attacked the oil drums for maximium damage.

If you want it to stay which is your right i then reverse the question apon to you.

What are you going to do to relieve the clutter and busyness of the map?
Apart from reducing the terts, this is one solution that I don't think works, because the map loses it "soul"....removed all the 3d buildings, plane shadows and icons in the legend.

I also don't believe the map is too cluttered...perhaps it looks cluttered because it is so evenly spread.

I like this version better. It seems more playable to me. The map has pplenty of 'soul' with out all that extra stuff.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:59 pm

ignore what mibi said. he's possesed. i''l call an exorcist. in the meantime remove the hidous image without soul. it burns my eyes. evil be gone. mibi be gone.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:12 pm

mibi wrote:

I like this version better. It seems more playable to me. The map has pplenty of 'soul' with out all that extra stuff.[/quote]

Hey Mibi...thanks for your post!
I don't follow your reason for saying the map is more "playable" without those icons and buildings. I thought the playability would depend on the placement of the terts and regions and anything that affected the attack routes, not on the 'extras'.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:21 pm

DiM wrote:ignore what mibi said. he's possesed. i''l call an exorcist. in the meantime remove the hidous image without soul. it burns my eyes. evil be gone. mibi be gone.

DiM...your sense of humour brings delight to the forum...pure evil from time to time, but hillarious! LOL

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:21 pm

playability for me also means how easy it is to see and visualize the board. with all the extra icons there is more leg work the eye has to go through in order to get a sense of whats happening. this map is perfectly fine without them.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:30 pm

mibi wrote:playability for me also means how easy it is to see and visualize the board. with all the extra icons there is more leg work the eye has to go through in order to get a sense of whats happening. this map is perfectly fine without them.

how did you manage to escape from the exorcist???

i shall take this matter into my own hands.
now where did i put my holy water and cross??

here they are...

now cairns if you could just hold mibi for a sec i'll begin the ritual.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:38 pm

mibi wrote:playability for me also means how easy it is to see and visualize the board. with all the extra icons there is more leg work the eye has to go through in order to get a sense of whats happening. this map is perfectly fine without them.

Mibi...you're ruining my hard work with trying some new artwork.

mibi · Post by **mibi** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:44 pm

cairnswk wrote:
mibi wrote:playability for me also means how easy it is to see and visualize the board. with all the extra icons there is more leg work the eye has to go through in order to get a sense of whats happening. this map is perfectly fine without them.
Mibi...you're ruining my hard work with trying some new artwork.

i think this is a pretty standard case of less is more.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:48 pm

mibi wrote:
cairnswk wrote:
mibi wrote:playability for me also means how easy it is to see and visualize the board. with all the extra icons there is more leg work the eye has to go through in order to get a sense of whats happening. this map is perfectly fine without them.
Mibi...you're ruining my hard work with trying some new artwork.
i think this is a pretty standard case of less is more.

go away you fiend

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:53 am

Please choose an option below for the attack lines:

A. Ships - light blue lines; Planes - blue double dash lines
30% [ 8 ]
B. Ships - white squares; Planes - black dots
11% [ 3 ]
C. Ships - white squares; Planes - white medium dots
7% [ 2 ]
D. Ships - blue lines; Planes - red dash double lines
19% [ 5 ]
E. Ships - blue lines; Planes - thick yellow dots
30% [ 8 ]
F. Ships - white squares; Planes - single black dash lines
0% [ 0 ]
G. Ships - light blue squares; Planes - single white dash lines
0% [ 0 ]

Total Votes : 26

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:10 am

OK....there is a new poll here.

Does this map proceed with:
a. V27 all the icons on all the terts and legend
or
B. V28 without all the icons on the terts and legend.

Version 27

Version 28

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:17 am

where's the poll?

anyway. i vote v27

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:20 am

DiM wrote:where's the poll?

anyway. i vote v27

Its there...DiM...you gotta give me some time to get these up, please

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:53 am

cairnswk wrote:
DiM wrote:where's the poll?

anyway. i vote v27
Its there...DiM...you gotta give me some time to get these up, please

it appeared after i posted.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 9:55 am

I can see the arguments for both sides on this one...

I wonder - the map isn't actually that big - perhaps you could have a "small" map without the icons... and a "large" map with the icons?

That would satisfy both camps... and the map is big enough to see but small enough to fit low res's?

What say the overseers of design?

C.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 1:37 pm

yeti_c wrote:I can see the arguments for both sides on this one...

I wonder - the map isn't actually that big - perhaps you could have a "small" map without the icons... and a "large" map with the icons?

That would satisfy both camps... and the map is big enough to see but small enough to fit low res's?

What say the overseers of design?

C.

yeti_c
that is a good solution i hadn't thought of.
i'll consider a proposal for such after this current poll.

Night Strike · Post by **Night Strike** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:03 pm

For game play, I think the icons need to be left in for easy clarifications. For the small map, I don't care.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:31 pm

i never use the small map

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:32 pm

oh and i didnt vote because i like the areoplane shadows becuse they give character to the map but think the buildings arent necesary and they look odd

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:24 pm

at this moment v27 is massively winning $\:D/$

Teya · Post by **Teya** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:27 pm

I think no matter what, the icons need to be in the legend on both large and small map. The map is very busy and having those icons in the legend make it that little bit easier to clarify which bonus is which.
As an example: If you take the icons out of the legend, there is nothing saying what plane is what. And that goes for all the bonuses.

Pious · Post by **Pious** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:28 am

I agree. Without the symbols, you can't tell what the planes are, and some people not familiar with Pearl Harbor could be confused with other things.

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:14 am

Thanks everyone for your interest thus far.

at least if the voting is any indication. then the icons go back on the map.

reelkmcn · Post by **reelkmcn** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:13 pm

Can't wait for this map to be ready for play! Larger format like everyone else said would be nice, but would still play. Keep up the good work!

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:45 pm

Wow this map has gotten so much more appealing to the eye since I last checked! Good job!

WWII Pearl Harbor - [Quenched]

Question: Map V27 with all icons or Map V28 without icons

Pearl Harbor