Moderator: Cartographers

natty dread wrote:I'm not talking about the water's colour, I mean the dark glow on the edge of the land.
natty dread wrote:Come on, no it's not...
I do not agree on any of your isues, graphical got all the consistest as it can get, the minimap has been worked out through a process in the foundry where the current design attained an understanding that its the bedst looking and optimal for the amounth of space available.CafeT wrote:I like the graphical style of the minimap better than the main one. Should the two be more consistent?
Bonuses in the east look hard to keep (not a bad thing). Haven't played because, you know, four games at a time.
Flapcake wrote:I do not agree on any of your isues, graphical got all the consistest as it can get, the minimap has been worked out through a process in the foundry where the current design attained an understanding that its the bedst looking and optimal for the amounth of space available.CafeT wrote:I like the graphical style of the minimap better than the main one. Should the two be more consistent?
Bonuses in the east look hard to keep (not a bad thing). Haven't played because, you know, four games at a time.
Bonus in the east pays of by its difficult level.
it's fine that you think that the graphics are in the best state possible, but the call on the home page for more comments justifies my comments (they weren't inappropriate at this time despite the foundry process).thenobodies80 wrote:Last Call
If anyone has any other comments on tweaking the gameplay/graphics, now is the time to speak up! If there are no other concerns within the next couple of days, this map will be quenched!
thenobodies80
CafeT wrote:it looks like everyone wants this out the door.
They seem that way but they are being taken.CafeT wrote:Bonuses in the east look hard to keep (not a bad thing).

sure, i'll go there more often.Flapcake wrote:so yes i feel you are littel late with so major issues, what I would like to see it that you make some comments in the foundry, thats what we realy need, more people who helps out mapmakers in the early progress.
thanks, but ok to ignore them, looks good in its own right and better than a lot of other quenched maps.Flapcake wrote:But you comments are heard, and only if the majority of CC agree with you changes can be done.
Well duh, but try convincing the site admin of that... they pretty much don't give a shit about the foundry at this point, as long as maps keep coming out... But I digress...Flapcake wrote:thats what we realy need, more people who helps out mapmakers in the early progress.

Thx for your comment Kabanellas. The reason that we went from +1 to +2 autodeploy on shields was to inspire players to go for the winning condiction, as ther was a lack of it with the +1 version, It have shown that it works very vell. players use the condiction more now. The 3 neutrals was also in effect from the +2 to give it some kind of balance.Kabanellas wrote:
I just have a small remark to do. The autodeploys from the shields might be too much. And not only because of the isolated bonus 'per se', but especially if you combine them with the bonus zones (continents) where they're inserted:
Ost Jylland has 5 borders and gives 5 troops bonus where you can had a +2 bonus from the autodeploy (a/d) well placed on one of its borders. That is +7 for 5 borders. Even more profitable if you take Alborg, which will substitute 1 border for an extra +2 a/d. And that will make +9 troops for 5 borders...
Same for Syd Jylland and Ost Sjaelland.
I'd recommend notching those bonuses down to +1 (reducing shield's neutral starters from 3 to 2 could also be acceptable...eventually)