• 235 posts
  • Page 4 of 16
Matty wrote:
I cant view the version before this one :(

Your rivers are nice, but i dont like bridges next to eachother with exactly the same rotation, looks not real (Central North - Central Axis).

And even though i cant view the older version, it seems to have the same style, so its not much less "pntbttr like" - please note that thats not a problem, the remark was not made to say you copied stuff from him, or are not original. Its just a remark pointing your style is less exclusive.

Well, overall the map looks clean but good!
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
marcoxa wrote:
i cant really tell what you did because the last version is not working, so i have nothing to compare it to :/
BrewDog wrote:
I just saw this. I like the earlier version better with rustic looking map. It looked sweet that way. Now that you've changed it and I'm having a bad day, I'm going to start a riot.
Vexer wrote:
Again, i have not read any of these posts yet but i looked at the pic and notice that the map has 45 territories, which is the kiss of death to any map. 45 is the worst because in 2 and 3 player games each player starts with 15 territories. Which usually will mean that the player who goes first is the only one to get a +5 on their first turn.

We do have a couple 45 territory maps but they will eventually be changed.

Please change the map so that it doesn't have between 45 and 51 territories. 44 would be best cause you could combine brasilia into Goias which would also fix the double bridge problem for matty.
Glanru wrote:
This is the first map thread I've read in quite a while. The map started out showing some promise, and I'm generally pleased and impressed with the direction of the updates. I especially like that it now looks like a map placed on a table. With that in mind though, whatever material it is on should look more aged around the edges, or burned in lieu of aging if you prefer that look.

The only thing I prefer from older version is the color of the title and other text which had a reddish tint, and how it looked a bit faded. On the topic of the text, it is worth noting that all of the text has various levels of blur and sharpness. This can work if it's intended, though it's more likely that a map would have more uniform blurring or sharpness.

I'm not really familiar with Brazil's river systems, but I'd like to point out that the rivers in the map still do not connect to the ocean. To the left of Brazil is more land, and farther left are very tall mountains between that land and the Pacific. 

Typically, I prefer maps to not have territories that only connect to one other territory. When I made the house map, I added a few that did just that on purpose to fill a niche. It isn't a large factor on game play, just something to consider. Personally, I'd make Boa Vista and Rio Negro connect. But, it's fine either way.

Unless there is some significance to the color choices for the regions, I'd suggest moving the green away from green and the purple away from red and blue (which combine into purple). I would put purple in the NW corner, move orange right one region where the green is. And, move that green where the purple was.

Not entirely sure which of the many possible methods you used, but the shadow around Brasil is a nice effect, though it seems overdone. I'm also unsure which software you are using, but if you have an opacity option, I'd recommend changing that layer to somewhere between 60% and 80% opacity so that you still have a slightly less prominent darkness around Brasil but still gain the added looks of it. The mini-map needs much more work for this same thing as it no longer looks like a nice darkening, rather an unnecessary border.

The text glow seems like a color along the right theme for the map. However, it does seem too think behind the letters. If you have an opacity setting for just the glow you could try lowering it to 75% to 85%. Alternatively, it may look better with simply lowering the radius of the glow on the text by a pixel or other similar effect.

I would reduce the number of bonus of all regions by one (1), though the ones that are five (5) or higher could also reasonably stay if the others were lowered by one (1).

I can tell you've already put quite a bit of work into this, and I can't wait to see how much farther this map progresses. Keep up the good work Thorpe.
Thorpe wrote:
And thank-you Glanru...I like how say what you do not like and then say how to try to fix it!
This is how I like the comments to be.

I read this comment in another post and I get mad cause they never say who or what map. "I think the mapmakers need to make their maps better before they start on other maps" What maps? What mapmaker(s)?

Reminds me of another comment..."We do not need more ugly maps"

Please people write in complete paragraphs...who...what..where..are three basic things you should address.
95.5% of the time you kill a players cap before your 2nd turn in... you fail or die next
marcoxa wrote:
i love the map, not to crazy about the minimap though. looks cheap for whatever reason.
Matty wrote:
I dont really like the overall colour scheme, everything is so dark.

And I think because the minimap is so big, it looks really empty.

Also "Brasilia goias" has two names for one territory :S
"Strength doesn't lie in numbers, strength doesn't lie in wealth. Strength lies in nights of peaceful slumbers." ~Maria
Vexer wrote:
So i finally got around to looking at your rivers and it looks like you completely made them up. The guide states that rivers must be based mostly on real rivers. In other words the rivers should be at least 95% accurate.

TheBishop said he had an idea about using impassable forests to make the regions more defensible. It would be hard to make impassable forests look good on a map but without impassables the game-play isn't very good.

It is suggested in the guide that you provide an outline and regions before doing major work on graphics because it may be the case that the location you chose will not make a good risk map no matter what you do. I wish that you had waited for feedback on game-play before putting this much work in to the map.

What good is a pretty map if no one plays it because they don't like the game-play?

Rivers have to be 95% accurate because rivers don't change course very often. Territory boundaries on the other hand, change much more often. You could try changing the boundaries a little bit hear and there to give regions less borders to defend. You could say the map is based on future boundaries or whatever. That way you won't have to do as much work making impassable forests. Although if impassable forest were to work on any map it would be this one because it is fairly plausible that an army can't efficiently pass through a thick rainforest.

You would save yourself a lot of frustration if you would only pick locations that don't need impassables to make the game-play work.