Japan - 日本 - Quenched

[MrBenn]

I can;t see any issue with the drop probabilities - all the areas have substantially lower than 10% chance of being dropped.

The bonus values generated by the spreadsheet seem pretty good too...

Moving along nicely... Keep up the good work

[RedBaron0]

I can;t see any issue with the drop probabilities - all the areas have substantially lower than 10% chance of being dropped.

The bonus values generated by the spreadsheet seem pretty good too...

Moving along nicely... Keep up the good work

Thanks Mr. Benn! That kind of statement I was kinda hoping might have something... attached to it. I guess my question is, am I still missing something gameplay wise?

[Danyael]

i like the fact that there going to show up somewhere
so then in 1v1 would neutrals have 15 to start?
i agree your drop % are low enough
of course its possible to get a good start but
whats the point in taking a risk if there is no luck involved

[RedBaron0]

Yeah, you can't say it'll never happen, there will be games where someone will get a bonus on the drop, but that's true on just about any map, all I can do is make sure it doesn't happen too often.

Yeah the breakdown of territories per player should look like this, all are random, no starting neutrals or starting positions:

2 player: 14/15 neutral
3 player: 14/1 neutral
4 player: 10/3 neutral
5 player: 8/3 neutral
6 player: 7/1 neutral
7 player: 6/1 neutral
8 player: 5/3 neutral

[Danyael]

i believe that in 1v1 the territs are split even
so it makes me wonder
how will the game engine know to give the neut the extra?
will this be a problem is there a solution?

[RedBaron0]

i believe that in 1v1 the territs are split even
so it makes me wonder
how will the game engine know to give the neut the extra?
will this be a problem is there a solution?

As I understand it, someone correct me if I'm wrong, in 1v1 games territories are divided by 3. One third goto the red player, the second third goes to the green player, and any remainder after that is neutral. For 43 territories it would split 14/14/14 plus 1 extra which would also be neutral.

Large image completed and posted on page 1 with the small image.

[MrBenn]

I can;t see any issue with the drop probabilities - all the areas have substantially lower than 10% chance of being dropped.

The bonus values generated by the spreadsheet seem pretty good too...

Moving along nicely... Keep up the good work

Thanks Mr. Benn! That kind of statement I was kinda hoping might have something... attached to it. I guess my question is, am I still missing something gameplay wise?

That was remiss of me...

[RedBaron0]

I can;t see any issue with the drop probabilities - all the areas have substantially lower than 10% chance of being dropped.

The bonus values generated by the spreadsheet seem pretty good too...

Moving along nicely... Keep up the good work

Thanks Mr. Benn! That kind of statement I was kinda hoping might have something... attached to it. I guess my question is, am I still missing something gameplay wise?

That was remiss of me...

No worries Mr. Benn, seriously, if I am missing something, please tell me, don't feel obligated to stamp me based on my statement of your statement. In any case, my humble thanks for your praise, which I am remiss for not expressing better earlier.

[Industrial Helix]

Congrats on the gameplay stamp!

So I guess we're moving on to in depth graphics discussion?

Kyoto, Osaka and Hiroshima are tad difficult to read, could you up the shadow behind them just a smidgen? Maybe Aso as well.

I'm trying to be picky but that's the only thing I really can see. I think I might have been looking at this map too long, to be honest so I might have gotten used to it. The big thing is getting the large map ready.

[RedBaron0]

I will look at those territory names and see what I can do, but will hold off until I'm done with the colors on the map. I've viewed the map under the color blindness filters and I've got red and green regions pretty close together so I'm going to rearrange the colors, at least, to alternate red/green colors with a blue/yellow colors, maybe change a color or two. That might solve the territory names too. The territories have gotten lighter over time, so perhaps I should reverse the text color and shadowing?

Big image is on the first page, I'll make sure I post it each time with an update from now on; on the last page as well.

[RedBaron0]

Small - 601x600

Click image to enlarge.

Large - 800x799

Click image to enlarge.

Changed the colors to be more friendly towards those with color blindness. I think it also takes care of the other territory names that were harder to read, but I did add a bit more shadow behind Aso and moved down a smidgen.

Tried the text in black, worked ok except for any name crossing the country outline. The letter blended to the line and you couldn't see it. White text, and black shadows work best.

Any concerns with the new colors? I'm thinking I might change the gray for Hokkaido to reddish/purplish color instead. And are there any other concerns?

[ender516]

I think the switch from grey will likely be an improvement, since the map is a little short of warm colours, but mind that you don't make it too saturated and throw off the balance. Hokkaido does seem to be the largest area on the map, and a strong colour might be overpowering.

[porkenbeans]

The problem that you are having stems from the fact, that, your water and land color values, are too close to each other. One needs to be light and the other dark. Also, as I said before, The black stroke is way too overpowering. Once you get those color values worked out as I suggest, you will see that you can loose the stroke altogether. An inside shadow on the land, will suffice if you need it at all. Then when it comes to the text, you can use black over the light background, and white over the dark. or just use white with a drop shadow.

edit,
check out the dawn of ages map. He had the same problem going on. I posted a remedy that would also work for your map.
viewtopic.php?f=241&t=92583&p=2180104#p2180252

[RedBaron0]

Version 5.5
Small - 601x600

Click image to enlarge.

Large - 800x799

Click image to enlarge.

I've once again revamped the colors of the bonus territories. They again should be fine for those who are color blind, red/green have been alternated for the most part with blue/yellow regions. The colors are now brighter and stronger which should now create an offset from the much lighter sea colored background. Hopefully the color aren't too strong or overpowering. The outline of the country has been totally removed for the time being. The darker colors combined with the bevel on each colored region hopefully make the line unnecessary.

I'm interested to hear what you guys have to say about the colors, other than that I think I may have to delete the 2 little mountains in the center of the map. I put them there to prevent the problem of have a 4 corner territory connection, but I could connect the pinched parts of the boundaries in Aichi together. Then the only difference gameplay wise would be that Nagano would connect to Ishikawa. I'm just concerned with the spot where "Nagano" is taking up space in the territory itself, I could switch the circle and the name, but then the 2 army circles for Nagano and Niigata are too close together.
I may still need to reposition territory circles a little. The one that bothers me the most in the one on the small map over Izu-Oshima. The island is completely covered and the detail of the island is completely lost.

Note to self, save often. {grumbles about the reliability of GIMP}

[Industrial Helix]

Wow... brightness. I think you should desaturate the color some, though not to the levels they were before if you don't want. To be honest, I think the saturation levels were good the way it was two updates ago. As for removing the line around the whole map... I'm inclined to not like it, but i you think its a good idea then run with it. I think it just displaces the map on the blue background too much in the large map...

Something is going on with your large version... like the darker tones that are in the small map loose their darkness when in the large map. Because the lack of line doesn't seem to affect the small map in my eyes, just the large one.

Another tidbit: the 1 over mini map shukuko is difficult to read. I think if you moved it a tad to the right the shadow on the minimap will fix this. Perhaps the word Shukuo could be scooted so the k is over the island and the i isn't so lost. Minor gripes, but thought I'd mention them

[porkenbeans]

Awesome,
Yes, you are certainly headed in the right direction. I.H. has a valid point, and I think that you can easily correct this by the addition of 2 layers. make a white overlay for the water, and a black overlay for the land. then play with the opacity of those layers until you find the desired balance. this will accomplish two things, make the contrast between the water and land a tad higher, and desaturated the overall color just a bit.
I am so glad that you have seen fit to loose the stroke. It is a whole new map, and I can look at it without my eyes burning. lol.

[ender516]

Wow... brightness. I think you should desaturate the color some, though not to the levels they were before if you don't want. To be honest, I think the saturation levels were good the way it was two updates ago. As for removing the line around the whole map... I'm inclined to not like it, but i you think its a good idea then run with it. I think it just displaces the map on the blue background too much in the large map...

I don't miss the black line too much, but with this colour scheme, the whole map seems to be floating above the ocean. Perhaps some sort of shadow or bevel effect which continued the slope of the land at the shore out under the ocean would bring the map down to sea level. I don't know if you would want to have the colour of the land bleed into the water, or simply shade the existing ocean colour to get the effect.

Something is going on with your large version... like the darker tones that are in the small map loose their darkness when in the large map. Because the lack of line doesn't seem to affect the small map in my eyes, just the large one.

I don't have much hands on experience with GIMP or any other modern drawing software, but from a theoretical point of view, I think this has to do with how the program deals with adding or removing pixels when stretching or squashing a bitmap. Usually a decision is made somewhere to preserve black pixels vs. white pixels, or foreground vs. background. The texture you have on the territories that keeps them from looking like a flat patch of colour is the bitmap in question, and it looks like black pixels or foreground is the winner. If you think of the texture as grey paint sprayed on plastic wrap lying on your small map, and then you stretch it to cover your large map, it becomes more transparent and the underlying pure colour becomes more visible. (If you started with the large map, I guess you have to imagine using a heat gun to shrink the plastic and watching it get darker, like those Shrinky-Dink crafts my kids like to make.) So I guess you have to compensate in the texture for the change in size.

[porkenbeans]

Enders concerns could probably be addressed by adding a land layer under the existing one, but give it an outside bevel, instead of the inside that you have now.
Also, I do not think that you need the extra thick black border lines, between the bonus areas. Just make them the same thickness as the rest of your black border lines.

[RedBaron0]

Version 5.7
Small - 601x600

Click image to enlarge.

Large - 800x799

Click image to enlarge.

This is more of a progression update, I've implemented many of the ideas, some of them I'm not sure exactly what you mean, or I'm not finding an equivalent to use in GIMP.

First what I've done:
Did the black and white overlayers on the land and sea. Currently the black is set at 10% opacity and the white is at 20%
Added a light shadow outline that I'm hoping connects the land sea better.

Moved the "1"-- crap that's supposed to be a "2" I'll have to fix that. and moved Shikoku over to the left a little bit
Erased the 2 mountains at center of the map, and redrew the border as not to have a four corner issue making more room for "Nagano" itself.

Thicker "bonus" borders replaced with regular borders.

What I'm not sure about:
I think I get that fact as the texture behind the territories is stretched to create the larger image the light and dark areas behind is stretched out giving a different look between the large and small map? I may have to combat that by taking the original texture and working it directly to the large map so it doesn't get stretched.

I'm not totally sure about the term "desaturate" In GIMP the desaturate tool takes ALL the color out a region. I think I get what you're driving at that the colors I have are too strong and overpowering. So I'm hoping the the overlays take care of that.

I'm not sure about the difference between an outside and inside bevel. The tool I have just allows me to bevel the edge of an object and I can make the size of the border larger or smaller.

FYI:
I'm put a ton of insomniac time into this map, and it's gotten me 3 stamps in 10 weeks. (gotta be a record... ) With the start of the school year I'll be putting more time into my work as a teacher, so progress on this map will slow down, but WILL continue.

Also I'm starting to think about XML, I may fiddle with it here and there to get a feel for it, but if I can't figure it out I've got someone in mind to help me out if I need it.

[porkenbeans]

check your transfer modes. Do you have any color burns set ? the richness of the color is still way to high. Photobucket has an editing room, that is very easy to use. you can go there and play with the contrast and saturation levels quickly and easily.

[Danyael]

good work redbaron0
i really like the new colours used and the removal of that thick outline makes it look really clean
keep up the good work

[RedBaron0]

check your transfer modes. Do you have any color burns set ? the richness of the color is still way to high. Photobucket has an editing room, that is very easy to use. you can go there and play with the contrast and saturation levels quickly and easily.

GIMP doesn't (to my knowledge) have a color burn set. It does have a dodge/burn brush, that darkens all aspects of a color, I can fiddle with which types of colors it targets(highlights, midtones, shadows) but I'm guessing it not the same as the Photoshop's color burn tools. I'll check out what I can do with Photobucket.

EDIT: damn flashplayer, I dunno what's wrong but I can't use photobucket's editing room. I think I can figure something out using GIMP though.

[MrBenn]

I'd be wary about exporting an image to photobucket in order to make amendments to things - you'd be much better off sticking to whatever functionality is in your graphics software (be that GIMP, Photoshop, or whatever).

From here, I would suggest focusing development on your large image, and leaving the small one for a while (other than occasional checks for legibility etc). A large map scales down a lot better than a small one scales up - which is why your large image looks so blurry right now.

The land textures don't really do much for me at the moment - primarily because you've got a slight stylistic mish-mash going on... ie The map (textures and colours) doesn't blend well with the background - it doesn't look like they go together. I think you need to get some inspiration to direct your graphical vision - once you have in your mind what you hope to achieve, you'll find it easier to get there

In the meantime, you can do some work on your borders - I think the map would work better with an outline! RjBeals gave me some good advice - the premise of which is very transferable: viewtopic.php?f=127&t=73566&start=15#p1770213

Keep up the good work

[porkenbeans]

I'd be wary about exporting an image to photobucket in order to make amendments to things - you'd be much better off sticking to whatever functionality is in your graphics software (be that GIMP, Photoshop, or whatever).

From here, I would suggest focusing development on your large image, and leaving the small one for a while (other than occasional checks for legibility etc). A large map scales down a lot better than a small one scales up - which is why your large image looks so blurry right now.

The land textures don't really do much for me at the moment - primarily because you've got a slight stylistic mish-mash going on... ie The map (textures and colours) doesn't blend well with the background - it doesn't look like they go together. I think you need to get some inspiration to direct your graphical vision - once you have in your mind what you hope to achieve, you'll find it easier to get there

In the meantime, you can do some work on your borders - I think the map would work better with an outline! RjBeals gave me some good advice - the premise of which is very transferable: viewtopic.php?f=127&t=73566&start=15#p1770213

Keep up the good work

What exactly do you mean by, be wary ? and why.

[MrBenn]

What exactly do you mean by, be wary ? and why.

If you're exporting a file (as a jpg, for example), then your layers will be flattened and lost. If you want to make additional changes to anything, then you'll have to remember to repeat the process again, as well as remembering exactly what alterations you made.
If you can make the amendments in your working file, then alterations to brightness, contrast, (anything you can add in as an "adjustment layer") is entirely reversible and repeatable.