PDA

View Full Version : ball_hardcourt: Keep?


carstairs
03-20-2011, 02:08 AM
http://i.imgur.com/PIHa3.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ytcfK.png

I'll try to stay as objective as possible. This was many of the bladder players' first times on hardcourt if the time it took us all to enter the match is to be believed, and there were a number of complaints.
-Map is too bright
-Too many powerups (I can vouch for that, I could always pick one up)
-Poor layout/design. Teams had a lot of trouble punching it in, and things had a tendency to cluster up. Additionally, it was very bottom heavy, with very little action up top.

We did stop complaining about 10 minutes in, which left another 20 minutes to play. Hopefully this game was something of an outlier, but there was literally no praise for the map for the duration of the match.

Anyone else who has experience with the map, what do you think? Should it be kept?

sunshineduck
03-20-2011, 02:16 AM
I think the layout is pretty great, honestly. We played a long one as well for our first hardcourt experience, but it was also a 6-5 game and it seemed to go quicker once people realized that you didn't always have to go bottom. I think the orientation of the objects as well as the unfamiliarity of the map makes it feel like it's optimal to fly that way subliminally, but really going up is extremely effective. As people get used to the layout I think that the strategy will develop. Since you don't know the layout of the map like the back of your hand yet, you fly the way that requires the least knowledge of the layout.

I agree that the background is probably too bright. That can be fixed pretty easily, I think. Don't know about the too many powerups argument, I didn't really think too much of it in my first couple playthroughs.

VipMattMan
03-20-2011, 02:20 AM
Map is waaaaay too bright. Anything that actually forces you to turn down the brightness of your monitor to play = a no go imo.

Once the brightness is fixed maybe we can give it another shot and consider the layout, but right now when i play it all i can think about is the headache i get.

matrin
03-20-2011, 02:52 AM
yes please fix the brightness and lol i had 18 kills in that pic from ping :P

Mt.Vesuvius
03-20-2011, 04:40 AM
This is sparta

drunkguava
03-20-2011, 05:40 AM
def too bright, and wayyyy too many powerups.
i'll agree to holdoff on making a call on the layout until i've tested it more.
but if we could get the brightness adjusted and maybe a couple powerups removed first that'd be great. Is nikon around?

Nikon
03-20-2011, 07:06 AM
Sure thing guava, I'll try to get a new one out sometime this week, but no I'm not really around. Haven't played in about 20 days.

What PU's do you want removed?

ONeilcool
03-20-2011, 08:39 AM
I don't know what it is about the level, but something about it just makes the games go wayyy too long. I think its just the sheer size of it. The size plus spawn points being in a good position to be defensive it just makes the game drag much longer then usual. Personally I don't like the length and would be fine with the map if you could find a way to shorten the games.

Tekn0
03-20-2011, 11:23 AM
Even -I- got to a neary 90 kills on this map. That really really says something about this map.

Please remove it from ladder, or at least fix the map of it's issues (too bright, and too large).

This was custom vote stopped with 100% yesterday so that really does say a lot about it.

Kuja900
03-20-2011, 01:24 PM
What jerk keeps playing with the map pool, nearly every decision made recently about the pool has been complained about and for good reasons.

Urpee
03-20-2011, 01:36 PM
I see some goodness in the map.

But here is how I see it: This is a map with potential, but it's not ready for ladder. The spawn points are too close to the goals for defense with insufficient approach paths for defenders making this map one that will lead to long games (~30 minutes).

The color was fine for me but I can see why people think it's too bright. The most sensitive eyes should decide this.

Also the number of extras to pick up is slightly on the high side. Ultimately the map needs testing for play time and geometrically adjusted before hitting ladder I think.

porpus
03-20-2011, 04:18 PM
But here is how I see it: This is a map with potential, but it's not ready for ladder. The spawn points are too close to the goals for defense with insufficient approach paths for defenders making this map one that will lead to long games (~30 minutes).

This is really the major problem. When I lasted played we had multiple good pushes where we'd wipe out the majority of the opposing team, but by the time we flew quarter of the way across the map, the team had respawned right on top of the the base.

I think if you angle the spawn farther away from the goal the game should go quicker. Otherwise I think it's a decent layout and I agree with SSD that the top side is far underused at this point.

sunshineduck
03-20-2011, 06:29 PM
several points:

1. I agree that the brightness should be turned down ASAP.
2. The powerups that should be removed are likely the ones right by the spawns.
3. Those complaining about the size of the map should note that it's actually around 3000 pixels in length, whereas planepark and snow are both in the 4500 range. They are similar in height.
4. I disagree that there should be any major change to the layout until there has been a larger sample size of games. As I've said, the fact that the layout of the map is still largely a mystery at only 5-6 games played on ladder is what's causing those huge clusters at the bottom of the map - that's where players gravitate to on unfamiliar territory.
5. Kuja, I hope you're aware of the fact that this is the first change to the map pool since January 3rd, with that change being one that was voted on by the community. The fact of the matter is that exactly two people have expressed directly to me that they disliked volcano so much that they thought it should never be on ladder. Those two people are you and cannibalsock. You are also the only person who has told me that tbd_chess was ready for ladder. Just because I did not follow your desires and put in the maps that you personally adore does not mean I am a jerk. Your personal dislike of tbd_mayhem and enjoyment of tbd_middleground is not more influential than the fact that 90% of the time middleground came up on the ladder random rotation someone called a vote stop. If you don't want to play volcano, then don't play when people call custom random votes. Nobody's holding you at gunpoint forcing you to play.

ONeilcool
03-20-2011, 10:17 PM
several points:

3. Those complaining about the size of the map should note that it's actually around 3000 pixels in length, whereas planepark and snow are both in the 4500 range. They are similar in height.
4. I disagree that there should be any major change to the layout until there has been a larger sample size of games. As I've said, the fact that the layout of the map is still largely a mystery at only 5-6 games played on ladder is what's causing those huge clusters at the bottom of the map - that's where players gravitate to on unfamiliar territory.


You can't just look at the map size and say its smaller therefore its not a problem. Look at snow and planepark, the actual PLAYABLE area. Both of those maps have a large amount of room that is covered by wall. Snow has the property of a large area behind each goal that makes the map seem bigger then it actually is. If you measure goal to goal hardcourt they about equal length. Also the ceilings are brought down on both of those maps while hard court uses virtually the entire height of the map. The thing that really makes the map seem larger is the spawn points, its hard to continue an attack an ally is making when your spawn is so close to your goal.

On both snow and planepark the flyable paths at any even given point is about 3, high, middle, and low. On hardcourt there are about 6, three on the bottom, two in the middle, and 1 on top. Since you spawn high the top gets clogged easily forcing players to clear low. This is true on any map really, most of the game on any map is played on the bottom becasue thats the safest way to clear the ball.

hardcourt uses every inch of the map making the sheer playspace bigger then any (popular) map I've seen. After looking into it more I can see it being solved in 2 ways.

1. Bring the ceiling down and floor up to lower the average height of the map. This would obviously also demand change in the obstacles to accommodate for the lost space, but that would be left up to the designer of the map if they take my suggestion. This would make players use the top more because it wouldn't be so far from the bottom and make it a more viable strategy.

2. Bring the spawns closer to the midde (and lower along with the ceiling if you implement suggestion 1) to increase offensive capabilities and decrease defensive ones.

elxir
03-20-2011, 10:26 PM
lol the maps been up for months and nobody offers constructive criticism till now

superb

it's peculiar, because i've never had a *long* game on hardcourt on either dojo or AIR, so i'm not sure what to make of it so far. additionally, everyone on those servers have generally told me they like the map a lot

very peculiar

ONeilcool
03-21-2011, 12:17 AM
lol the maps been up for months and nobody offers constructive criticism till now

superb

it's peculiar, because i've never had a *long* game on hardcourt on either dojo or AIR, so i'm not sure what to make of it so far. additionally, everyone on those servers have generally told me they like the map a lot

very peculiar

It's because it was just added to the ladder random so it comes up and forces people to play it.

Tekn0
03-21-2011, 12:59 AM
lol the maps been up for months and nobody offers constructive criticism till now

superb

it's peculiar, because i've never had a *long* game on hardcourt on either dojo or AIR, so i'm not sure what to make of it so far. additionally, everyone on those servers have generally told me they like the map a lot

very peculiar

This is because playing maps on pubs sometimes doesn't present the right picture. Atmosphere, for instance, is one such map (at least before it got its final modifications).

Nikon
03-21-2011, 07:48 AM
lol the maps been up for months and nobody offers constructive criticism till now

superb

it's peculiar, because i've never had a *long* game on hardcourt on either dojo or AIR, so i'm not sure what to make of it so far. additionally, everyone on those servers have generally told me they like the map a lot

very peculiar

Yeah I know, lol. It's like no one cares for a long long time and then WHAM, butt loads of feedback.

So lix are you okay with me making it less bright and removing the PU's next to the spawns?

sunshineduck
03-21-2011, 03:27 PM
Yeah I know, lol. It's like no one cares for a long long time and then WHAM, butt loads of feedback.

So lix are you okay with me making it less bright and removing the PU's next to the spawns?

I added it to the ladder random rotation.

does nobody read my changelogs?

andy
03-21-2011, 05:01 PM
I added it to the ladder random rotation.

does nobody read my changelogs?

I do, but i dont think nobodyhome reads them.

sunshineduck
03-21-2011, 05:40 PM
You can't just look at the map size and say its smaller therefore its not a problem. Look at snow and planepark, the actual PLAYABLE area. Both of those maps have a large amount of room that is covered by wall. Snow has the property of a large area behind each goal that makes the map seem bigger then it actually is. If you measure goal to goal hardcourt they about equal length. Also the ceilings are brought down on both of those maps while hard court uses virtually the entire height of the map. The thing that really makes the map seem larger is the spawn points, its hard to continue an attack an ally is making when your spawn is so close to your goal.

On both snow and planepark the flyable paths at any even given point is about 3, high, middle, and low. On hardcourt there are about 6, three on the bottom, two in the middle, and 1 on top. Since you spawn high the top gets clogged easily forcing players to clear low. This is true on any map really, most of the game on any map is played on the bottom becasue thats the safest way to clear the ball.

hardcourt uses every inch of the map making the sheer playspace bigger then any (popular) map I've seen. After looking into it more I can see it being solved in 2 ways.

1. Bring the ceiling down and floor up to lower the average height of the map. This would obviously also demand change in the obstacles to accommodate for the lost space, but that would be left up to the designer of the map if they take my suggestion. This would make players use the top more because it wouldn't be so far from the bottom and make it a more viable strategy.

2. Bring the spawns closer to the midde (and lower along with the ceiling if you implement suggestion 1) to increase offensive capabilities and decrease defensive ones.

actually, after taking a longer look at both maps your assertions about planepark are completely incorrect. in fact, I think the goals on hardcourt are actually pushed further forward than on planepark. in addition, the routes are extremely similar to planepark. saying that there are 3 lanes in the bottom is extremely silly. just because the obstacles divide the lane into multiple areas does not mean there are multiple lanes - are you saying that there are actually two lanes at the bottom of planepark? the issue, again, doesn't lie with the size of the map, it's with the playstyle. the way people are attacking the map is very similar to if people literally only used the bottom route of planepark the entire game. you can imagine how long games would take like that.

it's definitely not anywhere near the size of doodle, which was still terrible after several dozen playthroughs. iirc, people didn't particularly enjoy the layout of planepark when it was first introduced to ladder, and now it's one of the most beloved maps. i think we should give people time to get used to the map before making any drastic changes.

elxir
03-21-2011, 06:28 PM
nikon, do whatever. still your grahpics

Nikon
03-21-2011, 08:11 PM
I added it to the ladder random rotation.

does nobody read my changelogs?

Yes I read them ssd, and I know that it was added. I know it's the reason it's getting a ton of feedback but I still find it funny.

ONeilcool
03-21-2011, 08:35 PM
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c150/ONeilcool/Ball_planeparkcopy.jpg

http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c150/ONeilcool/1pcvw5copy.jpg

I made a very quick illustration of my too many lanes point here. You can see the paths are much simplier and in my opinion better routes on planepark while the story is much different for hardcourt.

However the biggest problem while looking at this is how the spawns on hardcourt just directly cut off every route. This is what causes the game to go to long because it makes defense easier. On planepark you can see the spawn is behind the end of the routes so it is harder to defend leading to faster games.

Of course I'm going under the assuming shorter is better, if people LIKE games being three times as long, by all means the map is perfect.

drunkguava
03-21-2011, 11:35 PM
Looking at the map like that is really helpful. Moving the spawns towards the middle of the map seems like a good suggestion.

Someone once said to picture the spawns like big fans that drive action away. That seems like exactly what's happening here.

Also noticeable is that the goal area is kind of massive and open. I can't decide if that really favors the defense though..

Urpee
03-22-2011, 12:03 AM
The open area will become more of a disadvantage for defense if the spawns are further away. Right now it's fast to get to any entry points or at least into shot lines quickly, so the fact that the area is open just means that defender can easily fill that space.

At least in the few games I have seen that's what happened. You'll see heavies circle the area and the rest of defense swamp it. The openess of it all had little impact because you just don't get an uncontested shot.

But with further spawns there may be some argument for having some obstruction in the open space to make fewer of the approach angles have direct shots.

elxir
03-22-2011, 01:22 AM
"too many lanes" and "long games" seem like contradictory statements

Tekn0
03-22-2011, 01:24 AM
People custom vote stop tournament this several times even to the point of no longer using random.

If that isn't a reason enough to remove it from ladder until at the very least the brightness is fixed I don't know what is.

ONeilcool
03-22-2011, 01:48 AM
"too many lanes" and "long games" seem like contradictory statements

It is, the lanes thing doesn't really have anything to do with the game length. Just a preference, most popular maps have less lanes and I think people like it when they have less.

I was going for point "The map is huge, because it is so huge the design ended up with all these lanes. If it wasn't so big it would't have all these lanes". So multiple lanes == bigger map == longer game times, but multiple lanes != longer games necessarily.

sunshineduck
03-22-2011, 02:32 AM
It is, the lanes thing doesn't really have anything to do with the game length. Just a preference, most popular maps have less lanes and I think people like it when they have less.

I was going for point "The map is huge, because it is so huge the design ended up with all these lanes. If it wasn't so big it would't have all these lanes". So multiple lanes == bigger map == longer game times, but multiple lanes != longer games necessarily.

you really are just proving my point for me while trying to argue against it.

i've already disproved that the map is too long. the increased playable area in the height of the map is in the top area of the map - the area that currently is being underused. again, i'm stressing that the fact that matches take so long is purely a playstyle issue. nobody's taking it high, so it's extremely similar to people playing planepark but only clearing it and pushing through the bottom lane.

Ribilla
03-22-2011, 02:52 AM
nobody's taking it high, so it's extremely similar to people playing planepark but only clearing it and pushing through the bottom lane.

People are always so complementary of nobo.

ONeilcool
03-22-2011, 03:59 AM
you really are just proving my point for me while trying to argue against it.

i've already disproved that the map is too long. the increased playable area in the height of the map is in the top area of the map - the area that currently is being underused. again, i'm stressing that the fact that matches take so long is purely a playstyle issue. nobody's taking it high, so it's extremely similar to people playing planepark but only clearing it and pushing through the bottom lane.

Look at the distant between the bottle lane and the middle lane in planepark vs the bottom lane and middle lane in hardcourt. It's much easier to take the ball higher on planepark then on hardcourt.

I disagree that it play style is a problem. People will learn how to score better with time but they will also learn how to defend better.

I argue that the positioning of the spawn points is the main issue. Taking the ball high is simply going too close to their spawn point, there will usually someone be spawning there to stop you, This is why the the small lane on the top of planepark is hardly ever used as a route to score, its simply too hard to get though with people spawning right on top of you. hardcourt is no different except its like that for every lane not just the top most one.

Spartan
03-22-2011, 04:06 AM
I argue that the positioning of the spawn points is the main issue. Taking the ball high is simply going too close to their spawn point, there will usually someone be spawning there to stop you, This is why the the small lane on the top of planepark is hardly ever used as a route to score, its simply too hard to get though with people spawning right on top of you.

Just to clarify: Have we agreed that the spawn locations are probably the main reason for the long games on this map? Because honestly I feel that's the only problem. The multiple lanes and height are no problem at all - it's just the short amount of time needed to get from spawn to goal

ONeilcool
03-22-2011, 05:36 AM
Just to clarify: Have we agreed that the spawn locations are probably the main reason for the long games on this map? Because honestly I feel that's the only problem. The multiple lanes and height are no problem at all - it's just the short amount of time needed to get from spawn to goal

Well clearly the the spawn points make the game longer then the average game, but the real question is does it make it TOO long.

sunshine is arguing once people play the map more they will start to take the ball higher and thus scoring making the game shorter and it won't be too bad. I believe he doesn't feel the need for any changes in the map design wise.

I disagree with this and think the design of the map does not reward taking the ball high and people won't be able to simply play better and shorten the game. I am under opinion the we should move the spawn points opinion.

I also think the map is a little big, but after playing with it a little more I can admit its not too big. The spawn points just make the flight from spawn to opposite goal so the map felt bigger when trying to score.

VipMattMan
03-22-2011, 02:40 PM
i've already disproved that the map is too long. the increased playable area in the height of the map is in the top area of the map - the area that currently is being underused. again, i'm stressing that the fact that matches take so long is purely a playstyle issue. nobody's taking it high, so it's extremely similar to people playing planepark but only clearing it and pushing through the bottom lane.


I don't know if that's necessarily the reason games are lasting so long. There's much more protected space in the middle of the map which is less conducive to spamming. With multiple lanes in the same general space it's also harder to make a call on which exact lane a ball carrier is on unless you actually see him. Defenders learned to play more tentatively and tend to camp the area around the goal space.

This led to it being relatively easy for me to move the ball to the goal area, but having to face the entire defending team + an easy-access spawn point + a powerup.

The result? More ping-ponging than you get in other maps.

elxir
03-22-2011, 07:42 PM
how many lanes does darkwar (G.O.A.T.) have?

VipMattMan
03-22-2011, 10:05 PM
how many lanes does darkwar (G.O.A.T.) have?

Darkwar has fewer lanes, they're all more easily readable, and much more easily spammable. There's much more open space and the flow of the map is entirely different.

Not sure of point.

carstairs
03-22-2011, 11:25 PM
Just to clarify: Have we agreed that the spawn locations are probably the main reason for the long games on this map? Because honestly I feel that's the only problem. The multiple lanes and height are no problem at all - it's just the short amount of time needed to get from spawn to goal

I agree that spawns need to be fixed, but I'm going to abstain on the layout until that's taken care of. I wasn't that fond of the layout but it doesn't have to be the new darkwar.

elxir
03-23-2011, 01:49 AM
Darkwar has fewer lanes, they're all more easily readable, and much more easily spammable. There's much more open space and the flow of the map is entirely different.

Not sure of point.

everything you just said implies that defense should struggle on hardcourt, not offense


upon some thought, i can agree with the spawn location as being too close to the goal. no other map is quite that close to goal except asteroids.

VipMattMan
03-23-2011, 02:27 AM
everything you just said implies that defense should struggle on hardcourt, not offense


upon some thought, i can agree with the spawn location as being too close to the goal. no other map is quite that close to goal except asteroids.

If you go back to my post previous to that one, you'll see that my opinion was that it was fairly easy to move the ball from goal area to goal area.

Once you get to the opposite goal the map layout creates a circumstance where you face a full defense with both a powerup and player spawn right there. The defense struggles on hardcourt right up until you reach the goal area, where the defending team typically has full dominance.

A solution to that would be to remove/move the powerup next to the goal, and make the spawn less accessible to the goal area.

A balance on the offensive dominance of the middle area would be to alter some of the obstructions to encourage defenders towards the center of the map. That might also have the effect of thinning out some of the defenders who tend to camp the goal area. In fact, if the middle area was a little more open, you may not have to make all the alterations to the spawn and powerup.

elxir
03-23-2011, 04:43 AM
i still can't say one way or the other since the only game i've seen so far has been 4 minutes long

elxir
03-23-2011, 05:45 AM
just played my first game - 11 minutes, 6-2 or something like that

conclusion: idiots just run along the bottom all game, and whenever someone who doesn't suck takes the ball up north, good things happen

protip: use the whole map and learn to pass

VipMattMan
03-23-2011, 06:13 AM
just played my first game - 11 minutes, 6-2 or something like that

conclusion: idiots just run along the bottom all game, and whenever someone who doesn't suck takes the ball up north, good things happen

protip: use the whole map and learn to pass


Protip: don't use an eleven minute game as an example and conveniently discard the fact that it took that long to win the game against a team that literally didn't have a single whale until the final goal, and had it's two highest rated players(balln and myself) focking around with TA.

elxir
03-23-2011, 06:19 AM
did you even read what i wrote

go play more rev HC

elxir
03-23-2011, 06:21 AM
i mean it's like everyone has been saying that people just use the bottom and it clogs up and takes for ever

and then when i play and force my team upwards, we win

obviously it took 11 minutes because a bomber can't get the ball and put it up top every single possession

i thought you had some sense of strategy in this game

VipMattMan
03-23-2011, 06:22 AM
did you even read what i wrote

go play more rev HC

Rev bi-planes don't have to read. We do whatever the f we want.

ryebone
03-23-2011, 06:23 AM
The reason everyone clears low is because it's a new map, and the majority of people are still unfamiliar the terrain and good areas for passes/bounces. As a result, they do the safest thing: clear low. The same phenomenon occurred with every single "new" ball map (excluding the ones which were imported from tbd, like grotto or lost city). I completely agree with elixir. Give the map some time, let people learn the layout and where the good passing lanes are. I'm sure we'll start to see a lot more action up top, and the games will get shorter.

VipMattMan
03-23-2011, 06:32 AM
i mean it's like everyone has been saying that people just use the bottom and it clogs up and takes for ever

and then when i play and force my team upwards, we win

obviously it took 11 minutes because a bomber can't get the ball and put it up top every single possession

i thought you had some sense of strategy in this game

I've always used the top. I haven't fallen into the same tendencies you guys are apparently seeing in other players. I've still had the same experience of having to encounter the entire defending team on the opposite side.

Unfortunately your experience with the map has only been with that of a pub quality of play. Between the test server, and the quality of ladder tonight, i don't think you're quite getting an accurate picture of how often that map is going to be grueling on ladder.

Edit-As for letting it play in ladder for awhile to see if people learn the map and it becomes faster- like i said in my original post, as long as the brightness is fixed at least it's playable. We'll see about the layout AFTER the brightness is fixed. Until then the map needs to be off ladder imo.

ONeilcool
03-23-2011, 06:19 PM
My only experience with this map is with ladder so I guess everything I said is regards to it being in ladder. I've never played it in a pub setting so I don't know how it plays out then, but I agree with Matts last point it certainly doesn't belong in ladder.

sunshineduck
03-23-2011, 07:20 PM
his only reason for it not belonging on ladder is the brightness issues with the background

so do you agree with that and retract your previous points about the layout now that they've been rebutted?

rojo
03-26-2011, 12:45 AM
I'm going to post my 2cents even though I know nobody cares- Also, I didn't read the elixir pots defending the map so I may be redundant.

I really, really like this map. It rewards a different style of play that ladder is not used to. Good passes/balls shifts across the map end up in being goals. This is a map where you can actually pass up and not worry about the opposing team scoring. There is logical flow both on the top and bottom of the map which everybody can agree on is a rarity in ball.

Regarding brightness: I play all maps with para_false so I can't tell what the background is, but the para_false is a light blue on my screen. If a soft, light blue is too bright for you... well.. don't know what to say. Its a pretty simple cosmetic fix.

Ultimately, I think this map is a step in the right direction for ball. Half of the maps that are played you can really just hole up and wait for a good push, but from my experiences it just doesn't work that well on this map and in the games I've played most goals have occurred because of good passing as opposed to good pushing/kills. I'm of the opinion that the quality is far superior to the other new ladder maps and rewards teamwork to a far greater degree than most other maps.

So, yea, probably repetitive, but I hope a compromise can be met. I look forward to playing this map both in ladder and in competitive clan matches- it should be really fun.

PS. **** CROSS.

VipMattMan
03-26-2011, 03:42 AM
Regarding brightness: I play all maps with para_false so I can't tell what the background is, but the para_false is a light blue on my screen. If a soft, light blue is too bright for you... well.. don't know what to say. Its a pretty simple cosmetic fix.


The blue background with para false is actually brighter than the orange original for me.

This all comes down to difference in monitors. What you see isn't necessarily what someone else sees. It seems to be an issue for about 50% of the people that play the map.

Sure, you can turn down the brightness of your monitor. Though, that I'm going to have to turn down the brightness of my monitor every time i play a single map, and remember the exact setting so i can turn it back for other maps/games is a little bit silly to me.

silent skies
03-26-2011, 04:24 AM
bright

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_ThkjtgmHoRo/TY1Z9sKe4gI/AAAAAAAAAcE/1xu5mcgirN4/1pcvw5.png

What about lowering the saturation levels (making the image closer to gray-scale). You can give it a shot if you want. It would literally take you maybe 10 minutes to implement. Overuse of strong, primary colors is painful to look at when the image is constantly moving back and forth. I learned this the hard way when working on other maps.

(I always suggest this, because I think it is advice that bears repeating)

sunshineduck
03-26-2011, 05:57 AM
nikon has turned lazy since i CO2'd his favorite map

silent skies, would you mind fixing hardcourt's saturation? would be grrrrreat. :)

silent skies
03-26-2011, 06:51 AM
Hijacking other people's maps goes against the Cartographer's Code of Conduct.

Nikon
03-26-2011, 07:38 AM
nikon has turned lazy since i CO2'd his favorite map

silent skies, would you mind fixing hardcourt's saturation? would be grrrrreat. :)

Alright alright alright already. I will make the fix, sometime this week. I will try hard to get it done. Just since I stopped playing altitude I haven't wanted to do any kind of map stuff, I just wanted to stop playing in all. But I will do it.

sunshineduck
03-28-2011, 07:41 PM
thank you

fix is now on ladder