Topic: Wares Icon size
chuckw![]() |
Posted at: 2011-03-15, 18:13
Let's take a comparative look at the images in question. The first stone and marble images are from the empire tribe. The first image is the "idle.png" and the second image is the "menu.png". (Flickr's conversion from png to jpg results in some undesired artifacts that will not appear in the game.) stone: Personally, I think there is sufficient distinction between the iron and stones, but for giggles Let's hear your thoughts. EDIT: I cannot account for the double imaging in the marble idle image. Edited: 2011-03-15, 21:58
I see little people. ![]() ![]() |
Astuur![]() Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2011-03-16, 07:37
I agree with your opinion, Chuck, meaning that I find it easy to tell ingots apart from stones. Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills. ![]() ![]() |
SirVer |
Posted at: 2011-03-16, 08:36
I agree, they are indeed recognizable. So, name change or no name change? ![]() ![]() |
Astuur![]() Topic Opener |
Posted at: 2011-03-16, 12:18
Changing the name should be done IMO since it is the clearer term, and I feel that it could help with referring to the ware in documentation, online help or with answering questions in the forum. I would have liked to let new users who make first contact with WL build 16 profit from the clarification. But if the feature freeze forbids including the ingots, bitmap and name, now, they will come with some bzr after this and to a greater audience with build 17. I should have proposed this earlier - sorry But if you or the up-to-now-silent-majority decide otherwise, then that's also fine with me. Being no programmer, I apologize for all my suggestions that imply undue workload and for other misjudgements due to lack of expertise or relevant skills. ![]() ![]() |
chuckw![]() |
Posted at: 2011-03-16, 20:32
Does anyone have an objection to implementing the ingot images WITHOUT a name change? Speak now or forever hold your peace. If no objections are posted by 23 March, I will install "Chuck's" images for all three tribes into build 16. I see little people. ![]() ![]() |
Venatrix![]() |
Posted at: 2011-03-16, 21:16
I dont think, a name change is in need. I just have to agree with Astuur, that a reddish ingot reminds more of copper than iron. I just dont know, what colour would be better Two is the oddest prime. ![]() ![]() |
chuckw![]() |
Posted at: 2011-03-17, 14:07
I played with some coloring for the iron ingot. (I also found an image hoster, http://postimage.org/ , who doesn't alter your uploaded files if that is your preference.) Now the candidates for the iron, assuming the gold Personally, I feel rusty old "Iron3" too closely resembles wood. How would YOU rank them? Or do you wish to suggest something else? Edited: 2011-03-17, 14:13
I see little people. ![]() ![]() |
Fopper |
Posted at: 2011-03-17, 14:22
My ranking: 2,3,1,4 (I do not see the blue as iron) ![]() ![]() |
Venatrix![]() |
Posted at: 2011-03-17, 15:12
My rank is 1,2. 3 and 4 are both placed fourth. Two is the oddest prime. ![]() ![]() |
SirVer |
Posted at: 2011-03-17, 16:16
2,4,1,3. I like the blue, but find it a bit too blue ![]() ![]() |