Flag Creation

[Chancellor GPWASR10]

How about this one? My alliance is looking for a flag, and this is what I came up with. It's green because we're green team (it was blue when I started) and the grey and gold are there because I like them.

I know there's lettering in it, but it's functional and the flag is pretty bland without it.

Drop the GSA and put in its place like a Big Yellow Hammer, or Star..... Then repost it...

GP

[Elrich von Richt]

Example of a REALLY bad flag. Way too much wording

[Temporary Flag of the Bolshevik Puppet in Northern Estonia during 1918, Commune of the Working People of Estonia]

[Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_of_th...ople_of_Estonia]

[Cirrus]

Argon: Change either the gray or the green. There's not enough contrast between them. And of course, get rid of the letters. If you think it's still too bland, either add more stripes or find another symbol.

For example, this is a little on the busy side, but overall I think OK:

[ianlopez1115]

What do you think of my "simple" flag? (OOC: done with MS paint, got it from the flag of my home city, whatever that is.)

[MTTezla]

What do you think of my "simple" flag? (OOC: done with MS paint, got it from the flag of my home city, whatever that is.)

It might be a little better if you moved the insignia to the upper-left corner, to follow the other rules in this thread.

[Olreich]

simplicity is not key. What is key is the ability to be able to tell (with a fair amount of ease) who the symbol stands for at very low resolutions. As shown in this example: A full fledged flag, dimensions 500x300 (a quick mockup, else it would have more time consuming effects) vs a tiny tiny version of the same flag. You judge whether it is viable. It employs detailed graphics, multiple gradients, and a vast number of colors. Of course, there is one key component that we are lacking in our judgement of good flags, so long as you apply this to cybernations. If you need to copy a cybernations flag, it is very simple, you merely take their flag and copy and paste it due to the ability to do so, so sewing techniques and other such things do not apply here.

But, without further ado: The Pink Terror Organisation Flag

Full sized[500x300] (can easily be scaled to sizes of 5000x3000 without detail loss, due to the power of vector graphcis):

Byte sized[50x30] (no flag will ever need to be shrunk to that size usually, but eh, it's for the sake of proving a point):

Now, that is a flag that employs detailed graphics, tons of colors (more with higher resolutions), yet retains it's noticeability at tiny proportions.

While I agree that it's not as recognizable at even smaller proportions (5x3 comes to mind), it goes fairly low before eventually losing it's impact).

[Cirrus]

But it's only recognizable because the only important elements are the dark circle on a contrasting pink and black background. Those three simple elements are how you identify the flag. The rest is clutter that accomplishes nothing but making the flag look unrealistic.

If your only goal is to make a recognizable graphic, then that accomplishes the goal. If you are trying to make something that is both recognizable and actually looks like a flag, it fails.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Cirrus

[Olreich]

but that is the only requirement for a CN flag. That it remains recognizable and that it symbolizes your alliance. The point is, you can have a graphically pretty flag and it will still count as a flag, so long as the symbolism is there and the detail artwork is essentially meaningless. This does not mean that a flag should have details that are their own elements, but should have a main element or two, and then have those be spiced up by minor elements that are attached to it, thus making the flag more pleasing on the eye when large yet still be recognizable and unique even at low resolutions.

Another example Full NATO flag [300x160]:

Tiny NATO flag[50x27]:

The large flag is detailed, shiny, and looks neat while showing off the symbolic elements of NATO. When you resize it down to 50x27, it retains the main symbolism but loses the prettiness, which means that it would be a good flag even if it were in the real world, where distance and recognition would be important. And before you go into how terrible I am for all those needles that would have to produce the flag, remember, there are now automated machines that you throw in a graphic and it will sow it for you. We no longer live in the 1800's, so why bother with carpal tunnel conservation when we have a mechanical immunity?

Also, we are a bunch of adults/kids on the internet, so why would we bother with the idea that our flags be "realistic" in the current sense of the word? That completely undermines the thought of a "cyber-nation". If we are "cyber", then are not our flags also "cyber"? The rules for a cybernation are much different than real world nations, thus why not adjust the thought of a flag from the materialistic conception to that of the "cyber" one? Where flag reproduction, material constituents and other stipulations do not apply, we no longer become bound by those and are free to express our creativity in a more detailed form. The only restraints that should still apply to those of us that produce flags should be the recognition and symbolism. So long as those two elements hold true, we can assert that we follow the principles of vexillology.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Olreich

[Cirrus]

At the small size the only elements from the NATO flag that are important are the simple ones; the needles are unrecognizable. At large size the effects draw attention away from the symbolism of the primary elements, and therefore detract rather than add. Since our eyes are attracted to the area of highest contrast, the needles stand out more than the compass, which as the primary symbol of NATO *should* be the primary symbol of the flag. And though it may be technically possible for a computer to weave in detailed graphics like that, there is no reason in the world why you would want to put elements like that on a real-life flag.

Bottom line: If you think kEwL photoshop effects make your graphics looks neat, then more power to you. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. This is a game, after all, and the point is to have fun. But recognize that you're designing graphics rather than something that can justifiably be called a flag, and recognize that some of us like to role play realistically.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Cirrus

[kingzog]

Here is the Ottawa Empire's flag.

The Maroon on top represents my nation's current Team, Maroon.

The Yellow underneath may represent one of several things: fields of wheat, pee in the snow or what have you. In truth, it's there because it contrasts nicely with most colors. (Just in case I switch Teams and all....)

This is essentially a re-color of the flag of Liechtenstein, which I use as my in-game flag.

I've been considering doing up a war flag, but I fear any changes would ruin what I think is a simple, clean design.

[Elrich von Richt]

Example of a REALLY bad flag. Way too much wording

[Temporary Flag of the Bolshevik Puppet in Northern Estonia during 1918, Commune of the Working People of Estonia]

[Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_of_th...ople_of_Estonia]

Your opinion, Cirrus?

[Professor Chaos]

Byte sized[50x30] (no flag will ever need to be shrunk to that size usually, but eh, it's for the sake of proving a point):

Now, that is a flag that employs detailed graphics, tons of colors (more with higher resolutions), yet retains it's noticeability at tiny proportions.

While I agree that it's not as recognizable at even smaller proportions (5x3 comes to mind), it goes fairly low before eventually losing it's impact).

Yeah, but it still looks like an ugly splotchy circle on a ridiculously colored background.

You're right: even at that small size, I can still tell that that thing would look terrible at any large resolution.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Professor Chaos

[Weiss von Toten]

Yeah, but it still looks like an ugly splotchy circle on a ridiculously colored background.

You're right: even at that small size, I can still tell that that thing would look terrible at any large resolution.

I lol'd. So very true. I'm sorry but that is a terrible flag.

[Professor Chaos]

A very long a poorly thought out diatribe on flag design, including NATO's flag as an example.

NATO's flag has a lot of potential. Were the terrible spiky things eliminated and the fuzziness removed from the compass logo, it would look a lot nicer.

Honestly, who designed that? It's a good base design that gets ruined by all the lame photoshop effects that got added on afterwards because someone was insecure about their design. And why, seriously, is the compass logo so fuzzy? It's the main symbol of the flag, the image that the alliance is supposed to rally around... and it's out of focus. What? Instead of being pulled toward the real, meaningful symbol of the flag... I find myself distracted by all the stuff going on in the background.

[Cirrus]

Magistrate: Yeah, awful.

[Olreich]

Why is flag design forced into a mold that fits the real world due to material constraints? Is that not limiting flag design by things that are null and void?

[Cirrus]

It's not about "material constraints". It's about accomplishing what you set out to do. Shiny internet banners and flags are not the same. Nor are seals, logos, shields or forum signatures. All those things are different types of images with different needs and different functions. Part of the by-definition function of a flag (as opposed to a shiny internet banner) is to look realistic.

If you think it would be more appropriate to use shiny banners (or shields, seals or logos) instead of flags as the primary alliance symbol, then that's a legitimate argument that people can respect, even if they disagree. It is not, however, legitimate to show us an apple and say it's an orange, as it's not legitimate to show us a banner and say it's a flag.

[jerdge]

Yeah, but it still looks like an ugly splotchy circle on a ridiculously colored background.

You're right: even at that small size, I can still tell that that thing would look terrible at any large resolution.

While I agree with you that that isn't a good flag, I think that his point was to show that detailed graphics and many colours can be compatible with noticeability at tiny proportions.

He called that flag "a quick mockup" and his point was only "simplicity is not key". While I don't agree with his theory (and grammar), your reply didn't address the point behind that example, Professor Chaos.

My .02 on topic: a "flag" can't be defined as "whatever recognizable graphics in a rectangular shape". Thus Olreich's theory, though fascinating, is wrong.

[Micheal Malone]

Little something I've been working on... Opinions welcomed.

[Numa Maximus]

It just needs some more refining, I think. The orange and black are strong in contrast as well. Perhaps pne without the plane?

Also, here's one of mine (heavily Photoshopped, I know)

(United Commonwealth of Nations)

And a variation:

[Sovyet Gelibolu]

I'm liking the first one. The second has too little contrast.

[Lady Ariana]

I like them both Numa Maximus. I can see where Sovyet says there is too little contrast but I like it. Nice job.

[jerdge]

Micheal Malone, I like the general idea but the globe is too "confused". It may look better if it had a background of its own (not the black-yellow one) and/or had less graphics in it.

Numa Maximus, nice artwork, the first better than the second, but anyway not "flags" (As Cirrus pointed out).

[Cirrus]

Agreed. Very, very attractive graphics. Too heavily photoshopped to be good flags.

[desertfox778]

While toling with designs for my LW flag a member of my alliance pointed me to this thread and now i would like your opinion on my CN flag

Edited April 29, 2008 by Desert Fox