Loxley Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Whoa whoa whoa. Earth hotspots? Are we implying that nations can be moved every week or ten days or whatever? The game already allows you to move your capital up to once every 7 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewolfe2015 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I've updated the uranium symbol to an atom molecule. Let the complaints begin that you want the old glowing green loaf symbol back.An no, there won't be an option to toggle the old images. Can we update ALL the symbols instead of just some? It kinda looks out of place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 The game already allows you to move your capital up to once every 7 days. Well, I'm a little unfamiliar with this particular aspect of the game, seeing as how there's never been a point to doing so. My question is this: What does this add to the game in terms of legitimate nation simulation? Nations as we know them are not nomadic by nature, hunting and following the newest vein of precious minerals that has been discovered. While it's an interesting idea, it implies that we are capable of uprooting whole countries and plopping them wherever we want, whenever we want, for the sole purpose of getting resources. Now then, I personally think a better idea would be having a massive amount of very small hotspots located all over the globe, and we could choose anywhere within our nations' borders to mine our resources. That seems much more logical and realistic than implying we uproot our tens of thousands of citizens overnight to go hunting for a better fishing hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Well, I'm a little unfamiliar with this particular aspect of the game, seeing as how there's never been a point to doing so.My question is this: What does this add to the game in terms of legitimate nation simulation? Nations as we know them are not nomadic by nature, hunting and following the newest vein of precious minerals that has been discovered. While it's an interesting idea, it implies that we are capable of uprooting whole countries and plopping them wherever we want, whenever we want, for the sole purpose of getting resources. Now then, I personally think a better idea would be having a massive amount of very small hotspots located all over the globe, and we could choose anywhere within our nations' borders to mine our resources. That seems much more logical and realistic than implying we uproot our tens of thousands of citizens overnight to go hunting for a better fishing hole. It's basically gamplay > realism. As to the topic, I'd like to see a full overhaul myself, I'm looking for images to suggest, but not having much luck. =\ Edited July 30, 2009 by Locke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mteague93 Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 i think the new icons would be better suited with a new site theme. in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoindotnler Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I've updated the uranium symbol to an atom molecule. Let the complaints begin that you want the old glowing green loaf symbol back.An no, there won't be an option to toggle the old images. I want it back. But really could the rest get a fresh look to, like a gradient as the title background instead of this dark blue we now have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bjornoya Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 With the exception of the hummer for autos I like, old images were kinda stale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Admin has already stated, with new bonus resources being introduced into the game, they all needed to be made of uniform size.Many of the old images were not of uniform size. Upon attempting to simply resize the images, they didn't look right, so new images were found. This is correct. Many of the resource images resized just fine so there was no need to replace them. The effort behind this was never about replacing the entire resource image set but about getting everything to a consistent size, replacing those that didn't resize well, and fixing a couple of the images like wine and gems and now uranium that weren't very well represented previously. So no, I won't be replacing the other images just because they aren't 'fresh'. And no, I'm not going to redesign the entire site either. Why do I feel like I'm having a conversation with my two year old daughter here? Daughter picks up a cookie, "I has cookie?" Me, "No, put that down." Daughter puts cookie to her mouth, "Cookie?" Me, "No, no cookie. We're about to eat dinner." Daughter holds hand out offering me the cookie, "Cookie?" Me, "No, I don't want a cookie. We're about to eat dinner." Daughter puts down cookie, points finger at jar on the counter, "Candy?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoindotnler Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 And no, I'm not going to redesign the entire site either. Why do I feel like I'm having a conversation with my two year old daughter here? Daughter picks up a cookie, "I has cookie?" Me, "No, put that down." Daughter puts cookie to her mouth, "Cookie?" Me, "No, no cookie. We're about to eat dinner." Daughter holds hand out offering me the cookie, "Cookie?" Me, "No, I don't want a cookie. We're about to eat dinner." Daughter puts down cookie, points finger at jar on the counter, "Candy?" Pff lazy admin, highly detailed images on a page that mostly exist out of 2 colors. Ooh and thats why CSS is for lol. I some how always got my cookies by sneeking to the jar at night B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alicia Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Surprised me at first, I thought something was wrong because I didn't notice them until I was about to close the tab. Overall I think they look good, especially the Fine Jewelery one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Badger Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Fine Jewelery is easily the best looking new one IMO. The only images that I dislike are the Fish, Gems and Water. Also liked the old wheat better, but overall, I think the new images are better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I absolutely love the new uranium and marble ones. Water looks fresh, wheat looks crispier. Definitely A+. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Zakharov Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 I said it before and I'll say it again since I didn't get an answer: Why do the images suddenly need to be a "uniform size"? They weren't uniform size for the last 3 years and it worked just fine. Seriously ... that doesn't make any sense, at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Empire Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 This is correct. Many of the resource images resized just fine so there was no need to replace them. The effort behind this was never about replacing the entire resource image set but about getting everything to a consistent size, replacing those that didn't resize well, and fixing a couple of the images like wine and gems and now uranium that weren't very well represented previously. So no, I won't be replacing the other images just because they aren't 'fresh'.And no, I'm not going to redesign the entire site either. Why do I feel like I'm having a conversation with my two year old daughter here? Daughter picks up a cookie, "I has cookie?" Me, "No, put that down." Daughter puts cookie to her mouth, "Cookie?" Me, "No, no cookie. We're about to eat dinner." Daughter holds hand out offering me the cookie, "Cookie?" Me, "No, I don't want a cookie. We're about to eat dinner." Daughter puts down cookie, points finger at jar on the counter, "Candy?" Admin, the new icons are very nice and its a nice upgrade, this is a case of ,no matter what you do some folks will complain.you just have to take them with a grain of salt, its good that you guys are interactive with the people that play and do your best to make changes to the game when needed. I like the Uranium icon,thats exactly what I was thinking, Also the new 25 day change is a good move as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mesteut Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Looking at the icons, I understood what's wrong with the Affluent population icon - the Mona Lisa picture has no borders, and because it is just a virtual square, it looks weird for a painting. The least that can be done is putting a frame around the Mona Lisa. You can also put that thing painters put their canvas on (and which I can't recall the english name) behind the Mona Lisa picture, as if Leonardo da Vinci has just finished it. (Kinda Affluent Renaissance-cy Population) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Shepard Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Looking at the icons, I understood what's wrong with the Affluent population icon - the Mona Lisa picture has no borders, and because it is just a virtual square, it looks weird for a painting.The least that can be done is putting a frame around the Mona Lisa. You can also put that thing painters put their canvas on (and which I can't recall the english name) behind the Mona Lisa picture, as if Leonardo da Vinci has just finished it. (Kinda Affluent Renaissance-cy Population) How about: vs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mesteut Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) How about: vs You know, that framed version actually looks much better. And that's with the Mona Lisa just pasted on a frame picture without any adjustment to the Mona Lisa's upper corners. Edited July 30, 2009 by Mesteut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmehhh Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Damn now we have to work on our orange trade circle zone again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammykhalifa Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 Nice Uranium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 How about: vs Looks like a Mona Lisa with a fur pelt behind it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 xenon suggested to me that I swap the images for Uranium and Radon. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mesteut Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) Looks like a Mona Lisa with a fur pelt behind it. That's because he put a top-curved frame instead of a rectangular one. =O Still, Mona Lisa without a frame looks weird between resources that have smooth transitions between the pictures and the white "space", while Mona Lisa looks "cropped". A frame would fix it. **edit** Comparison: https://www.amoeba.com/dynamic-images/blog/...sa-painting.jpg http://davincigenius.com/img/web/unrestore...uvre_framed.jpg The framed one looks more natural even in the white background of Internet Explorer. Also, Radon and Uranium are fine. Uranium is used for Fission reactions, while Radon is only useful for scanning etc. An atomic model symbolizing fission is much better IMO. Edited July 30, 2009 by Mesteut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bjornoya Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 xenon suggested to me that I swap the images for Uranium and Radon. Thoughts? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electron...l_086_Radon.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electron...092_Uranium.svg Well if u really wanted appease us chemists you could use the first one for radon, and the second for radon. I'm sure everyone will get it. Well both are radioactive and thus the caution symbol could apply to both, one usable difference is that radon glows yellow if its a solid, and uranium will glow green with proper florescence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirreille Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 xenon suggested to me that I swap the images for Uranium and Radon. Thoughts? I will probably get shouted down, but as a purveyor of fine fissionables myself, I prefer the spinning molecule picture to the one for Radon. Much prettier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pax ME Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) i think we should go all the way and just put their atomic formula as their picture. woot! i got ignored. but its my favorite improvement. and i like uranium and radon as they are. thank you. (did Bass Pro Shop and Hummer buy out CN?) (and i agree, monocle and top-hat ) Edited July 30, 2009 by Pax ME Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.