PDA

View Full Version : City: Change in height



RossumsChild
09-20-2005, 04:58 PM
Is it possible we could change the height of a city to reflect the number of troops contained rather than the number of armies? because the heights create a very disconcertingly innaccurate visual right now. . .

Also, is the footprint constant, or does that change based on some other factor of which I am not aware?

Timmetie
09-20-2005, 05:13 PM
correct me if im wrong please,

the footprint is the city's worth, the height doesnt represent the army strenght cause that would be some vital information to keep to one's self

Beezer
09-20-2005, 05:29 PM
Height tells you how many armies are inside it. A lot of armies will be a really tall polygon.

The with of the polygon is based on city population.

Mickey
09-20-2005, 06:49 PM
the footprint is the city's worth
Correct. The larger the footprint, the greater the worth of the city. The shape of the city (octogon, square, triangle) is determined by who is currently occupying it.


Height tells you how many armies are inside it. A lot of armies will be a really tall polygon.
A note: This does not take total troops into consideration. A city with 5 armies of 100 troops each will be much taller than a city with 1 army of 300,000 troops. The reason is so that your troop number can be semi-confidential.

RossumsChild
09-20-2005, 08:46 PM
Thanks for the information, I just found your explanation about confidentiality in the other thread.

If we're the kind of people that don't like visually misleading display data, is there a way we can turn off the height variation then? I mean, sure it's pretty, but if it doesn't tell me anything. . . why would I want it?

War_Peace
09-21-2005, 01:08 AM
It's good by the way it is...

socrates
09-21-2005, 03:10 AM
hmmm seems to be... the worth of the city should be displayed in height...
and the number of armies can be refered through another page...

With this we don't need to worry about polygons over lapping each other....
and you can have more cities close to each other !!

Beezer
09-21-2005, 03:18 AM
With this we don't need to worry about polygons over lapping each other....
and you can have more cities close to each other !!
Its not the height of the city that makes them overlap, its the width (population size) of the polygon that makes them overlap. For example, Philly will probably not be added due to the size of New York's population.

Mickey
09-21-2005, 03:26 AM
I think he's saying we could make them all have a small footprint, but then raise the height according to the value of the city.

That kinda makes sense. Let me sleep on it (and give others a chance to respond) and see where we are tomorrow.

RossumsChild
09-21-2005, 04:08 PM
I like that idea, ignoring the number of armies in the city altogether (since that data doesn't really reveal anything about the troop strength anyway) and using height to imply worth.

Plus it could solve the overlap problem, which is nice.

War_Peace
09-21-2005, 04:30 PM
I think he's saying we could make them all have a small footprint, but then raise the height according to the value of the city.



So not wider, but higher... Hmmmm, sounds good... (??)

And nothing about armies...

It will be ok, I assume...

anthonywitt
09-22-2005, 09:49 AM
hmmm seems to be... the worth of the city should be displayed in height...
and the number of armies can be refered through another page...

With this we don't need to worry about polygons over lapping each other....
and you can have more cities close to each other !!

This ais a good point. It would allow additional cities such as Austin and a few others.

War_Peace
09-23-2005, 01:06 PM
This feature has been accomplished right now :lol:

It was really weird to see unoccupied cities with height!! :shock:

Mickey
09-23-2005, 01:18 PM
This feature has been accomplished right now
Wow, you're quick!

Specifically, all cities now have the exact same width, and their height is based on total value. I played with the height calculation for a while and settled on:

$height = ($cityvalue + 5000000) / 100;

The "+ 5000000" was to balance things out a bit. Bigger cities are still taller, but not by as much of a difference as they technically should have. The problem was that smaller cities (under a million) were virtually flat on the map, while huge cities were reaching outer space. This leveled them out a bit, and I think it looks pretty good.

War_Peace
09-23-2005, 01:24 PM
The problem was that smaller cities (under a million) were virtually flat on the map, while huge cities were reaching outer space. This leveled them out a bit, and I think it looks pretty good.
Yes, I am quick... Like the thundeeer!... :P


The problem was that smaller cities (under a million) were virtually flat on the map, while huge cities were reaching outer space. This leveled them out a bit, and I think it looks pretty good.
Been there, seen that... :PP

Those flat cities were really cool, haha... :lol:

And from outer space, the world looked like a ball with pins on it...

Timmetie
09-23-2005, 01:54 PM
o me likesss.

Looks like those elevators to the sky in all sciencefictionbooks/films, like the night's dawn trilogy..

but thats just my unrealistic vision of where space starts.

BTW, i think cotton is way overpriced

RossumsChild
09-23-2005, 02:22 PM
Nice work Mickey. It looks good.

- Patrick

jason-p
09-24-2005, 03:26 PM
I had an idea: Now that city hights show their value, what if their transparency somehow showed relative army strength? Really well-fortified cities would be almost opaque while comperatively weaker cities would be more transparent. I guess the real question is how to determine this 'strength' factor, but it could be as simple as how many armies are within a city, like it used to be with height.

Cato
09-24-2005, 06:07 PM
Thats a really good idea.

Mickey could take the number of armies times 10 and that could be the percent opacity. (or something like that)

This way, you wouldnt be able to know the exact number of armies in a city, but you could get a general idea based on the transparency of the polygon. (you wouldnt know anything about troops, of course)

Color should still obviously be user-defined, but, when you think about it, it doesnt make much sense for transparency to be user-defined.

What do you guys think?

Timmetie
09-24-2005, 07:36 PM
ooooooooor.. instead of zooming in and trying to guess how much % opacity it has, one could click on it once to see the exact amount of armies.

jason-p
09-25-2005, 05:34 PM
ooooooooor.. instead of zooming in and trying to guess how much % opacity it has, one could click on it once to see the exact amount of armies.

Well, that's not the point. You can do that for any statistic, really. The point is that all the other variables are used to mean something--except opacity. Color denotes owner; height, city value. Opacity, right now, means nothing. Like city height, it would give you a quick idea of how many armies a city has. If you really wanted to know exactly, than sure, you could zoom in and click on it. :)

War_Peace
09-25-2005, 05:48 PM
Well, that's not the point. You can do that for any statistic, really. The point is that all the other variables are used to mean something--except opacity. Color denotes owner; height, city value. Opacity, right now, means nothing. Like city height, it would give you a quick idea of how many armies a city has. If you really wanted to know exactly, than sure, you could zoom in and click on it. :)

But there are players that want their cities to be seen in a certain opacity...

Timmetie
09-25-2005, 07:34 PM
also, i have never noticed the opacity of a city.

rasqual
09-25-2005, 08:16 PM
How about opacity representing a player's participation in the forums? Players who rarely post would be more opaque. Players who post a lot would be nearly transparent. That would be a quick way of always knowing which players are accessible and humanly involved, and which are reclusive or antisocial.

"Little is known about the dark empire of the butter_eaters . . . "

Nico
09-27-2005, 09:49 PM
How about opacity representing a player's participation in the forums? Players who rarely post would be more opaque. Players who post a lot would be nearly transparent. That would be a quick way of always knowing which players are accessible and humanly involved, and which are reclusive or antisocial.
. . . "

tss....
Just because I don't post much (or just post stupid remarks to post more often) it doesn't mean I don't read the Forum...
AND IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T MEAN I'M ANTISOCIAL!

....having a beer whilst others type.... :givebeer:

tombstone
09-27-2005, 09:57 PM
I don't care what nico says that is an awesome idea you got there!

Nico just hold the beer in one hand and type with the other! :shock: