Capto Iugulum

[Luckymoose]

Option 1

 

[Lokki242]

I abstain. I find they have equal pros and cons.

 

[Gem Hound]

I abstain for the same reason Lokki did.

 

[Luckymoose]

He didn't offer abstaining.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Now, now, if they want to be wishy-washy they can.

 

[spryllino]

I obviously vote for Option 1 (keep the old map).

I don't personally think the colour scheme has anything to do with it. I don't really even dislike the colour scheme much. The problems are the messed-up rivers, the angular borders, the absense of black boundary lines, and above all the fact that we can't see the top of Asia and the Americas (and also, changing the map means it's harder to directly compare old maps with new maps). I also can't really see any single positive advantage to this map that anyone has put forward that particularly warrants anyone's effort in recolouring, amending the borders of, and otherwise improving the map in question.

 

[Bair_the_Normal]

Opt. 1. Same reasons as spry.

 

[Circuit]

Option 1

 

[Crezth]

I don't personally think the colour scheme has anything to do with it. I don't really even dislike the colour scheme much. The problems are the messed-up rivers, the angular borders, the absense of black boundary lines, and above all the fact that we can't see the top of Asia and the Americas (and also, changing the map means it's harder to directly compare old maps with new maps). I also can't really see any single positive advantage to this map that anyone has put forward that particularly warrants anyone's effort in recolouring, amending the borders of, and otherwise improving the map in question.

The new map is objectively better arranged from a geometric and aesthetic standpoint and the borders are clearly superior.

The color scheme is definitely the issue. Load the map up in GIMP or whatever and desaturate it. You'll see areas of dark gray and light gray lumped up together in the same general locations, indicating poor contrast and illustrating why it looks like such a slushy mess.

But if you really want to keep the ugly old map, whatever.

 

[spryllino]

Qualitative assessments of geometry and aesthetics are by their very nature not objective. I think that - even if I grant that the colour scheme is horrible - there are other problems, which I have already listed, with the map, that are of greater inherence to the map.

 

[Justo]

I vote map 2.

 

[BILLSIF]

I vote option 2.

 

[Nintz]

Option 2, though not really a big deal for me.

 

[Quisani]

I'm don't mind too much either way. Unless there is a fight over Arctic or Antarctic resources.

 

[m.t.cicero]

Overall I like the change; I'll go with option 2

 

[Lord_Iggy]

My primary issue with EQ's modifications to the map is the wonky rivers. I can name at least six significantly messed-up rivers in Vinland alone. I believe that ChiefDesigner suggested a version of the map which had the rivers fixed. If this is done, then I could vote for the second map.

Additionally, the northern regions of the map are cut off, which is problematic for me, being a northern nation.

So unless we can find a version of the new map that doesn't have inconsistent rivers, I'm voting for Option One.

I think its aesthetics are fine.

EDIT: I am changing my vote to Option Two.

 

[Luckymoose]

Antarctica is Brazilian territory.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

It was claimed by Brazil, Great Britain and who else?

 

[JohannaK]

My primary issue with EQ's modifications to the map is the wonky rivers. I can name at least six significantly messed-up rivers in Vinland alone.

Not to talk about Europe...

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

The rivers are indeed very wonky. I had to fix a few in the USA that I knew offhand that were wrong. If there is an alternative version of this out there with more accurate rivers, that would go a long way to removing any of my own doubts towards the new map.