[art] 'Camp' icon on the Continent Map

[beetlenaut]

You can get unconfused by looking at the colors of the names. doofus-01 is an art contributer so his comments about Wesnoth art are more likely to be correct.

[boru]

Sorry for the bum steer. When an art contributor gives you his time, definitely listen and take his advice.

Maybe this will be helpful: I've noticed you occasionally misspell "tent" as "text" for example:

I don't have any semi transparency on the texts ATM, should I add some?

This would explain why you're getting some advice on text.

[thespaceinvader]

It's worth noting that whilst Doofus has something of a point, he;s not completely correct. Wesnoth's art CAN support semi-transparent pixels, but they are generally avoided as much as possible. They can be, and are, used where absolutely necessary, but usually, we manage to do this in an engine-led, rather than art-resource-led, manner.

[doofus-01]

Hold on, I never said Wesnoth's art can't support semitransparency. Sprite shadows are semitransparent. I don't know if those count as pixel art. The halos and effects are certainly not pixel art (unless I missed an update). Maybe a very narrow selection of % transparencies can be considered pixel art, I don't think so, but what do I know. But for something so small like the flag & tents, where it would be such a large fraction of the image, I'm pretty sure it would be more in style to not do that. If that is part of the goal, and I don't know if it is.
EDIT: Reading over this, I need to clarify. My point about the pixel art vs semitransparent, non-pixel art distinction is not intended as religious or pedantic, it is that the final effect matters. A very large sprite with a few blurry pixels may be pixel art, practically. But for something as small as this, just don't do it, if you are going for the pixel art "look" or if there is some reason to keep a restricted bitmap (simple & predictable color-shifting, for example).

As for the text thing, sorry I was unclear, at least it's been deciphered. I thought you were asking about hand crafting the pixels of the text.

Lastly, be careful with what you are using as an example. Some images, even in mainline, are old and would ideally be replaced - not emulated.

[professor_max]

Sorry, it's all my fault for not spell checking well enough

Should I redo them all; and if so, what style should they be? The battle icon would still have to be crossed swords, but should they be more in the style of the map? If they were, they may not stand out enough to be noticeable.

As I said on IRC, I think it might be nice to have a blue set, and a black set for your allies, and the enemy. These could be used in scenarios in which your allies and you both attack from either side of the enemy, so the icon would need to have some form of colour to them.

'Professor Max'

[thespaceinvader]

Doofus: I'd object to the idea that pixel art in general can't use semi-transparency. All pixel art dictates is that you lay every pixel by hand - it doesn't say anything about whether those pixels have to be opaque, at least AFAIK.

[enchilado]

Although it doesn't really matter since the map (apart from some of the icons) isn't pixel art: as well as pixels being deliberately placed, their colours should be deliberately chosen; that of semi-transparent ones won't be once they're overlaid onto a background. If you were trying to keep the number of displayed shades as low as possible you'd also want to avoid all the extra ones semi-transparency would create.

[doofus-01]

Doofus: I'd object to the idea that pixel art in general can't use semi-transparency. All pixel art dictates is that you lay every pixel by hand - it doesn't say anything about whether those pixels have to be opaque, at least AFAIK.

Depends on what resource you consult. But if pixel art is a relic of other, older media (from ceramic mosaic tiles to NES images), and you are trying to keep the look, making alpha variation one of the major variables is really the wrong way to go (I support what enchilado said, in other words). At the scale of professor_max's icon, this is entirely relevant. If some semitransparent pixels make the firedragon sprite look better, maybe that's OK, maybe not. But that's not relevant to this.

Let's not be pedantic, if all that is required is that every pixel be hand-placed in the source image, someone with too much time on their hands (and in this crap economy...) can make anything pixel art. The results matter. The last icon posted is not pixel art.

professor_max: I don't know what's supposed to be pixel art and what's not - sprites are, terrain isn't. I'd guess icons should be, but it's only a guess. I'm not trying to piss on your parade, do what you think is best until someone with a commanding title tells you you are wrong. Good luck.

[professor_max]

Right, back again.

I've been thinking that if the icons are going to be redone, they should be done in a different style.

My current idea would be that the journey icons would be replaced with an arrow, which would be defined either by a the existing list of points, or using a vector line. I think that this should look like it is drawn with ink. We could have them using red, black or blue ink, then.

The camp, battle, and flag icons would then be replaced with icons that appear to be physical counters on the map, like metal studs, or wooden counters. Behind them it could appear to have a red glow, or as if it had ink drawn behind it. Alternatively, I could do it like it also was just drawn with ink.

When these icons are being placed on the map, the icons could fade in as they are 'dropped' onto the map. As the glow should look like it is coming from the counters, this could be a bit hard.

This is just a working idea, but please could the art directors say what they think, as this would be a huge amount of work for me. If this sounds okay, I will draw some mockups.

'Professor Max'