Groovy. Thanks. Looks like the only license that is compatible with all of the source material is CC-BY-SA. You could go with CC-BY if the denzi explosion were omitted. Would you be willing to change the license designation on this submission (currently OGA-BY shown in the left panel)? It's good that you listed the individual licenses, but the whole submission still has to show a license compatible with everything.
Can you provide links to all the parts these are derived from? if these are indeed based in part on denzi's sci-fi tileset (CC-BY-SA), then this can't be OGA-BY.
Uhh, that first preview appears to be the tileset itself, while the file people can actually download appears to be another preview. Would you be willing to swap those two?
I think this belongs in concept art more than it belongs in the 2D art category.
Would you be willing to do some editing to this to make it easier to use in a game? It's not a bad sketch, but the non-transparent background, jpg format, and partially erased drawing guides may make it difficult for people to apply.
Would you be willing to add a bit more context? A post consisting of just a link looks like a risky click. For instance, the site spam filter marked this for review.
Your response is unintelligible. You have demonstrated the ability to speak effectively before, so I can only assume you are not taking this seriously. Try again.
Lexlexlex. This is the opposite of what I talked about. Posting losts of individual submissions is ineffective. Doing it with useless titles, non descriptive descriptions, and pointless tags is the opposite of what I recommended to you. Furthermore, doing it for the purposes of front page saturation, SEO, and advertising instead of for the sake of sharing useful art is, again, the very definition of spam.
I have to be honest; this looks very much like spiteful defiance of what I explicitly told you not to do in our PM conversation. I'm guessing it's just a massive misunderstanding. Explain to me why I should not treat you like a spambot right now?
I expect you to stop posting any more submissions of this kind while you respond to this comment.
Groovy. Thanks. Looks like the only license that is compatible with all of the source material is CC-BY-SA. You could go with CC-BY if the denzi explosion were omitted. Would you be willing to change the license designation on this submission (currently OGA-BY shown in the left panel)? It's good that you listed the individual licenses, but the whole submission still has to show a license compatible with everything.
Can you provide links to all the parts these are derived from? if these are indeed based in part on denzi's sci-fi tileset (CC-BY-SA), then this can't be OGA-BY.
Thank you, but that's not "context". What is your project? What are your goals? Why should we be interested in what you're trying to accomplish?
As an example, does my comment on your blog make sense given the same level of context?
ooh, neat! very M.C. Escher
Uhh, that first preview appears to be the tileset itself, while the file people can actually download appears to be another preview. Would you be willing to swap those two?
I think this belongs in concept art more than it belongs in the 2D art category.
Would you be willing to do some editing to this to make it easier to use in a game? It's not a bad sketch, but the non-transparent background, jpg format, and partially erased drawing guides may make it difficult for people to apply.
Interesting. I'll have to check this out.
Please make posts like this in the "Show off your project" forum.
[topic moved]
Would you be willing to add a bit more context? A post consisting of just a link looks like a risky click. For instance, the site spam filter marked this for review.
spambot it is.
[user banned]
Your response is unintelligible. You have demonstrated the ability to speak effectively before, so I can only assume you are not taking this seriously. Try again.
Lexlexlex. This is the opposite of what I talked about. Posting losts of individual submissions is ineffective. Doing it with useless titles, non descriptive descriptions, and pointless tags is the opposite of what I recommended to you. Furthermore, doing it for the purposes of front page saturation, SEO, and advertising instead of for the sake of sharing useful art is, again, the very definition of spam.
I have to be honest; this looks very much like spiteful defiance of what I explicitly told you not to do in our PM conversation. I'm guessing it's just a massive misunderstanding. Explain to me why I should not treat you like a spambot right now?
I expect you to stop posting any more submissions of this kind while you respond to this comment.
Pages