Map Discussions

[Merowingg]

Of course those should be included, especially if all mentioned, and the rest necessary terms are fulfilled.

Yet what I mean is that for example a map made in obvious way from a picture of Poland, or a cartoon flower, anything, should be placed into separate section, or added special markings that will indicate those are made using an oudside source, a picture, placed via a program into any mapmaking program, where it was transformed into a map finishing it with details.

I said obvious ones, because I am still confused about those really beutiful maps, using copied pictures, but which were painted with a program, by the mapmaker.

Why I insist on such thing? the reason is simply a result of what happened to me. A beutiful map made from beutiful picture painted in a program was created. I make my maps manually, it is my choice, whether it is stupid or not, it is for me to decide how I like to do it. Soon I will try to make a map, copying something painted in a program. The beautiful map was compared to mine, by a person not familiar with the topic of mapmaking. Although kindly, I was in a way told why my map is not so "beautiful"

To sum up, I would like to a mark be introduced, which will indicate that a map, was made using something from outside. Just to inform people how it was achieved, and why some works look this way, and the other, other.

I am not saying those are worse, or not worth, and I do know I may do the same. All is clear for me, and was mentioned here there and everywhere. I just want the information

I just want the division, because the point is the more of any the better

Please don't get me wrong..

Greetings to all

[Rman Virgil]

.

Mero let me see if I understand your point by restating it.

You want there to be a distinction that is made clear in a map's description between height maps made from scratch, from a blank slate, and those that use, or are based on, a preexisting image?

If that is a correct understanding of your point then I would agree.

Making height maps based on pre-existing images is something Coyote pioneered almost a decade ago with his use of NASA Mars telemetry. He was always forthright about what he was doing and I always liked the results of his work though, like your self, I prefer to build my height maps manually and purely from my imagination (& further extending that process using the map editor tools themselves).

To make a beautful map from scratch clearly entails a vastly different work process than making one based on satellite imagery or a logo pic or Euclidean geometric shapes generated in a vector based drawing prog.

All that said, a beautiful map doesnot necessarily make for a good map as far as gameplay which is ultimately all that people who play the maps care about.

Do folks who play the maps really care about these creation process distinctions? I would hazard to guess no. Only those who make the maps can truely appreciate or care about those distinctions in the creation process.

Still, I would agree, the distinction is worth noteing briefly in the maps description.

Something like: HM made from scratch and HM based on pre-existing image. Or some such.

On a related note. There seems to be an aesthetic infatuation with the Map Preview image as a work of art itself which I think vastly inflated. My aesthetic appreciation of a map is entirely based on my in-game experential perceptions of the game world which has the potential to trigger 4D, hard-wired, landscape, cognitive faculties... or not trigger any of that hard-wiring at all. Truth be told most of the maps I've checked out are designed entirely unaware that this dynamic even exists.
.

[cybersphinx]

Shouldn't this be in some thread about the addons page though?

[Rman Virgil]

Shouldn't this be in some thread about the addons page though?

I agree.

.

[vexed]

.

Mero let me see if I understand your point by restating it.

You want there to be a distinction that is made clear in a map's description between height maps made from scratch, from a blank slate, and those that use, or are based on, a preexisting image?

If that is a correct understanding of your point then I would agree.

I am unsure I follow, while I understand the premise, 99% of our users could care less about how a map was made, they only care than it is fun, and is playable.

Making height maps based on pre-existing images is something Coyote pioneered almost a decade ago with his use of NASA Mars telemetry. He was always forthright about what he was doing and I always liked the results of his work though, like your self, I prefer to build my height maps manually and purely from my imagination (& further extending that process using the map editor tools themselves).

To make a beautful map from scratch clearly entails a vastly different work process than making one based on satellite imagery or a logo pic or Euclidean geometric shapes generated in a vector based drawing prog.

All that said, a beautiful map doesnot necessarily make for a good map as far as gameplay which is ultimately all that people who play the maps care about.


Do folks who play the maps really care about these creation process distinctions? I would hazard to guess no. Only those who make the maps can truely appreciate or care about those distinctions in the creation process.

While the design process can be a very interesting thing (to a point), I doubt people would bother to appreciate this information.
Pretty much how like nobody cares how a bug was squashed, even though it took many moons, and countless runs trying to track it down, they only care about end results.

Still, I would agree, the distinction is worth noteing briefly in the maps description.

Something like: HM made from scratch and HM based on pre-existing image. Or some such.

The new addon design does have a description box, to fill in details, it also has a extra field where you can point the users to a forum thread for more discussion about said map. (Which I feel will be more appropriate for talking about the creative process that went on...)

On a related note. There seems to be an aesthetic infatuation with the Map Preview image as a work of art itself which I think vastly inflated. My aesthetic appreciation of a map is entirely based on my in-game experential perceptions of the game world which has the potential to trigger 4D, hard-wired, landscape, cognitive faculties... or not trigger any of that hard-wiring at all. Truth be told most of the maps I've checked out are designed entirely unaware that this dynamic even exists.
.

Indeed. Too bad there isn't a big correlation between looking good in a preview, and actually playing good are two different things that don't necessarily point to AAA work just by looking at a preview.

The one thing that worries me about this is, that some people might take this a bit too personal...

[Rman Virgil]

.

In reading your comments, vexed, I realized a glaring oversight on my part.

I spoke to map makers and players but not to prospective map makers which is what all map makers where at one time when they where just players playing the maps of others and entertaining the notion of trying their hand at making their own.

Such design insights and modus operandi techniques provided briefly in the AddOns map description field would offer useful guidance on the various possibilities of just how to venture forth as fledgling map creators.

This strikes me as consistent with the spirit of learning explicitly stated by WZ Creators as part of thier rationale for liberating the source.

Of course the watchwords, in the context of the AddOns description field, would be clarity and brevity.

To wit - a fundamental decision for a prospective map maker would be: shall I make my HM from scratch or should I make use of a pre-existing image as my HM template. Being able to correlate that decision to extant maps that they have liked as players, makes that info valuable, I think.

.

[Merowingg]

Mero let me see if I understand your point by restating it.

You want there to be a distinction that is made clear in a map's description between height maps made from scratch, from a blank slate, and those that use, or are based on, a preexisting image?

If that is a correct understanding of your point then I would agree.

Rman, that is exactly what I want. And you have described everything the best way I could imagine but could not put into words

Shouldn't this be in some thread about the addons page though?

cybersphinx I am sorry, I started here, there? when I saw mentioning this height map, I saw someone responded when it was late night here, so being very sleepy I answered, imagine my surprise when I wake up very erly, 5.20 a.m. I have just looked at "view your post" and I saw "Map Discussions" thread, and I though to myself "did I create this thread " Thanx for smooth journey to separate one

I am unsure I follow, while I understand the premise, 99% of our users could care less about how a map was made, they only care than it is fun, and is playable.

vexed, but I am, and Rman I think too, within this 1%, or at least he aggrees with me. And there may be others.

The new addon design does have a description box, to fill in details, it also has a extra field where you can point the users to a forum thread for more discussion about said map. (Which I feel will be more appropriate for talking about the creative process that went on...)

I am certain the great work is being done, but I think an option to state how the map was made should be obligatory. If a creator is to state something by himself, they will type "good map" as as you have said not many care so much as the others, or have the knowledge to share informations, or are willing to.

You are working on the page now, so I assume now is the best time to implement such thing. I want to add that I know you have a lot of work already, but wouldn't it be simpler to do it now where the page is "in parts"

Something like: HM made from scratch and HM based on pre-existing image. Or some such.

The thing Rman suggested is very good according to me. Like chose map tileset, there should be a tab like that.

vexed do believe me for some people like me it is very important to let people know how it works.

Also there may be "help" link next to it, which would lead the players into height map generating programs, so even more could learn, and spread those wonderful creations, or not

[Jorzi]

I understand that using a premade cool pattern and just applying it as a heightmap without thinking much of the actual result will yield a map that looks interesting in the preview, but can very well be total crap from a gameplay perspective. Still, those maps might get a higher-than-deserved rating because of people who look only at the preview.

That said, using all tools available should by no means be "punished" in any way. I, for example, like to sculpt my landscapes using blender's superior sculpting tools, then convert the landscape into a heightmap for use in various map editors. After that, I of course use the map editor to optimize the landscape for the game, as well as adding content.

[zydonk]

It doesn't matter a dmn what a mapper uses as a height map, providing the resultant map is playable to a greater or lesser degree...

But if you think about it, most - if not all - ready-made hmaps will fail. Why? WZ plays in a quite specific way dependent upon unit speed, weaponry (mostly realistic), and tactics that work. The Flame editor, for instance, introduced a fluency (ease) that has resulted in WZ maps so complex that the player must trundle his armies around in search of enemies and the AI is often left simply unable to find opponent bases. The cumbersome routines of the old 16/32 editor served very well to restrict too much elaboration, tho it did lead on the other hand to the creation of over simplified rush maps.

Old advice is still the best advice: study the old Pumpkin maps closely. That's where the key to good WZ map making lies.

[Rman Virgil]

.

I agree, zydonk, that studying the Pumpkin maps is a good place to start for the prospective map maker. But there are caveats to that advice which I will get to shortly.

I believe that the source of HMs does make a difference for those who are not yet comfortable with making one from scratch and working from a prexisting image may provide the impetus to get going. I also think that adjustments can be made to working from a pre-existing image to account for creating the good game play balance that is requisite to a map that would serve well WZ's mechanics.

I also agree that the FlaMe editor tool set provides for a far greater fluency in the area of sculpting that Jorzi mentioned than did 16/32 bit EW so that making those aforementioned adjustments to working from a pre-existing image for your HM is not the herculean task once posed by the original Pumpkin Editor.

Which brings me to those caveats about studying the original Pumpkin maps.

First - Pumpkin was constrained in their map designs by the very editor they had to work with and the time they could allocate to making maps. Those constraints do not exist for mappers these days and that is significant.

Mappers can experiment and push the design envelope. Not all new forms will succeed but that is no reason to not explore. There are peeps inclined to make their mark through originality and you must dare to fail in order to succeed unless you are content with purely imitating what has already been done with trivial differences or variants.

Second - Pumpkin designed within the limits of the MP gameplay possible within the retail game. These limits have changed in a number of ways... and will continue to change.

For example, the inclusion of Scavs and the Super Transport in MP are new factors that can shape Map Designs in ways that the original Pumpkin MP maps didnot have to account for.

In the future, the introduction of a naval component, bridges and oil rig platforms on water, will also impact map design in new directions.

.

[Iluvalar]

I agree with Mero. I dont know if he had that in mind but, i'll give the last duda map as an exemple : viewtopic.php?f=10&t=9342#p102991.

I know that he made some change to it, but I'm pretty sure the HM come from some real source even if he don't state it properly. Now I don't say it's bad or good, but one voter might be very impressed by the geographic accuracy of the map and be tempted to give some higher score for that. While, I'm pretty sure he have no merit for that real-life accuracy of it.

So I agree with the general ideal : the Addon form should have a field on HOW it was made just to make it clear. I note the maps mostly for the playability side, but I know other players are more influenced by aesthetic consideration that I am.

[duda]

damn i triggered a avalanche

using a real hightmap sounds easy to making maps
but to made it playable it takes a lot of modifikations (20 layers in gimp)
and at the end the rough shape looks like real terrain but not detailed

every artist is inspired from something (conscious and unconscious)- it doesn't matter for me where the inspiration comes

and at the end the player make the decision if it makes fun or not
if a player look at the map preview he think how it is to play it
and not how it looks when the pic is hanging on a wall (but its a nice promotion idea for the game to present hightmap-pixelartwork in a art gallery)
for my euromap example it can be very funny in skirmish (every different base) but not so in MP (i don't know because i'm not a mp-pro)
on the other side a typical multiplayer map can be very boring in skirmish
when every base looks the same

i dont really understand the problem here - its only a part of workflow

whats about a checkbox in the new addons section for well balanced/symetric or unsymetric/unbalanced or so
it doesn't matter if a mapmaker uses only flame or other programs too
it can also be unbalanced when started from scratch - workflow is uninterested for playing
but it makes sense to know if the map is well balanced or not

for a greenhorn multiplayer on the best base with easy oil and good position can result a balanced game
(but in symetric maps a newbie is off at first attack - i know that )

[Rman Virgil]

...

i dont really understand the problem here - its only a part of workflow

.......

I too do not see any problem.

You raise valid points about all the possible objective, utilitarian, metrics that can be used in reviewing a map. If a reviewer chooses to also value "beauty" then they have chosen what is a highly subjective metric under most circumstances and it should be made clear that this value judgement can not supercede such objective, utilitarian, metrics as MP balance, for example. That said I do hold that landscape beauty can factor legitimately in a map's appraisal if you understand its relationship to cognitive immersion and flow.

It is here where a fundamental design principle I believe can be applied to a map's landscape beauty ~ form serving function. And the function being served is cognitive immersion and flow to augment the voluntary urgency to overcome unnecessary obstacles that is the heart of satisfying game play.

Moving on.....

I also see on display in this discussion, inspiration unfettered, the many challenges posed by aspiring to create a fresh & satisfying experience in the game's 3 distinct play modalities, and the artist's impulse to orginality by whatever means available in their chosen workflow.

For me the occassion of what the HM source could be, and identifying it as such, was but a very simple trigger to discuss the vast breath and depth of creation that WZ map making can entail at its highest pitch.

While it is likely that these discussions will only be of interest to reviewers, map makers and prospective map makers, I also believe such shop talk can be a real practical source of inspiration in itself.

The high value of this type of shop talk is covered beautifully & brilliantly by Nobel prize winner in physiology, Eric R. Kandel, in his just published "The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind, and Brain, from Vienna 1900 to the Present" - a work I would highly recommend to all artists in the community who still read books for pleasure and personal development.

.

[vexed]

The new addon design does have a description box, to fill in details, it also has a extra field where you can point the users to a forum thread for more discussion about said map. (Which I feel will be more appropriate for talking about the creative process that went on...)

I am certain the great work is being done, but I think an option to state how the map was made should be obligatory. If a creator is to state something by himself, they will type "good map" as as you have said not many care so much as the others, or have the knowledge to share informations, or are willing to.

You are working on the page now, so I assume now is the best time to implement such thing. I want to add that I know you have a lot of work already, but wouldn't it be simpler to do it now where the page is "in parts"

What part of that is unclear ?

[Rman Virgil]

The new addon design does have a description box, to fill in details, it also has a extra field where you can point the users to a forum thread for more discussion about said map. (Which I feel will be more appropriate for talking about the creative process that went on...)

What part of that is unclear ?

For me, none. It is as transparent and simple as a request for relish and mustard on my hot dog.

My posts are pursueing a quality discussion on all aspects of map creating and map appraising in what I percieve as a general map discussion thread.

I donot believe these 2 mental states are mutually exclusive or that the first renders the second moot or superfluous. At least not from my perspective.

But perhaps I am missunderstanding the intent of your point.

EDIT: I was responding to your initial posting before you added the Merro referent. I understand better now.
.