Topic: To all map creators; Terrain menu

That seems like a sub optimal approach to me. Instead of one way to define how trees grow (terrain affinity) we will have two (terrain affinity and resources/restrictions). That means the player will never understand how tree grow works because it is too complex. Also map makers have to learn even more concepts.

I am fine with reworking the tree mechanics and I am not married to terrain affinity. But I'd like to only have one concept, preferably a simple one.

Top

Quote

einstein13 wrote:

kaputtnik wrote:

but if the terrains do not fit the coloring the mapmakers imagination,

I don't get the point here: why coloring is so important? I understand that you want to produce "beautiful" map, but imagine that in the future somebody will change the textures. What happened then? Your "beautiful" map become "ugly", because color will change? For me better solution for making maps is to make them playable, then "beautiful". There is number of maps which are only "beautiful", but I've never seen anybody playing them.

Well, sometimes I want to make maps with specifical tactical themes in mind, so I don't bother with anything superfluous, but in that case the map is a tribute to a real place, so I wanted to showcase the different ecosystem of the different islands. Thus I wanted shades of green and various combinations of grass, rock and hard ground. Really, if you live near the baltic sea, you shoul take the cruise from Stockholm to Turku and back, you won't regret it. Even if you get tired of watching islands pass by after the first five hours, just the food on those ships fully justifies the price of admission.

Then I'm also trying to make the map balanced, giving everyone an equal amount of land and resources - quite difficult to manage when all the land is split in a multitude of islands, but worth a shot, someone may play it eventually. Although I don't think the AI is capable of expanding over a bunch of communicating small islets where you sometimes need to make a tower in a strategic place before you can advance to the next spot. Well, maybe I'll playtest it oncce it is complete.

Top

Quote

in regard to rangers and types of trees - partial workaround would be if ranger preffered types of trees that grows nearby and only if none in vicinity he would select trees based on a terrain.

Top

Quote

kaputtnik wrote:

I will tell from my view:

Ok, now I understand why you want to change the layout, but for me it isn't necessary:

1. I want to use different watertypes for the coast. (...)
2. Same goes for mountains: (...)
3. If i want to put an area (...)

That can be a bit problematic, but for me it is not problematic. I use those tabs very quickly and I change the tool very rarely. Why? That is the clue of making maps:

• you are taking one, basic tool and fill all the map (*). Let's say it is deep water.
• then you take basic tool for terrain. For example mix of meadows. And shape the island/ continent or so on.
• then you take mountains or what you want to make as basic walls for players
• additional mountains (volcanos), deserts, rivers or other spots are welcome now (**)
• shaping the coast: one click for every water type, one or two for beaches
• then you put all the resources: ores, water, fish
• at last shaping the terrain: making hills, riverbeds or whatever you want
• the fastest part: trees and stones

The map is ready.

And the stars: ()- this part can be easily implemented, we should wait for somebody who will change that; (*)- here is definatelly lots of clicking, but if you desing well the map, you can use less clicking by copying the ideas of deserts spots (with the same soil type or so on).

Of course changing the layout can make the map making easier, but for me it is ok now. I use about 2-3 hours to make big(!), complex map. I need only good idea Smaller maps can be done faster.

1. With the current menu i could not see which trees grow on which terrains.

Simple: Coniferous on iceland and greenland, deciduous on greenland, palm trees on desert, wasteland trees on wasteland

About specific affinity to terrain is more complex idea and my opinion for that is: it shoudn't be added to the editor. Editor should be as simple as possible. With features, of course, but not in "basic view".

enough experience with mapmaking and after 10 to 20 maps

For me it was after 2-3 maps But I know well maps from older worlds. And I know that the soils are just the same as before.

1. The terrain affinitys (which ecosystem belongs to a terrain type)

I would say only "ecosystem type", not terrain affinities. But ok- I understand you here.

What lacks is the information about: Which tree should i place on a specific terrain?

There is no information here, but as I mentioned above: it shouldn't be there.

If you finished your work on terrain affinitys

I don't think that it will be soon. There is nobody who wants to help me with that. Nobody. And I don't have time for that now.

But some circumstances won't be fixed at all (f.e. mixing of terrains)

If you mix terrains, you have to calculate on your own the real values for trees. I can't help you with that by producing "simple table" or something like that.

einstein13
calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/
backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/

Top

Quote

kaputtnik wrote:

Get rid of the old differences between the worlds,

This is bad idea for me. Old differences are needed. There was a time when there were no difference at all. So all types of trees were growing on any terrain type. That was bad.

So what about replacing terrain affinitys with treesorts?

What is "treesorts"? Sort of the tree, you mean: coniferous ,deciduous, palm trees, wasteland trees? Current model of terrain affinity IS TREESORTS. I don't understand why you want to destroy good model. Also it is SORTED in terrain menu.

There are 4 kind of treesorts and therefore 4 kinds of terrain affinitys

No, there is only ONE terrain affinity model. s s

It should be possible to exchange these informations in the terrain menu.

But you understand that if you change anything in the terrain menu, your map will be not balanced for any other player than you? Unless somebody will see the map and your changes in map editor.

Doing so we have following informations to show in the terrain menu:

1. The terrain types
2. The buildability
3. Treesort (former terrain affinitys)

I've told you: now there is sorted everything, but it is sorted in another order:

1. Treesorts (type of old world)
2. Buildability
3. Terrain types

but we need one new value for the depending of terrain type <-> tree. This is currently stored in three values (temp., humidity and fertility).

The same situtation you had in old layout. Nobody was complaining that there were no information about trees affinity earlier. Ok, there weren't 3 values for terrain and 4 values for tree, but 0 values for terrain and about 12 for trees.

And the stars: ()- this part can be easily implemented, we should wait for somebody who will change that; (*)- here is definatelly lots of clicking, but if you desing well the map, you can use less clicking by copying the ideas of deserts spots (with the same soil type or so on).

I don't understand what you're talking about here.

Stupid markdown!

einstein13 wrote:

• you are taking one, basic tool and fill all the map (*). Let's say it is deep water.(...)
• additional mountains (volcanos), deserts, rivers or other spots are welcome now (**) (...)

And the stars: ( * )- this part can be easily implemented, we should wait for somebody who will change that; ( ** )- here is definatelly lots of clicking, but if you desing well the map, you can use less clicking by copying the ideas of deserts spots (with the same soil type or so on).

Better?

I think something like "tree resources" could be implemented later.

As you can read before, this idea probably will not be implemented. But "probably"

einstein13
calculations & maps packages: http://wuatek.no-ip.org/~rak/widelands/
backup website files: http://kartezjusz.ddns.net/upload/widelands/

Top

Quote